A question for those who claim tongues for today.

[Dave...]

I don't know about the others, but may I suggest our keep the responses down in size somewhat. Really, I tried to follow your writing but somewhere in the middle you seem to be going in ten different directions.

Believe me, I did. You wouldn't believe the scripture that I had in mind. I withheld and condenced as much as I could While still being able to make my point clearly. Unfortunately, It takes much longer to prove a false doctrine wrong than it does for those who to say/write it. Watch the Presidential elections and you will see this being done deliberately on a daily basis, it's makes it hard for the truth to come out. I hope that everyone who loves the truth and are honestly seeking answers will read every word of all of our posts and test it all. If there is anyone that can prove me wrong, let them do it honestly. I have no problem with that.

Sometimes a point needs a lengthy response, but the response should stay on point or it just becomes a ramble.

Why do you call it ramble? It's to the point. I'm sorry that sometimes these things must go back to the basic fundamental truths, blaim your paster, not me. I could break it down more for you and clarify everything. Maybe it's not clear to you because I did condense it too much. I lose with you either way because.....

Here you are deliberately leaving out some of God's speaking regarding this matter.

You can't do this and expect others who also know the scriptures to take what you sau seriously.

If you are going to refer to scripture to support a point, then do so according the light of all scripture related to this point.

Don't cherry-pick what suits your opinion.

Do you want to discuss this honestly? I'm up for it. We can go over all the posts from the beginning, answering each question, clearly, one at a time, with small posts.

I came from a Pentecostal church, so the dry theologian stuff won't work. Niether will the 'you don't have love' implications. Would you like to go over the tongues issue in full? I have no problem with that at all. I only keyed on certain aspects because people are claiming that tongues takes a believer to new places that others do not know.

I can answer the rest of your post, but for the sake of space, I'll refer you back to my earlier posts where the answers to you questions are already given.

I'm very tired today. Tommorow when I reread this post and if I feel I stepped over the line, I'll repent.

Dave

 

[Dave...]

cj, why do you continually misrepresent what I write to you. If you want my posts to be shorter, stop making me explain the same things over and over.

Here is a perfect example, taking a metaphore that Jesus used and saying this about it and me....

Job, there are no mansions in heaven that the faithful are going to be living in..... Just ask John the Revelator, he had a pretty good view of things up there.

Surely there is a reward for those who are faithful with what the Lord has given them. But the teaching of mansions is as bad as the worse teaching on tongues.

Do you know what obedience and faithfulness look like in God's eyes Job?

Works are an evidence, you are yet again twisting what I am saying. Yes, I know, dirty rags, but who are those who love Jesus? Those who obey His commandments. Think evidence, not justification. Again, the problem is not from my camp.

We are called to judge within the Church.

Yet we know that our Lord said "Let him with no sin cast the first stone."

Are you with no sin Job?

Again, you cannot take scriptures that support the point you want to make without also considering other related scriptures.

Now who is cherry picking. Would you like my list of scripture to support me? You are again accusing me of the very thing you yourself are doing. Do you want me to list every scripture that supports me everytime I make a point? Or can I assume that all of us her at least have the milk of the Word and can assume these simple truths of scripture. We are called to judge within the Church!

But you did not answer my question.... who is the Church being built for? Who does the Church serve?

All things are done for God's glory, He is glorified when we are obedient to Him and He produces the results that are good. Remember "dirty rags"? That's what we produce without God and from the flesh, God produces the good. This is why we give Him all the Glory. Not because it's the nice thing to do, but because He actually deserves it.

7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all:

12 Even so you, since you are zealous for spiritual gifts, let it be for the edification of the church that you seek to excel.

Pauls first teaching on gifts....

1 Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I do not want you to be ignorant:

Romans 10:17, "So faith comes out of hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ."

Galatians 3 : 2 , "This only I wish to learn from you, Did you receive the Spirit out of the works of law or out of the hearing of faith?"

You took a turn for the worse after this, when all you needed to do was to use the scripture that I gave you to finish.

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.


God bless

 

[Free]

Job,

Not sure what any of this has to do with tongues...

1) To be baptised with the Holy Spirit is to be born again. Romans 6:3-6

This passage is talking about water baptism.

4) The Holy Spirit is the agent of baptism. 1 Cor. 12:13

Some translations read "in" or "with," not "by."

12) There is one Body, one baptism. Eph. 4:4-6 1 Cor. 12:12-13

You have already made the point that being born again is "to be baptized with the Holy Spirit." But there is also water baptism. So, is there really one baptism? Which baptism is Eph. 4 referring to?

14) There is no need of a second blessing. John 3:34

Acts 4:31.

Again, I am not sure what the point of your post was or what it has to do with tongues, but John 20:21-22 seems to make it pretty clear that Jesus gave the disciples the Holy Spirit right there:

John 20:21 Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you."
Joh 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit."

 

[Dave...]

Quote:
Job wrote
1) To be baptised with the Holy Spirit is to be born again. Romans 6:3-6


Free wrote
This passage is talking about water baptism.

Yes, but look deeper. Paul was using water baptism to explain, but that wasn't the message.

Also see Col. 2:11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins[3] of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.

Quote:
Job wrote
4) The Holy Spirit is the agent of baptism. 1 Cor. 12:13


free wrote
Some translations read "in" or "with," not "by."

I agree.

Quote:
Job wrote
12) There is one Body, one baptism. Eph. 4:4-6 1 Cor. 12:12-13

free wrote
You have already made the point that being born again is "to be baptized with the Holy Spirit." But there is also water baptism. So, is there really one baptism? Which baptism is Eph. 4 referring to?

One baptism.

Acts 4:31.

Again, I am not sure what the point of your post was or what it has to do with tongues, but John 20:21-22 seems to make it pretty clear that Jesus gave the disciples the Holy Spirit right there:

John 20:21 Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you."
Joh 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit."

Only if you disreguard the rest of the Bible.

The point is that people consider John 20:21,22 to be the Born again experience, and from that, they reason that what happened at Pentecost is something more. This is not possible if you also believe that the Church was born at Pentecost. The birth of the Church was the baptising, with the Holy Spirit, by Jesus, into the Body of Christ. No baptising until after Jesus ascended in Acts 1:9.

How can a person in this day and age be born again without being baptised into the Body of Christ?

Where did the dead OT saints go before jesus' death and resurrection and why?

Where did they go after and why?

It was impossible to be born again until the Holy Spirit was given at Pentecost, the birth of the Church, the Body that they were baptised into.

Before Pentecost, nobody was baptised into the Body of Christ. That was the transition. The new covenent.

You guys are using a unique transitional period to set the norm for today, and it doesn't hold up when tested in light of the rest of scripture. The NT didn't begin at Matt. 1:1, but at Pentecost. You have built your whole theology aroung John 20:22, but it doesn't hold up.

Jesus was with them, but would be in them. He sent another (another kind of the same type) Helper who would teach them all things.

I think when this is done, i'll end up being a KJ onlyist.

God bless

 

[Free]

Job,

Some problems with your reasoning.

Where did the dead OT saints go before jesus' death and resurrection and why?

Where did they go after and why?

They went to Hades before and likely were there after.

It was impossible to be born again until the Holy Spirit was given at Pentecost, the birth of the Church, the Body that they were baptised into.

First, I would like to know how you came to that conclusion. Second, by implication, the Apostles weren't saved until Pentecost. But here you are arguing that they were baptised by the Spirit at Pentecost. Earlier you argue that there is only one baptism, yet at Pentecost, there was no water baptism.

Before Pentecost, nobody was baptised into the Body of Christ.

How do you know that? You are aruging in a circle and taking a Scripture that occured after John 20 and imposing its meaning onto John 20. John 20:21-22 is pretty clear as to what happened.

The NT didn't begin at Matt. 1:1, but at Pentecost. You have built your whole theology aroung John 20:22, but it doesn't hold up.

John 20:22 has very little to do with my theology. My theology is built around the whole of the NT. It is in fact cessationists who have built their whole theology around one vague, misinterpreted verse in 1 Cor. 13. There is absolutely no reason, biblical or non-biblical, to believe that tongues ceased at the end of the Apostolic era or with the completion of canon. None.

I think when this is done, i'll end up being a KJ onlyist.

Please don't.

 

[Eve777]

It was impossible to be born again until the Holy Spirit was given at Pentecost, the birth of the Church, the Body that they were baptised into.

Absolutley agree. If you have not his spirit you are none of his.

How did they know they had received the HOly Ghost?

They heard them speak with tongues and magnify God.


The book of Acts is the beginning of the Church. The Holy Ghost could not be given untill Jesus died and ascended unto the Father. Then he sent back to Holy Ghost to all who would receive him.

You can repent and be baptised but if you have not received the Holy Ghost, you are not saved. It is the Spirit that saves, not repenting and not water baptism....the baptism in the Spirit saves you. You are not in the body of Chirst without his spirit.

 

[Dave...]

I've got about 10 minutes, so i'll do the best I can until tomorrow.

Eve said.

Quote from Job:
It was impossible to be born again until the Holy Spirit was given at Pentecost, the birth of the Church, the Body that they were baptised into.


Absolutley agree. If you have not his spirit you are none of his.

How did they know they had received the HOly Ghost?

They heard them speak with tongues and magnify God.


The book of Acts is the beginning of the Church. The Holy Ghost could not be given untill Jesus died and ascended unto the Father. Then he sent back to Holy Ghost to all who would receive him.

You can repent and be baptised but if you have not received the Holy Ghost, you are not saved. It is the Spirit that saves, not repenting and not water baptism....the baptism in the Spirit saves you. You are not in the body of Chirst without his spirit

AMEN! I agree. :D Though, I have the feeling you are meaning this with the Oneness Pentecostal views, and with that I would disagree. It's important to realise that this sign of tongues was not so much a individual sign, but a sign in general to a people, unique to that time. The Spirit was given to the People, and began the new covenant. I would not use it on a individual basis to prove ones salvation. The sign was that the Holy Spirit had come as promised, and judgement was coming. The Gentiles being included later was part of that judgement. The Gentiles were given the same "gift" as the Jews, etc.

Hey Free

Jesus actually paid for sins on the cross, past , present and future. The OT saints did not have their sin atoned for yet. See Eph. 4:7-9

This may help too. It may not be perfect, but you will get the general flow.

http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/eph4v9.htm

Anyways, the OT saints dead were not born again. The OT saints living were given the promise of the Father. The seal that looked back to what Christ did on the cross.

First, I would like to know how you came to that conclusion.

I have to refere you to a earlier post, I think it's at the bottom of the previous page. Numbered to 17, I think. this should answer your last two questions also.

Second, by implication, the Apostles weren't saved until Pentecost. But here you are arguing that they were baptised by the Spirit at Pentecost. Earlier you argue that there is only one baptism, yet at Pentecost, there was no water baptism.

They were OT saints soon to be with no Paradise to go to, but they had the NT promise of the Holy Spirit. It was owed to some who already had faith in Christ. This was the transition.

One baptism. The water baptism didn't actually do anything but was symbolic outwardly of what would, or did happen inwardly. Much the same way that the blood sacrafices of the OT didn't take away sin, but pointed to Jesus and His work on the cross.

Gotta go

In Christ

 

[Free]

The water baptism didn't actually do anything but was symbolic outwardly of what would, or did happen inwardly.

Says a minority of Christians. This is a very Western Evangelical view of water baptism.

 

[Henry]

Free

Baptism has always been symbolic. Lately I have found to be in disagreement with you, and it seems that may be happening again.

Please tell me that you are not talking about baptismal regeneration?

 

[Free]

Henry,

I'm not sure what I am saying except that I think baptism may be more than symbolic, much like I think that there is more to Communion.

 

[Eve777]

Confusion about tongues and interpretation

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, because of abuses in the biblical practice of speaking in tongues, some have avoided the topic altogether. But we shouldn't "throw the baby out with the bathwater" because of the ignorance of some. Remember Paul said "I would not have you ignorant concerning spiritual gifts." Why is it then, almost 2000 years later, we are still in turmoil over this very issue? A proper understanding of this subject would eliminate much division and strife. A failure to differentiate between the private and public administration of the gift of tongues is the primary cause of confusion.

Scriptural guidelines for the public manifestation of the gift

I Cor 14:27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. 14:28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

There are tongues to God, and tongues to the church
I Cor.14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries

Notice that this is a prayer to God (no need for interpretation because it is not for man's benefit).Contrast that with this:

I Cor 14:21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. 14:22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

Here we see that God speaks to the church through tongues and interpretation (which is equal to prophecy according to I Cor 14:5)

If there is a message to be given to the church via the gift of tongues, then these are the guidelines. At the most there should be three who speak by course, with one interpreting. Remember Paul said that he would rather speak 5 words "with my understanding" than 10, 000 words in an unknown tongue in order that he might teach those in the assembly. The church is not edified if a message is not interpreted for the benefit of all those who hear. BUt.........notice the last part of verse 28. Some people stop at the "keeping silent" part , but it says to let him speak to himself and to God. In other words, it isn't unlawful for him to speak in tongues altogether, but rather for him to address the congregation without an interpreter.

The private operation of the gift

Failure to distinguish between the public and private operation of the gifts, can cause people to miss out on a real blessing from the LORD.

I Cor. 14:4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.

Here we see the contrast. When the "church" (or public assembly) is concerned, prophecy/interpreted tongues take precedence. But the uninterpreted tongue (for private prayer) is a tool of edification for the believer. Remember this verse in Jude?

Jude 1:20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost


The conclusion of the matter

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This debate probably will not be settled until the LORD comes. Our intent, with this article, is to try and educate those who are confused about this subject. This is not an exhaustive study on the topic, as there is much more which could be written and said about it, but just a general overview of the common concerns/objections.

I'll leave you with some wonderful advice from the scriptures.

I Cor 14:39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues. 14:40 Let all things be done decently and in order.

Maranatha!

Truthablaze.com

 

[Dave...]

Hey everyone

Eve, to respond to your post, first we must understand that "tongues will cease". So we need to answer the question of when, and not assume that because Paul taught about it, that that teaching was for all time.

I don't believe the answer to that question is in 1 Cor. 13, but in the defined purpose of tongue. In other words, if the purpose can no longer exist, then tongues can no longer exist.

I Cor 14:27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. 14:28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

Tongues was still a legitimate gift at that time. God's judgement to unbelieving Israel would fall in AD 70.

There are tongues to God, and tongues to the church
I Cor.14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries

Notice that this is a prayer to God (no need for interpretation because it is not for man's benefit).Contrast that with this:

This is important, verse two is not a command, Paul states a fact. We should not jump to conclusions on whether this is a good thing or a bad thing until we hold it in light of the immediate surrounding scripture and the rest of Chapters 12-14. It clearly doesn't hold up when you define it as a "what to do" and must be taken as a rebuke or "what not to do".

Paul says it is "speaking into the air" in verse 9. Why isn't it speaking to God?

If this was a teaching concerning personal use, why does Paul qualify it with "for no one understands him" when the true gift "speaks to this people" (21,22).

Also notice that "in the spirit" is speaking of our spirit, and not the Holy Spirit.

If this is a command and something to be desired, then how do you reconsile verse two with These. These are just a few.

12 Even so you, since you are zealous for spiritual gifts, let it be for the edification of the church that you seek to excel.

15 What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding.

22 Therefore tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophesying is not for unbelievers but for those who believe.
-----------

14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.
15 What is the outcome then? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also."

Here again Paul is not speaking of the Holy Spirit (S), but our own spirits. "My spirit" could not be the Holy Spirit. If it were, then gramatically speaking "my mind" would also be the Holy Spirit, and would be saying that the Holy Spirit is unfruitful. Paul is just pointing out the uselessness of Pagan tongues. Paul says we should pray with complete understanding, so this violates that teaching and many others from scripture concerning the gifts.

I Cor 14:21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. 14:22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

Here we see that God speaks to the church through tongues and interpretation (which is equal to prophecy according to I Cor 14:5)

Lets not lose sight of the sign here though, because this only applies when the sign to unbelieving Israel initiates the tongues. When there is no sign being given, prophecy is the intended gift for God to speak to His people. Remember, prophecy is for believers, tongues are for those who don't believe (unbelieving Jews).

I Cor. 14:4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.

Again, I thing you are assuming this to be a comand or a teaching. This is only a statement of fact, and we should not assume that it is a good or bad thing until we hold it in light of the surrounding scripture. Like 14:2, when we do this, your definition doesn't hold up. We should seek to edify the Church. We should seek understanding in all things, prayer, teaching and singing.

Here we see the contrast. When the "church" (or public assembly) is concerned, prophecy/interpreted tongues take precedence. But the uninterpreted tongue (for private prayer) is a tool of edification for the believer. Remember this verse in Jude?

I think you have it wrong here. Prophecy is the gift for believers. The gift of interpretation was given so believers could be edified while the sign was being given.

Jude 1:20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost

We went over this verse already. This is not tongues and nowhere gives the idea that it is speaking of tongues. Pentecostals today call praying in the Spirit (S) tongues, but that's not what the Bible meant by it. This is a Pentecostal myth that has no scriptural backing. this is a promise for all believers praying in their native tongue.

In Christ

 

[Eve777]

Eve, to respond to your post, first we must understand that "tongues will cease". So we need to answer the question of when, and not assume that because Paul taught about it, that that teaching was for all time.

Then we must assume that prophecy and knowledge have also ceased and the Second coming of Christ has happened....that which is perfect is the Second coming of Christ not the completion of the New Testament as so many teach..... the Gifts of the Spirit have not ceased and no where in the Bible does it say that they have. They will cease when Jesus returns for then they will no longer be necessary.


Why did Paul speak in tongues if speaking in tongues was for a sign only to the Jews? He didn't do it in church because he says he didn't so who was he trying to give a sign? He said he thanked God he spoke in tongues more than them all yet in the church, he didn't...so why did he have the Gift of tongues if he didn't use it in church? Because it wasn't the Gift of tongues. It was the tongues that all who receive the Holy Ghost speak that shows the evidence of their receiving the same way it did in the Early Church. It is not the same thing at all as the Gift of tongues. It is just what happens when the Holy Spirit falls on you as it did on them at the beginning and all throughout Acts. This is your pattern for the church. They way it should be today. Reject it if you will but you do it at your own peril.

If you have not his spirit you are none of his.

http://www.isaiah58.com/tracts/haveyereceived.html

 

[Henry]

Then we must assume that prophecy and knowledge have also ceased and the Second coming of Christ has happened

No we don't, it does not say they will all cease at the same time

Why did Paul speak in tongues if speaking in tongues was for a sign only to the Jews?

First of all what you call tongues and what Paul did are not the same thing, secondly Paul was not this big proponant of speaking in tongues as you think he was. It was something he addressed, but not something he was all that big on.

As I said before, when Paul spoke in tongues, it merely meant that he spoke in many languages, that is all a tongue is.

He didn't do it in church because he says he didn't so who was he trying to give a sign?

Not even close, he said not to do it in a church meeting becuase no one would be edified if they did not know what you were saying.

He said he thanked God he spoke in tongues more than them all yet in the church,

then he said he would PREFERE that everyone prophesied and went on to explain how great it was to prophesy, and how useless it was to speak in in tongues. He was being polite dear in making a point, try reading ALL the text as a whole.

why did he have the Gift of tongues if he didn't use it in church?

What? He said not to use this 'gift' in the Church becuase it was not edifying. But still what he did and what you do are not the same thing, if you think that your babbling is the same as the tongeus he spoke you are mistaken.

Paul was given the gift of an education, in which he learned many lanugauges (tongues) becuase God was going to use him to preach to the gentiles who spoke in many language (tongues).

It was the tongues that all who receive the Holy Ghost speak that shows the evidence of their receiving the same way it did in the Early Church.

Just not true, it is assumed based on a few verses. As all oneness doctrine, this is something that is read into the Bible, and not actually taught in the Bible. Sorry, but this doctrine is terrible, you are saying that anyone that has not spoken in tongues is not a Christian, and if I say that Oneness doctrine is wrong, you are all over me. But here are you are explaining in a round about way, how anyone that does not agree with you is not a Christian and not saved. Hmmmmmmm

This is your pattern for the church. They way it should be today. Reject it if you will but you do it at your own peril.

Uhmm it was the pattern of the Church to meet in homes, and eat full meals as communion, you do not do this. For that matter you do not even attend a regular meeting, you fail to keep the gathering as was the pattern of the early Church. So, what you reject the parts you do not like and take in the parts that you do?

And it was not a pattern of the early church as you suspose, it is assumed that what you think tongues were is what they did. They lived and very multi cultured place, lots of different languages being spoken. That is all tongues were.

Oh, and peril hmmmm so you really think that our salvation is based on spealing in tongues.

If you have not his spirit you are none of his.

Here we are, if I were to say that Oneness teaching is wrong, I am called one name after another. But here you are telling us that if we do not agree with Oneness teaching then we are not saved Christians. Sorry, but I find that to be slightly hypocritical.

 

[phatdawg]

Here we are, if I were to say that Oneness teaching is wrong, I am called one name after another. But here you are telling us that if we do not agree with Oneness teaching then we are not saved Christians. Sorry, but I find that to be slightly hypocritical.

Slightly? is that all?

 

[Dave...]

Helloooo everyone. It's going to be a post election recovery day for me today. I'll check back in tomorrow. God Bless.


Dave

 

[Henry]

Bush wins great news! I am so pleased that the American people were wise enough to re-elect Bush.

 

[Dave...]

Bush wins great news! I am so pleased that the American people were wise enough to re-elect Bush.

AMEN!

Eve, about 1 Cor. 13. I believe it tells us when prophecy and knowlege will end for the individual, but not for the gifts themselves. Also the "perfect" has nothing to do with tongues.

Why do you chose the 120 instead of the 3000 to set the standard according to your beliefs?

There is no pattern in acts Eve, acts changes from one chapter to the next.

What did the apostles teach about assurance in the Epistles?

What did Jesus teach about assurance?

You can tell a tree by it's .........(tongues?)

Many will come to me on that day and say Lord, Lord, did we not ......(speak in tongues?).

Paul.............Check yourself daily to see whether you are in the faith...........(by remembering if you spoke in tongues and remember the date?)

Eve, nobody is claiming infalibilty. We all have made mistakes as we are constantly reforming to the truth as we grow and mature. Be honest in your search for the truth and God will reveal it.

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

John 13:34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another. 35 By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."

1 John 3:14 We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love his brother abides in death.

1 John 3:19 And by this we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before Him.

20 For if our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and knows all things.

21 Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence toward God.

1 John 5:13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.

 

[Eve777]

"Why do you chose the 120 instead of the 3000 to set the standard according to your beliefs?"





Because the 3000 were only added to the church as followers. Nowhere does it say they received the Holy Ghost. They were only baptized, believers. The 120 did receive the Holy Ghost as they were told to do by Jesus. I am sure some of the 3000 did go on to receive but they did not do it on the day they were added to the church. Perhaps they were sent Peter or someone later to lay hands on them so that they might receive as the 120 did on the Day of Pentecost. We don't know because the Bible doesn't say. It does ask the question of new believers however, "Have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed?"

 

[Henry]

Because the 3000 were only added to the church as followers. Nowhere does it say they received the Holy Ghost.

WOW !! You can not see the doctrinal presumption of this statement? No were does it say they did not receive the Holy Spirit. You are in essence saying these were not saved and the text says they were ADDED to the Church, the Church being the body of the Lord, which are believers, and to be a part of the body of the Lord one must be filled with the Holy Spirit.

Perhaps they were sent Peter or someone later to lay hands on them so that they might receive as the 120 did on the Day of Pentecost.

Perhaps ? Perhaps they did not becuase there was no need for it, hmmmmmm.

I am sure some of the 3000 did go on to receive but they did not do it on the day they were added to the church.

Ok and what about the ones that did not go on... are they in hell now? So are you really saying that the Lord added to his Church then let some end up in hell.

And that seems funny since the Lord says that all who come to him he will never forsake and he also said that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church. This is why you need to learn what context means, you can not possible beleive a doctrine that contredicts the very word of Jesus himself.