The Gift of Tongues and Initial Evidence

[Jack Shephard]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Yes, I do believe the Gospel is Acts 2:38.

Why do I believe that?

Because, Paul in Galatians 1:15-18 says,

15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,

16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:

17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.]"Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.

Paul later goes on to preach in II Thessalonians 1:8 "In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:"

And in I Peter 4:17 "For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?

I believe that the Apostles so closely tied in the "Good News" to what Peter preached on the Day of Pentecost that they made no distinction as we do today. How do you OBEY the death, burial and resurrection? You listen to what Peter preached and OBEY that. Therefore, it is the Gospel for me.

Oooooooooookay....

[houston]

JS,

Peter MUST have told Paul about Acts 2!!!

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

The evidence of the Spirit was and is tongues. I don't see the confusion there.

"The evidence of the Spirit is tongues."

That IS the confusion.

The simple fact I'd that most believers throughout history have not spoken in tongues. The ones who did the most for the progress of the gospel and the Christian faith did not speak in tongues. Basically all the Bible translators (Tyndales, Wycliffe's,etc) the Reformers (Luther, Hus, Knox, Wesley, etc.). The revivalists (Whitefield, Edwards, Moody, Spurgeon, etc). The hymnists (Watts, Newton, Wesley, etc) most anyone whose made meaningful contributions to the faith didn't speak in tongues.

The simple fact is every single week there are thousands of people begging God for the Holy Ghost at Pentecostal altars who go away receiving nothing if tongues is the only initial evidence, in direct contradiction to Luke 11:13.

The simple fact is that while tongue speakers are all the rage now, they haven't ever been a force in Christianity outside of possibly the first century.

[Real Realism]

Jason Badejo, in full disclosure, I have been asking many of the same questions (i.e. the thousands of years without record of tongues, the inferences by Paul of not all speaking in tongues - because, except for Renee's commentary on the difference between "unknown" and "other" tongues - I really see no distinction between the tongues discussed in Acts and those mentioned in the epistles).

But all that aside, how do you interpret Acts 8 when the Samaritans had definitely believed ("accepted God's message") AND even were baptized...but those who were with them sent for Peter and John to pray for them because they hadn't yet received the Holy Ghost ("the Holy Spirit had fallen upon none of them")? If the Holy Spirit is given to a believer at the moment of their acceptance of the Gospel - how in the world did those who were preaching to them know so certainly that they hadn't received the Holy Spirit? And why were they so very certain, convinced by some obviously demonstrable sign (that Simon was able to see occur) that they HAD received the Holy Spirit after they were prayed for by Peter and John?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

"The evidence of the Spirit is tongues."

That IS the confusion.

The simple fact I'd that most believers throughout history have not spoken in tongues. The ones who did the most for the progress of the gospel and the Christian faith did not speak in tongues. Basically all the Bible translators (Tyndales, Wycliffe's,etc) the Reformers (Luther, Hus, Knox, Wesley, etc.). The revivalists (Whitefield, Edwards, Moody, Spurgeon, etc). The hymnists (Watts, Newton, Wesley, etc) most anyone whose made meaningful contributions to the faith didn't speak in tongues.

The simple fact is every single week there are thousands of people begging God for the Holy Ghost at Pentecostal altars who go away receiving nothing if tongues is the only initial evidence, in direct contradiction to Luke 11:13.

The simple fact is that while tongue speakers are all the rage now, they haven't ever been a force in Christianity outside of possibly the first century.

Jason, These people don't mean anything to me. Why would they and their history be more important than what the Bible actually says? If I was on a deserted island and only had a Bible, would they be important to me then?

I think a lot of people walk away because they don't have a clue about true repentance and they also focus more on the gift than they do the Giver. I could use one of my own sisters as an example. She came to my church to receive the Holy Ghost so that she could go back to the Baptist Church. She has never received the Holy Ghost and ended going back and getting re-baptized in the titles. lol Now she does whatever she can to stop my mother from ever attending.

Another thing, I have seen in the past 5 years, many women wanting to visit our church, but when asked if they have to wear a dress, the answer given to them is, "No, you come as you are and let God lead and guide you." lol

What they are actually saying is, "We'll get to that later." LOL! And I think these women know it. I agree with Lafon's awesome thread stating how he felt it was a huge deception to keep people from receiving from God. I couldn't agree more.

The Word preached by Peter was so powerful, the Holy Ghost fell on Cornelius and those in his household. He laid a beautiful foundation and didn't stand in their midst reciting Acts 2:38.

A month or so ago I was engaged in a conversation on Twitter. A young black boy was, apparently, following the conversation even though he doesn't follow me on Twitter. I never start out talking about Acts 2:38 or tongues, etc. I start out Peter's way, laying a foundation. Sort of like the Bible study you might be familiar with - Into His Marvelous Light.

He kept tweeting - "What else can you tell me?" and "Tell me more". He kept re-tweeting to his followers our conversation. I was praying that God would give me the knowledge as to what he needed to hear that very moment. The closest I got to tongues was only speaking about Jesus promising to send the Comforter. What I felt was that I had given him enough to search out what I had told him and he would find more truth for himself.

Real Realism brings up a great point concerning Acts 8 and the Samaritans. How do respond to that? It's that "initial evidence" monkey on our back once again.

[houston]

Why is he a young black boy? Why not just a young boy?

You are a racist!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by houston

Why is he a young black boy? Why not just a young boy?

You are a racist!

I said a young black boy, because he is young and he is black. If I am sharing or telling a story, I want the visuals to be exact. Wouldn't you do that if you were publishing a book?

[houston]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I said a young black boy, because he is young and he is black. If I am sharing or telling a story, I want the visuals to be exact. Wouldn't you do that if you were publishing a book?

You're not publishing a book, sweetheart.



(I didn't see who made the post before responding)

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by houston

You're not publishing a book, sweetheart.

(I didn't see who made the post before responding)

I was getting in practice for when I do.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by houston

JS,

Peter MUST have told Paul about Acts 2!!!

Houston, Why do you suppose that Paul stressed in Galatians 1, that he had been in Damascus (the country of the Gentiles), and that he didn't consult any of the Apostles in Jerusalem (the seat of the Apostles) at the outset of his conversion? He stressed that he didn't receive his commission or appointment from man, but that it came directly from God.

So, after three years he ends up with Peter for 15 days? Looks like they shared the common faith that Peter preached on the Day of Pentecost. And it isn't too far fetched to believe that Peter shared the details, confirming what Paul also knew to be truth.

You can't say they didn't share their experiences and understanding of Jesus Christ and corroborate on the Gospel Message.

They shared the exact same experience - Peter (Acts 10) and Paul (Acts 19).

What do you think Paul was doing with Peter for 15 days?