working4christ2

Tellastory · #31 7th April 2013, 03:57 PM

Originally Posted by shturt678

Yours and my views are so divergent that near impossible to reconcile.

I was agreeing with you that it is not the same gift as in the gift of the Holy Spirit at our salvation IS the baptism with the Holy Spirit by Jesus Christ, and not referring to any of the charismatics gifts of the Spirit.

The charismatic gifts like tongues is a gift of the Spirit in that sense but it does not accompany every believer's salvation in serving as a sign that they are saved because tongues are to be served as a sign to others: not to the recipients.

1 Corinthians 12:30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?

Clearly not every believer has spoken in tongues.

1 Corinthians 14:20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men. 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. 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.

Tongues used in the assembly is to be interpreted for it to be fruitful and edifying, unless otherwise understood by a foreignor.

shturt678 · #32 7th April 2013, 06:16 PM

Originally Posted by Tellastory

I was agreeing with you that it is not the same gift as in the gift of the Holy Spirit at our salvation IS the baptism with the Holy Spirit by Jesus Christ, and not referring to any of the charismatics gifts of the Spirit.

The charismatic gifts like tongues is a gift of the Spirit in that sense but it does not accompany every believer's salvation in serving as a sign that they are saved because tongues are to be served as a sign to others: not to the recipients.

1 Corinthians 12:30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?

Clearly not every believer has spoken in tongues.

1 Corinthians 14:20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men. 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. 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.

Tongues used in the assembly is to be interpreted for it to be fruitful and edifying, unless otherwise understood by a foreignor.

First and foremost, all my students became my professors in my latter years of teaching, i.e., was slow on the uptake but I finally got it. The same doesn't go for my attitude, still working on it, and I thank you for yours and other's patience.

You and I are going to have to absolutely agree to disagree with the following:

ICor.12:30, "do all speak with tongues?" Paul omits two of the gifts that are listed in v.28 and adds one that is not in this list but is found in 12:10:

The irony is, even with your great attitude, if the following is in the truthful direction, and God is dropping right into your lap .... for some reason, you will still consider the following fallacious.

ICor.12:10, "...varieties of tongues while to another interpretation of tongues." The gift of tongues which the Corinthians rated as being probably the highest and most desirable Paul places next to the last and combines with "interpretation of tongues." The interpreter understood the language that was spoken or written and translated the sense of what was said or written so that all understood. This view does not conflict with 14:2: "no one understands.' For if "no one' is made absolute, all possibility of interpretation is excluded no matter what conception we may have of "tongues." Just good ol' Koine.

I gave it my best summarized shot and you, others, will have to agree to disagree, astounding!

bling · #33 8th April 2013, 10:04 AM

[quote]

Originally Posted by Tellastory

[/font][/size]

No, but too many believers are claiming to speak in tongues when they all speak the same language. Seems to be a vain roundabout way to edify the church, thus God would not do that but just edify thru the gift of prophesy since that is the whole point after interpretation of those tongues.

Tongues serve as a sign to unbelievers. Tongues do not serve as a sign to believers. When saved believers seek after a sign by receiving the "Spirit" again, then they are committing spirtual adultery from the Bridegroom. They need to repent and return to their first love and chase no more after them, and shun vain & profane babblings as it will increase with ungodliness.

I was asking also about water baptism, did water Baptism continue on even after Acts 2 Holy Spirit Baptism?

Being filled with the Holy Spirit was another way of saying being led by the Spirit to speak so that readers may know that the words coming forth from them was not the speaker's own words, but what the Spirit was leading them to say.

If you read Acts 4 in context, Peter & John were arrested after leading new believers to the Lord and released afterwards into their own company, and these new believers, hearing the events that had transpired of ther arrests & release, all prayed that they may speak the word of God in boldness as Peter & John had done.

They were not filled again with the Holy Spirit, but testifying how they all spoke in one accord the same thing with boldness which the soundings thereof shook the place.

This is not a huge group of people (just their friends [Christians]) and this is not coming as a result of shouting but after a pray and not even during the pray: Acts 4: 31 And when they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together was shaken; and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God with boldness.

This makes it out that the place was shaken but they did not shake the place with their words that would have been expressed a different way.

Something unique took place “they were all filled with the Holy Spirit” in the Greek is present tense and not since they had the Spirit.

If you were going to take that as a reference at all of supernatural empowering to speak, then that means every believer canot speak for God unless they prayed for that to happen so they can have that supernatural outward manifestations to have confidence that what they speak, it will be of God.

What do you mean by: “every believer canot speak for God…” What God says through a believer are they, the believer’s words?

So there is no necessity of praying for an empowerment to speak for the Lord. Those new believers were just praying that God would lead them to speak as Peter & John had spoken with boldness and the shaking of the place was by their speaking of one accord the very same thing all at once and the signifying of them being filled with the Spirit when this was done was to convey that it was not some rehearsed unified saying being done.

Again the shaking of the building came after a pray and not as a result of shouts and cheers. The being filled with the Spirit comes after the building was shaken.

[font=Calibri][size=3]

How hard is it for Luke to write filled with the Holy Spirit "again"? Not that hard. And so we have to understand the way he was writing that he was testifying as to how the believers were speaking by the Spirit, and not of their own volition or words of men's wisdom.

Acts 2 was the promise of the permanent indwelling Holy Ghost. Once a believer has that, that baptism cannot happen again, otherwise, a believer will believe every spirit that comes over them again and again as being of God.

Acts 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Peter was not astonished. It was they of the circumcision that came with Peter, which believed that were astonished.

Acts 10:46.......Then answered Peter, 47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? 48And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Ask the Lord Jesus for help in reading this. If Peter actually meant that he had received the Holy Spirit again, then why command only the new believers to be water baptised?

Peter was just referencing in past tense to what had just happened that they had received the Holy Ghost as Peter had at Pentecost.

Acts 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. 16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. 17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?

So Peter did not say that the Holy Ghost fell on him again in Acts 10, but "as on us in the beginning" as in Acts 2. Noe the significance of that baptism with the Holy Spirit when they both had come to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. That's when it happens and no other times.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that Cornelius’ Household was also water baptized, yet if Holy Spirit Baptism was the only Baptism why were they also water baptized?

I am not saying Peter was astonished or that Peter received a second Holy Spirit baptism, since Peter had been prepared for some something astonishing with the vision he had.

What we see in Acts 10 is clearly a difference between Holy Spirit Baptism and believer Water Baptism and both being administered to the same people. We also see Holy Spirit baptism to be unique and have outward visible miraculous properties, that does not happen today with Believer Water Baptism.

StormHawk · #34 8th April 2013, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by Tellastory

...ALL believers have been baptized into the one body by the one Spirit

Can you please explain how it was known that the believers in Jesus in Acts 8:12-16 had not received the Spirit and hence were not yet in the body of Christ?

shturt678 · #35 8th April 2013, 04:19 PM

Wow, I even like Acts 8:12-16 and your sharing StormHaswk, made an ol' old Lutheran's morning. Thank you and thank you too Tellastory.

1answer · #36 8th April 2013, 06:43 PM

Originally Posted by Tellastory

Ephesians 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

For this to be the one hope of your calling, then there can be no other baptism with the Holy Spirit. That is why the early church just preached Jesus Christ & Him crucified as He is the only calling we have to give to others.

1 Corinthians 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

what was your point?

other than -- you aren't referring to water baptism--

but as john said Jesus would be baptising you with the holy spirit and and with fire..

ALL believers have been baptized into the one body by the one Spirit so that all believers can testify that they have ALL been made to drink into the one Spirit.

So beware those that preach another calling and another drink of the one Spirit. thereby no longer preaching the simplicity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ by Whom we are married to God by the Son, the Bridegroom.

2 Corinthians 11:1Would to God ye could bear with me a little in my folly: and indeed bear with me. 2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. 3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. 4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

1 John 4:1Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world....4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

2 Corinthians 13:5 Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?

1 Timothy 4:1Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

Titus 1:16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

You are complete in Christ when you came to Him so you can rest in Him by heeding no other calling other than to preach Jesus Christ & Him crucified so that others may come to & believe in Him also.

Colossians 2:5 For though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, joying and beholding your order, and the stedfastness of your faith in Christ. 6 As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him: 7 Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving. 8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. 9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. 10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

Hebrews 4:1Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. 2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it. 3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.........9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. 10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. 11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.

having a knowledge is part of the elementary principles as in hebrews 6;1-7

what was your point?

other than -- you aren't referring to water baptism--

but as john said Jesus would be baptising you with the holy spirit and and with fire..

1answer · #37 8th April 2013, 06:48 PM

[quote=bling;62803671]

I was asking also about water baptism, did water Baptism continue on even after Acts 2 Holy Spirit Baptism?

This is not a huge group of people (just their friends [Christians]) and this is not coming as a result of shouting but after a pray and not even during the pray: Acts 4: 31 And when they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together was shaken; and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God with boldness.

This makes it out that the place was shaken but they did not shake the place with their words that would have been expressed a different way.

Something unique took place “they were all filled with the Holy Spirit” in the Greek is present tense and not since they had the Spirit.

What do you mean by: “every believer canot speak for God…” What God says through a believer are they, the believer’s words?

Again the shaking of the building came after a pray and not as a result of shouts and cheers. The being filled with the Spirit comes after the building was shaken.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that Cornelius’ Household was also water baptized, yet if Holy Spirit Baptism was the only Baptism why were they also water baptized?

I am not saying Peter was astonished or that Peter received a second Holy Spirit baptism, since Peter had been prepared for some something astonishing with the vision he had.

What we see in Acts 10 is clearly a difference between Holy Spirit Baptism and believer Water Baptism and both being administered to the same people. We also see Holy Spirit baptism to be unique and have outward visible miraculous properties, that does not happen today with Believer Water Baptism.

if you are not familiar with this teaching of the Mikveh--(baptism ) then it will surprise you

Once the foundations of the faith have been laid firmly and the "milk" of the word has strengthened us, it is time for some real meat. One of the foundations of faith listed in Hebrews is "the doctrine of baptisms" (plural), yet in the Christian world very little is known about baptism. What is known is filtered through a Greek mind-set and ignorance of the Hebrew practice of the "mikveh" from which "baptism" is loosely translated.

John the Baptist was not a Baptist, nor was his name John—

his name was Yohannan ben Zechariah, the son of an Aaronic priest.

He did not invent some "new thing", but was performing that of which every Israelite was intimately familiar—yet of which the average Christian is clueless.

He was "mikveh-ing" Israelites in the Jordan River when he first met the promised Messiah, Yahshua.

Every Israelite understood what Yochannan was doing in the Jordan,

but the religious leaders could not understand why he was performing the Mikveh outside of their authorized religious system.  

Join Michael Rood on the banks of the beautiful Jordan River near his home in Israel as he opens the believer's eyes to the depths of

"The Mikveh - the Doctrine of Baptisms".

Once this foundation of the faith is understood, we may then move on to maturity.

1answer · #38 8th April 2013, 06:59 PM

michael rood -- the mikveh (baptism)

John the Baptist was not a Baptist, nor was his name John—his name was Yohannan ben Zechariah, the son of an Aaronic priest. He did not invent some "new thing", but was performing that of which every Israelite was intimately familiar—yet of which the average Christian is clueless. He was "mikveh-ing" Israelites in the Jordan River when he first met the promised Messiah, Yahshua. Every Israelite understood what Yochannan was doing in the Jordan, but the religious leaders could not understand why he was performing the Mikveh outside of their authorized religious system.  

greatdivide46 · #39 9th April 2013, 07:39 AM

Originally Posted by 1answer

michael rood -- the mikveh (baptism)

John the Baptist was not a Baptist, nor was his name John—his name was Yohannan ben Zechariah, the son of an Aaronic priest. He did not invent some "new thing", but was performing that of which every Israelite was intimately familiar—yet of which the average Christian is clueless. He was "mikveh-ing" Israelites in the Jordan River when he first met the promised Messiah, Yahshua. Every Israelite understood what Yochannan was doing in the Jordan, but the religious leaders could not understand why he was performing the Mikveh outside of their authorized religious system.  

John is the English form of Yohannan, so, yes, his name was John. He was baptizing people in the Jordan River, so, yes, he was a baptist. While he didn't invent some "new thing" he was indeed performing some "new thing." What he was performing was completely new to every Israelite. That's precisely why they were flocking to see him. The main difference between what John was doing and the mikveh, is that John was doing it, while the mikveh is self-administered. People "mikveh" themselves. John was baptizing other people. It was a baptism of repentence for the forgiveness of sins. The mikveh was not of repentence nor for the forgiveness of sins. What John was doing was so new and different from anything in the experience of those living in Judea and the areas around the Jordan River that they were flocking to see what he was doing.

Tellastory · #40 9th April 2013, 09:44 AM

Originally Posted by shturt678

First and foremost, all my students became my professors in my latter years of teaching, i.e., was slow on the uptake but I finally got it. The same doesn't go for my attitude, still working on it, and I thank you for yours and other's patience. You and I are going to have to absolutely agree to disagree with the following:

ICor.12:30, "do all speak with tongues?" Paul omits two of the gifts that are listed in v.28 and adds one that is not in this list but is found in 12:10: The irony is, even with your great attitude, if the following is in the truthful direction, and God is dropping right into your lap .... for some reason, you will still consider the following fallacious.

ICor.12:10, "...varieties of tongues while to another interpretation of tongues." The gift of tongues which the Corinthians rated as being probably the highest and most desirable Paul places next to the last and combines with "interpretation of tongues." The interpreter understood the language that was spoken or written and translated the sense of what was said or written so that all understood. This view does not conflict with 14:2: "no one understands.' For if "no one' is made absolute, all possibility of interpretation is excluded no matter what conception we may have of "tongues." Just good ol' Koine.

I gave it my best summarized shot and you, others, will have to agree to disagree, astounding!

Feel free to read this thread before finally agreeing to disagree on the matter, because Paul's use of the phrase as not speaking unto men but unto God does not mean that the tongue speaker is pseaking to God but it means God understands what he is saying even though the manifested tongues speaker does not when comaparing verse 2 with verse 28 because Paul was explaining that in verse 28, when tongues does not come with interpretation, then this partuclar tongues speaker is to be silent as he was a foreignor speaking out of place as well as out of turn and described such individual as speaking unto himself and unto God as in the foreignor knows what he is saying as God does too.

Otherwise, Paul would be hypocritical to instruct the church to have him be silent in verse 28 when he ended the chapter by saying not to forbid speaking in tongues when it comes to decency and order in the church.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7735980/

You have to take verse 2 in context as it was addressing the tongue speaker as not knowing what was being said as it was done in the spirit in speaking mysteries rather than meaning that no one understood it.

Paul gave the bottomline on tongues in case his readers did not understand what he was writing by signifiying that the gift of tongues he was referring about throughout that entire chapter was of other men's lips to speak unto the people which is why it needed interpretation for it to be fruitful and edifying even to the tongue speaker himself as Paul has stated.

One thing any believer should keep in mind is ... that no matter how old you are, or how long you have been a believer... or how much you have read and studied the Bible, or how many educated degrees a believer has, one can never stop learining from His words something new that has been there all this time, and yet we as believers had overlooked it when He was teaching us other truths we were able to receive at earlier times.

Hopefully God will cause the increase on this issue for you to receive this truth in how Paul was writing in regards to the gift of tongues in his day.

working4christ2

Sunday, April 21, 2013

ICor.12:30, "do all speak with tongues?" Paul omits two of the gifts that are listed in v.28 and adds one that is not in this list but is found in 12:10: The irony is,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Become a CF Site Supporter Today and Make These Ads Go Away!