Alpha on TV - a deafening silence?
Michael J Davis
recently?
I'm surprised no one has commented. I have written a brief impressions,
but before I post it, I'd be interested in your brief comments.
Blessings
Mike
--
Michael J Davis
Personal email replies may be made to mi...@trustsof.demon.co.uk
<><
`If it doesn't make us kinder to one another,
it's probably not religion.'
Dalai Lama
<><
Tony Gillam
news:zwjxB1Aj73$7E...@trustsof.demon.co.uk...
> Did anyone see the whole series of programmes about Alpha on ITV
> recently?
>
> I'm surprised no one has commented. I have written a brief
impressions,
> but before I post it, I'd be interested in your brief comments.
>
eventually interest. It was interesting to note that a program about
British Muslims preparing for Ramadan got a prime time slot. Does that
say anything about a BBC conspiracy?
--
Tony Gillam
tony....@lineone.net
http://website.lineone.net/~tony.gillam - Home of TUCOWSAT
http://www.christians-r-us.org.uk - A Site for sore eyes
Hell - A place in which there isn't a hope
Pam
news:zwjxB1Aj73$7E...@trustsof.demon.co.uk...
> recently?
>
> I'm surprised no one has commented. I have written a brief
impressions,
> but before I post it, I'd be interested in your brief comments.
>
> Blessings
>
> Mike
Mike:
I *didn't* watch the whole series. This was partly a function of the
fact that we were away a lot and couldn't tape them all, but after the
first three, I decided that they didn't actually make for good
television. And probably rightly so. What works "in real life" -
journeying and questioning - doesn't really work very well on
television. I saw the first three programmes and the last programme.
I thought the last programme was the best and I found it reasonably
inspiring as well. I felt that it was honest.
I have to say that I was quite impressed by what I saw of the leaders
in the group of people the programme followed. I thought the bloke
who led (was his name Paul?) was a good facilitator from what I could
see. I'm a *lot* happier with the idea of Nicky Gumble's strong "this
is the way it is" talks if they can be followed by a group discussion
where people are actually allowed to air their genuine feelings and
grapplings. It appeared, at least, that HTB did actually allow
participants to say whatever they wanted to in a "safe space". I
could be cynical and assume that the television producers edited it
that way, but I can't see any reason for them to do that.
My main conclusion from the four programmes I saw was much more
positive than I expected it to be. (You can all get up off the floor
now. <g>)
Blessings,
Pam
David Ould
news:zwjxB1Aj73$7E...@trustsof.demon.co.uk...
> recently?
>
> I'm surprised no one has commented. I have written a brief impressions,
> but before I post it, I'd be interested in your brief comments.
>
there was a very frightening moment at the end where one of the members said
"I've been saved".
They were then asked "what have you been saved from?"
to which the answer was "I don't know"!
As for the debacle with screening, I'm appalled. ITV certainly didn't cover
themselves with praise.
David
Allan K
Its erratic and late scheduling was the worst thing.
What did you think?
--
Allan
"Michael J Davis" <mi...@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:zwjxB1Aj73$7E...@trustsof.demon.co.uk...
Richard Emblem
<mi...@trustsof.demon.co.uk> writes:
>Did anyone see the whole series of programmes about Alpha on ITV
>recently?
>
>I'm surprised no one has commented. I have written a brief impressions,
>but before I post it, I'd be interested in your brief comments.
Because of the erratic scheduling I missed some but was very impressed with the
final programme which showed that all of the 10 participants had been
favourably affected by the Alpha course, some more than others of course.
--
Richard Emblem
How good and pleasant it is
when God's people live in unity.
(Psalm 133:1)
_______________________
Trevor Jenkins
> Did anyone see the whole series of programmes about Alpha on ITV
> recently?
It was very difficult to watch the entire series. So many changes of
schedule. Pre-empted for other things, particularly sport and repeats of
other shows. So a "series" it wasn't.
> I'm surprised no one has commented. I have written a brief impressions,
> but before I post it, I'd be interested in your brief comments.
Sadly I think it was more "The Sir David Frost Show" than an critical
analysis of Alpha. All the cut-aways from Nicky Gumbel to interviews
with the 10 contestants did nothing to sustain a reasonable picture of
what Alpha is about. Though the 10 participants were willing to talk
about their doubts and concerns in public it wasn't always clear why
they had those doubts and concerns over talks---we weren't party to the
talks themselves.
Clearly the "10" changed. More so than they admitted to in the last
discussion session. Each one was different from what they were before
the series began. Not all made a committment to Christian belief.
Perhaps some will later as they have opportunity to reflect upon the
talks/discussion. I wonder whether their individual responses would have
been different had the series been filmed over September 11th.
Regards, Trevor
British Sign Language is not inarticulate handwaving; it's a living
language.
Support the campaign for formal recognition by the British government
now!
Details at http://www.fdp.org.uk/ or http://www.bsl-march.co.uk/
--
<>< Re: deemed!
Pigboy
> impressions,
> > but before I post it, I'd be interested in your brief comments.
> >
> It was so chopped about in the schedules that I lost the thread and
> eventually interest. It was interesting to note that a program about
> British Muslims preparing for Ramadan got a prime time slot. Does that
> say anything about a BBC conspiracy?
Errrrrr no.
.
Michael J Davis
>Did anyone see the whole series of programmes about Alpha on ITV
>recently?
Thanks for your comments.
>I'm surprised no one has commented. I have written a brief impressions,
so this is it:-
I found the Alpha course on TV immensely interesting, and needless to
say, an exercise in which I soon became deeply involved. At last, I can
see the attraction of the Big Brother type of programme. Of course, I
wanted all the participants to come to know Jesus, and I prayed for them
throughout (even though I knew the outcome was over by the time I saw it
on TV).
Those of us who have experienced Alpha and similar courses, know that
God meets people at different phases, and is not to be orchestrated by
an imposed structure. So we kept hoping that something would happen to
someone each week.
The talks were virtually identical with the video series, indeed I know
of someone who watched this series and expressed disgust that there was
"nothing new"! I was naturally pleased to discover that the bit where
Nicky Gumbell quotes me was left in, but we saw only snippets of the
talks to give us the flavour rather than the meat of the presentations.
I was disappointed by the discussions shown on TV, feeling that they
were rather trivial, but it was clear that much discussion was going on
either outside the formal groups or just excised from the tapes. The
growing concern for each other - a key part of Alpha - and friendships
was evident. At the end, as has been well publicised, we saw that none
were unmoved by the course. On the subject of discussions, the leaders
Paul and Amanda were excellent, not answering questions but asking other
members of the groups to express their views; all group leaders should
note their roles!
I have two severe reservations. One revolves around the move from
knowledge to experience. Since Alpha is designed as an introduction to
Christianity it attracts those who want to know. Then, halfway through,
and apparently without real warning we encounter the Holy Spirit
weekend. Many of the participants admitted that they "freaked out" at
this. It seems to me that there should have been a build up to the
experience of asking God to show His love. On the Life in the Spirit
Seminars we go to great lengths to emphasise the experiential aspect of
what we are doing. Here it seemed they were thrown in the deep end with
just one preparatory talk - and from the bit we heard - the weakest.
My second reservation was that at the end, no one said, "I have accepted
Jesus as my Lord" the talk was still always about (an abstract) God and
occasional references to the Holy Spirit. The issue seemed to be "am I
going to continue going to church?" Becoming a Christian is about
accepting Jesus, and the Holy Spirit comes as part of the package. But
the picture we had is that the Holy Spirit experience is more important
than Jesus.
The we must have queries about follow-up. If any of these had become
Christians, then we have to know, are they going to be prepared for
Baptism? How are they going to be integrated into a local community or
will they go to their local church, find people so much less welcoming
than the HTB fellowship, and drift away. What aftercare is organised? We
heard nothing about any of this.
I look forward to a follow up programme showing them one year on. It may
crystallise answers to some of the above questions.
Angela Rayner
> Michael J Davis <mi...@trustsof.demon.co.uk> was inspired to say
> The talks were virtually identical with the video series, indeed I
know
> of someone who watched this series and expressed disgust that there
was
> "nothing new"! I was naturally pleased to discover that the bit
where
> Nicky Gumbell quotes me was left in, but we saw only snippets of the
> talks to give us the flavour rather than the meat of the
presentations.
I'm intrigued :-) What is it that you say that gets in?? When did
you say that bit to Nicky Gumbel?
ciao for now
--
Angela Rayner ><8>
"Truly loving another means letting go of all expectations. It means
full acceptance, even celebration of another's personhood."
-Karen Casey
Paul Wright
Tony Gillam <tgi...@cyberyacht.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>"Michael J Davis" <mi...@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:zwjxB1Aj73$7E...@trustsof.demon.co.uk...
>> Did anyone see the whole series of programmes about Alpha on ITV
>> recently?
>>
>> I'm surprised no one has commented. I have written a brief
>impressions,
>> but before I post it, I'd be interested in your brief comments.
>>
>It was so chopped about in the schedules that I lost the thread and
>eventually interest. It was interesting to note that a program about
>British Muslims preparing for Ramadan got a prime time slot. Does that
>say anything about a BBC conspiracy?
I think we should repeatedly complain to the BBC that we find this sort
of thing offensive...
--
----- Paul Wright ------| Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired
-paul....@pobox.com--| by age eighteen. -- Albert Einstein
http://pobox.com/~pw201 |
Steven Carr
news:9toiuv$d2r$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> It was so chopped about in the schedules that I lost the thread and
> eventually interest. It was interesting to note that a program about
> British Muslims preparing for Ramadan got a prime time slot. Does that
> say anything about a BBC conspiracy?
Wasn't Alpha on ITV?
--
Posted from [195.243.112.11]
via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Tony Gillam
news:a84771a9098e721f5f...@mygate.mailgate.org...
> "Tony Gillam" <tgi...@cyberyacht.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:9toiuv$d2r$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> > It was so chopped about in the schedules that I lost the thread
and
> > eventually interest. It was interesting to note that a program
about
> > British Muslims preparing for Ramadan got a prime time slot. Does
that
> > say anything about a BBC conspiracy?
>
> Wasn't Alpha on ITV?
>
RIchard Dudley
( Tony wrote )
> > It was so chopped about in the schedules that I lost the thread and
> > eventually interest. It was interesting to note that a program about
> > British Muslims preparing for Ramadan got a prime time slot. Does that
> > say anything about a BBC conspiracy?
>
> Errrrrr no.
You may be thinking what I'm thinking - that this may
say something about evangelical Christian paranoia ?
Richard
RIchard Dudley
> I think we should repeatedly complain to the BBC that we find this sort
> of thing offensive...
What do you find offensive in showing Muslims making preparations
for Ramadan ? Or is not the content, but the timing that you
object to ?
Richard
Paul Wright
It was a sarcastic reference to the campaign against Premier Radio which
was discussed on this group a while back. It would clearly be ridiculous
to find a programme about Muslims preparing for Ramadan offensive.
--
----- Paul Wright ------| Early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets
-paul....@pobox.com--| the cheese.
http://pobox.com/~pw201 |
Tony Gillam
news:e0ede4e4.01112...@posting.google.com...
'preference' shown to other religions in the scheduling against the
slots afforded to Christianity, particularly since they made such a
big thing about running the series.
Michael J Davis
>Michael J Davis <mi...@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:vXvGISNv...@trustsof.demon.co.uk...
>> Michael J Davis <mi...@trustsof.demon.co.uk> was inspired to say
>
>> The talks were virtually identical with the video series, indeed I
>know
>> of someone who watched this series and expressed disgust that there
>was
>> "nothing new"! I was naturally pleased to discover that the bit
>where
>> Nicky Gumbell quotes me was left in, but we saw only snippets of the
>> talks to give us the flavour rather than the meat of the
>presentations.
>
>I'm intrigued :-) What is it that you say that gets in?? When did
>you say that bit to Nicky Gumbel?
I wrote to the Times in 1991 over a row about the ABofC promoting
Charismatic stuff (fearful leader and all that), something along the
lines of:-
"Sir
Can someone tell me why it is that, if a cinema comedy produces
laughter, the *film* is regarded as successful; if a theatre tragedy
brings tears to the audience, the *production* is regarded as touching;
if a football game thrills the spectators, the *match* is reviewed as
exciting; but if a church service is moved by the glory of God in
worship, it is the *congregation* who are accused of emotionalism?"
(The words are approximate as what gets printed is "improved", by
agreement, to make it more concise; I have lost my copy of the published
letter.)
Nicky seems to have been using it on Alpha since then, but when I met
him in 1997, I gave him permission to continue using it!!!! :-)
He uses this in the Holy Spirit talk.
Tweetie Pooh
on Sun 25 Nov 2001 06:59:59p with news:vXvGISNv...@trustsof.demon.co.uk:
>
> I look forward to a follow up programme showing them one year on. It may
> crystallise answers to some of the above questions.
>
> Blessings
>
> Mike
The series was filmed last year so they could do the follow up now.
It would also be interesting to see how things are going post 11 Sept.
Reports are coming in that church (religious) attendence has increased. Is
this reflected in attendence at Alpha? If those, on the series, were to be
represented with the material in the less sure environment (if it really is)
that we live in now would their attitudes at the end of the course be the
same?
Pam
news:vXvGISNv...@trustsof.demon.co.uk...
> On the subject of discussions, the leaders
> Paul and Amanda were excellent, not answering questions but asking
other
> members of the groups to express their views; all group leaders
should
> note their roles!
Mike:
This was the HUGE difference between my experience of an "Alpha clone"
course (the people doing it took the talks from Nicky's book and
called it something else, but it was basically Alpha) and what
happened on TV. Our leaders tried to be non-directive, but they
weren't. They always let people know eventually if something we were
saying was not what they believed to be orthodox. I didn't really
feel all that "safe" to express my views in the group.
I did get the impression that Paul and Amanda were people who were
doing "proper" facilitation. I wonder how many groups actually get
proper facilitation, though?
Blessings,
Pam
Nick Ashton
question "why did Nicky Gumble tell us that only some get tongues but
then in the prayer time 300 people suddenly start doing it". She also
commented that she feels she should start the whole 6-week course
again now that she knows about the Holy Spirit. . . all of which
confirms my belief that receiving the infilling of the Spirit,
speaking in tongues is not some opptional but desirable extra for
people that are already christians !
.. . it *is* the born again experience !
God and his apostles didn't wait 6 weeks to preach the need to receive
the Holy Spirit !
- Nick
Nick Ashton
Nick Ashton
A brief summary of our doctrines;
1) Salvation is by repentance, water baptism and recieving the Holy
Spirit with tangible signs thereof.
2) The Bible is the authoritive word of God and in its original form is
unfallible in matters of doctrine and teaching. Acceptable English
translations are KJV and NIV.
3) We exist as church in the local community in which we live to be a
witness of the Love of Jesus to our friends, neighbours and collegues
and for the mutual support, fellowship and teaching of all our members.
4) Full church membership requires that one be baptised according to the
Bible pattern and recieve the Holy Spirit with signs following. Beta
courses are run to enable those seeking membership of the church to
fulfil these obligations. These are an extension of the nationwide
Alpha
courses, which we encourage any that are seeking the Lord, to be a part
of.
5) Social activities are open to all, however home groups are only open
to full members of the church.
6) Those seeking membership of the church are encouraged to do an Alpha
course before proceeding to Beta and full membership.
Phil Saunders
news:3C02AEC5...@ntlworld.com...
God preached?
Phil
Nick Ashton
> > God and his apostles didn't wait 6 weeks to preach the need to receive
> > the Holy Spirit !
>
> God preached?
God originally gave the sign of tongues to show the receiving of the
Spirit,
then the apostles were motivated by the Spirit to preach it.
Ken Down
dig...@my-deja.com (RIchard Dudley) wrote:
> What do you find offensive in showing Muslims making preparations
> for Ramadan ? Or is not the content, but the timing that you
> object to ?
Personally, (although I don't have a TV) I thought it was pretty suspicious,
dropping Alpha in order to put on a Muslim thing. Very PC at the least.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
__ __ __ __ __
| \ | / __ / __ | |\ | / __ |__ All the latest archaeological news
|__/ | \__/ \__/ | | \| \__/ __| from the Middle East with David Down
================================= and "Digging Up The Past"
Web site: www.argonet.co.uk/education/diggings
e-mail: digg...@argonet.co.uk
Tony Gillam
> what's Freudian about BBC ?
Michael J Davis
>After the HS weekend, one of the attendees afterwards angrily asked the
>question "why did Nicky Gumble tell us that only some get tongues but
>then in the prayer time 300 people suddenly start doing it". She also
>commented that she feels she should start the whole 6-week course
>again now that she knows about the Holy Spirit. . . all of which
>confirms my belief that receiving the infilling of the Spirit,
>speaking in tongues is not some opptional but desirable extra for
>people that are already christians !
>.. . it *is* the born again experience !
<Groan!>
Nick, if you think that speaking in tongues *is* the born again
experience then I've got some *really* good news for you!!! <vbg>
>
>God and his apostles didn't wait 6 weeks to preach the need to receive
>the Holy Spirit !
Did you all receive the Spirit when you first believed?
Michael J Davis
Few, I suspect! I try to get group leaders to avoid answering questions
and then find, I'm answering them.
Can you remember how Jesus answered questions directed at Him? :-)
Phil Saunders
> I have received the following information a group that I am not with:-
>
>
> A brief summary of our doctrines;
>
> 1) Salvation is by repentance, water baptism and recieving the Holy
> Spirit with tangible signs thereof.
None of the above.
> 2) The Bible is the authoritive word of God and in its original form is
> unfallible in matters of doctrine and teaching. Acceptable English
> translations are KJV and NIV.
The NIV?
> 3) We exist as church in the local community in which we live to be a
> witness of the Love of Jesus to our friends, neighbours and collegues
> and for the mutual support, fellowship and teaching of all our members.
Bit airy fairy
> 4) Full church membership requires that one be baptised according to the
> Bible pattern and recieve the Holy Spirit with signs following. Beta
> courses are run to enable those seeking membership of the church to
> fulfil these obligations. These are an extension of the nationwide
> Alpha courses, which we encourage any that are seeking the Lord, to be a
part
> of.
Sounds iffy to me
> 5) Social activities are open to all, however home groups are only open
> to full members of the church.
Ooh exclusivity thats biblical (er NOT)
> 6) Those seeking membership of the church are encouraged to do an Alpha
> course before proceeding to Beta and full membership.
And then on to a theta, delta and epsilon?
Colin Bell
How long _was_ it between the Resurrection and Pentecost then?
Colin
Nick Ashton
>
> <Groan!>
> Nick, if you think that speaking in tongues *is* the born again
> experience then I've got some *really* good news for you!!! <vbg>
The infilling of the Spirit with speaking in tongues is.
What do *you* think it is ?
> >
> >God and his apostles didn't wait 6 weeks to preach the need to receive
> >the Holy Spirit !
>
> Did you all receive the Spirit when you first believed?
No, most don't, that's why jesus tells the parable of persistently
knocking
- i.e. you are seeking something that you already believe is there
(Luke 11:5-13)
See also Acts 8:12-16, and also Paul's opening question:-
Ac:19:2: He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye
believed?
Some people have tried to change the word "since" to "because", which
makes a nonsense of the precious 2 scriptures, also if we look at other
scriptures that use the word "since" (Strongs no. 575) we see it's real
meaning:-
M't:24:21: For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since
the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
Lu:1:70: As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been
since the world began:
Lu:24:21: But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed
Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things
were done.
etc.
- Nick
Neil Davey
<philip....@ntlworld.com> jumped up and down excitedly and wrote
the following:
>The NIV?
New International Version, currently one of the most popular, (and my
own choice).
Cheers
Neil
--
Deadspam e-mail address is a spamblock.
Please use ndavey _at_ postmaster dot co dot uk if you wish to contact me.
Nick Ashton
>
> How long _was_ it between the Resurrection and Pentecost then?
I make it 48 days, but they had already been told the need to receive
the Spirit, so they were "waiting in Jerusalem to be endued with power
from on high", once the Spirit was given, the wait was no longer
required,
though people sometimes take a while to take the message to heart.
Nick
Colin Bell
> Colin Bell wrote:
>
> Nick Ashton wrote:
> > > God and his apostles didn't wait 6 weeks to preach the need to receive
> > > the Holy Spirit !
(You've done a Down on me - I've restored the context.)
So, the apostles did indeed wait more than 6 weeks from knowing the need
to receive the Spirit until preaching it...
Colin
Tim Whittingham
news:9tom4g$4am$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> there was a very frightening moment at the end where one of the members
said
> "I've been saved".
> They were then asked "what have you been saved from?"
>
> to which the answer was "I don't know"!
>
snip
LOL! I wish I had seen it.
Tim W
Pam
> Michael J Davis wrote:
>
> >
> > <Groan!>
> > Nick, if you think that speaking in tongues *is* the born again
> > experience then I've got some *really* good news for you!!! <vbg>
>
>
> The infilling of the Spirit with speaking in tongues is.
>
> What do *you* think it is ?
I think it's a turning to God (repentance). I think it's evidenced by a
change in life - with or without speaking in tongues which Paul made quite
clear was neither necessary for everyone and which was the least of all
the gifts. Of the experiences of the Holy Spirit I've had in my life so far
speaking in tongues has been the least life-changing experience (although I'm
open to possibilities).
What I dislike is this evangelism of discouragement that isn't even biblical.
(Yes, I know a lot of people here think I'm not biblical, but if one is
claiming to be one ought to read the whole thing.)
Pam
--
Posted from chrn.uk.wmmercer.com [193.129.100.146]
Peter Ould
news:fdfc13087ee742f2b55...@mygate.mailgate.org...
> "Nick Ashton" <amet...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:3C037581...@ntlworld.com...
>
> > Michael J Davis wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > <Groan!>
> > > Nick, if you think that speaking in tongues *is* the born again
> > > experience then I've got some *really* good news for you!!! <vbg>
> >
> >
> > The infilling of the Spirit with speaking in tongues is.
> >
> > What do *you* think it is ?
>
> I think it's a turning to God (repentance). I think it's evidenced by a
> change in life - with or without speaking in tongues which Paul made quite
> clear was neither necessary for everyone and which was the least of all
> the gifts. Of the experiences of the Holy Spirit I've had in my life so
far
> speaking in tongues has been the least life-changing experience (although
I'm
> open to possibilities).
>
all of the Christain life.
Are we to take it from your post that you *have* spoken in tongues at some
point Pam?
(A curious) Peter
Debbie at work
<philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
<snip>
>> 6) Those seeking membership of the church are encouraged to do an Alpha
>> course before proceeding to Beta and full membership.
>
>And then on to a theta, delta and epsilon?
I assume from this that theta is the fast track route and gamma is the
one no-one admits to needing to go to :-)
Debbie
Nick Ashton
>
> So, the apostles did indeed wait more than 6 weeks from knowing the need
> to receive the Spirit until preaching it...
>
I think you know why they waited.
Are you going to wait 6 weeks before telling someone who wants to know
what Christianity is about ?
Stephen Kingston
<amet...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
[. . .]
>. . . all of which
>confirms my belief that receiving the infilling of the Spirit,
>speaking in tongues is not some opptional but desirable extra for
>people that are already christians !
>.. . it *is* the born again experience !
Nick, you seem to have abandoned our conversation under the "Holy
Spirit experience..." thread in which I provided a refutation of this
position. I can understand why you might hold a different position on
this issue, but I think it is disingenous to break off a conversation
in one thread, just to make the very same disputed assertion in
another.
Remember our point at issue is that in John 20, Jesus breathes on his
disciples and says "receive the Holy Spirit". For you to argue that
Pentecost was the day on which the disciples became regenerate
Christians, you must argue that either John is in error in his report
(not an acceptable position for an evangelical), or that the disciples
did not receive the Spirit at this time (which is not really supported
by the context).
Further there are other examples of believers who had not "received
the Holy Spirit when [they] believed", and of disciples receiving
further fillings of the Spirit (c.f Acts 4).
*
I would also like to explore your own views further. It seems to me
that you have said two things:
1. An experience with the Holy Spirit is always evidenced by speaking
in tongues
2. The baptism with the Spirit is identified with regeneration.
If I have misunderstood you on either point, please now correct me.
Assuming I am correct in my understanding, then it follows that:
3. A Christian must be baptised in the Spirit. If they have not had
this experience then they are not regenerate, and thus are not
Christians.
4. All Christians must therefore have spoken in tongues at the moment
of Baptism with the Spirit. Thus, anyone who has not spoken in tongues
is not a regenerate Christian.
If this is indeed your position, then this appears to me to be
palpable nonsense. It would suggest, for instance, that neither John
Wesley, nor his brother Charles, nor George Whitefiled, nor Daniel
Rowland, nor William Williams Pantycelyn, nor John Newton were
Christians. And that is just for starters!
I think I must have misunderstood your position somewhere, but I am
not sure where.
>God and his apostles didn't wait 6 weeks to preach the need to receive
>the Holy Spirit !
The apostles tarried until they were imbued with power from on high,
and then they reaped the harvest on the day of Pentecost, the
celebration of the spring harvest.
They certainly did tarry. The only point of dispute is whether they
were regenerate prior to that.
Frankly, I do not see how they could not be called "believers" prior
to Pentecost, having met the risen Lord.
Was Paul a Christian before he went into the Arabian desert? (Where
God taught him much, we presume).
Regards,
Stephen
Peter Ould
news:9VIM7.20615$i37.3...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> > course before proceeding to Beta and full membership.
>
> And then on to a theta, delta and epsilon?
"I'm glad I'm not doing an Epsilon because they're terribly hard. I did a
Delta because that's what I'm good at. Besides, Epsilon is for the real
theologic brains.
As for those who only end up doing Theta, they can't manage a Delta so I
really don't want to play with them. On top of that they wear green all the
time, not just at Easter, and green is such a beastly colour. Then there are
those people who only manage Alpha or Beta. I feel really sorry for them and
they can only do little bits of singing and listen to sermons for less than
10 minutes.
Oh no, I did a Delta course. I'm glad I'm not doing an Epsilon because
they're ......."
Peter (Theta Plus & best pals with Mustapha Mond) Ould
Colin Bell
No. But I'll tell them what it _is_ about first, not what _you_ say it's
about.
Colin
Colin Bell
Oh no, that's the one that lets you see through the glass less darkly.
Very useful. Whereas delta promised to change my life, but only did so
by a very small amount, and there was almost nothing in the epsilon
course at all. Later ones in the series proved little better - the mu
course caused considerable friction between members of my church, so there
was enormous resistance to continuing on to omega. :-)
Colin
Sun Kitten
> > > course before proceeding to Beta and full membership.
> >
> > And then on to a theta, delta and epsilon?
>
> "I'm glad I'm not doing an Epsilon because they're terribly hard. I did a
> Delta because that's what I'm good at. Besides, Epsilon is for the real
> theologic brains.
>
> As for those who only end up doing Theta, they can't manage a Delta so I
> really don't want to play with them. On top of that they wear green all the
> time, not just at Easter, and green is such a beastly colour. Then there are
> those people who only manage Alpha or Beta. I feel really sorry for them and
> they can only do little bits of singing and listen to sermons for less than
> 10 minutes.
>
> Oh no, I did a Delta course. I'm glad I'm not doing an Epsilon because
> they're ......."
>
> Peter (Theta Plus & best pals with Mustapha Mond) Ould
... "A Brave New World"?
Morag
---
COGITO EGGO SUM -- I think, therefore I am a waffle
Richard Emblem
<amet...@ntlworld.com> writes:
>Michael J Davis wrote:
>
>>
>> <Groan!>
>> Nick, if you think that speaking in tongues *is* the born again
>> experience then I've got some *really* good news for you!!! <vbg>
>
>
>The infilling of the Spirit with speaking in tongues is.
Beware Hobby horse!
--
Richard Emblem
How good and pleasant it is
when God's people live in unity.
(Psalm 133:1)
_______________________
Ken Down
<amet...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> 2) The Bible is the authoritive word of God and in its original form is
> unfallible in matters of doctrine and teaching. Acceptable English
> translations are KJV and NIV.
Oooooer! Presumably the RSV is of the devil?
Nick Ashton
>
> No. But I'll tell them what it _is_ about first, not what _you_ say it's
> about.
So why aren't you going to wait 6 weeks ?
Michael J Davis
The Bible says not......Rev 1:8 ;~}
Michael J Davis
>> <Groan!>
>> Nick, if you think that speaking in tongues *is* the born again
>> experience then I've got some *really* good news for you!!! <vbg>
>
>The infilling of the Spirit with speaking in tongues is.
That's better. It's not what you said. :(
The experience of the Holy Spirit differs from person to person, but is
definitely to be encouraged. Remember though, why I started this thread.
I was concerned that the Alpha depicted on the TV seemed to push the
Holy Spirit at the expense of Jesus. (Note, *my* experience of Alpha is
not that, but the TV series seemed to.)
>What do *you* think it is ?
I can only encourage you to read my testimony, Nick.
>> >
>> >God and his apostles didn't wait 6 weeks to preach the need to receive
>> >the Holy Spirit !
>>
>> Did you all receive the Spirit when you first believed?
>
>No, most don't, that's why jesus tells the parable of persistently
>knocking
>- i.e. you are seeking something that you already believe is there
>(Luke 11:5-13)
>See also Acts 8:12-16, and also Paul's opening question:-
>
>Ac:19:2: He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye
>believed?
Which I was quoting......
>Some people have tried to change the word "since" to "because", which
>makes a nonsense of the precious 2 scriptures, also if we look at other
>scriptures that use the word "since" (Strongs no. 575) we see it's real
>meaning:-
Yes, I agree. We need to get back to the source.
Nick, I only have *one* disagreement with you, and that is that on the
primacy of tongues. I teach it, lead people into it and proclaim that
tongues are for all. But I don't deny the working of the Holy Spirit.
Relax, even if you can't agree with me. :-)
Nick Ashton
I do not believe the Spirit was given in John 20... I can only add
the following thought:-
*If* they received the Holy Spirit in John 20, why, after the gentiles
received the Spirit (Acts 10) did Peter say:-
Ac:11:17: 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?
.... referring to Pentecost.
As I ask mormons when they call round...how can you have received the
Holy
Spirit but not the *gift of* the Holy Spirit ?
Similarly, Acts 1 refers to Pentecost as receiving the Promise of the
Father,
and Eph.1:13 refers to receiving the Holy Spirit of promise...
is there a difference between receiving the Holy Spirit and receiving
the Holy Spirit of promise ?
>
> Further there are other examples of believers who had not "received
> the Holy Spirit when [they] believed", and of disciples receiving
> further fillings of the Spirit (c.f Acts 4).
I know there are examples of people NOT receiving the Spirit when
they believed... how was it known that they had not received the Spirit,
even though they believed ?
Further fillings occurred after they FIRST received theb Spirit &
spoke in tongues. The 2 things should not be confused.
>
> *
>
> I would also like to explore your own views further. It seems to me
> that you have said two things:
>
> 1. An experience with the Holy Spirit is always evidenced by speaking
> in tongues
No, I say that receiving the Spirit / "born again" / baptism in the
Spirit is always evidenced by tongues... for reasons already given.
>
> 2. The baptism with the Spirit is identified with regeneration.
Yes.
>
> 3. A Christian must be baptised in the Spirit. If they have not had
> this experience then they are not regenerate, and thus are not
> Christians.
Yes.
>
> 4. All Christians must therefore have spoken in tongues at the moment
> of Baptism with the Spirit. Thus, anyone who has not spoken in tongues
> is not a regenerate Christian.
Correct.
>
> If this is indeed your position, then this appears to me to be
> palpable nonsense. It would suggest, for instance, that neither John
> Wesley, nor his brother Charles, nor George Whitefiled, nor Daniel
> Rowland, nor William Williams Pantycelyn, nor John Newton were
> Christians. And that is just for starters!
I have the following quote, I think it's from Souers history of the
Christian church:-
John WESLEY, founder of the Methodist Church, defended speaking in
tongues, affirming that this manifestation of the Holy Spirit was in
operation in his day. He said "we seldom hear of them (the gifts)
after that fatal period when the Emperor Constantine called himself a
Christian and from a vain imagination of promoting the Christian cause
thereby heaped riches and power upon the Christians in general and in
particular upon the Christian clergy. From this time they almost
totally ceased, the cause was not, as has been vulgarly supposed,
because there is no more occasion for them because all the world became
Christian. This is a miserable mistake, not a twentieth part of it
was then nominally Christian. The real cause was: the lov of money,
almost all Christians, so called, had waxed cold. The Christians
had no more of the Spirit of Christ than the other heathen; the Son
of Man when he came to examine His Church would hardly find faith . . .
The grand reason why the miraculous gifts were so soon withdrawn was
not only that faith holiness was well-nigh lost, but that dry, formal,
orthodox men began to redicule whatever gifts they had not themselves.
and to decry them as either madness or impostures"
I don't know about the others, and I'm not going to base my faith on
what people at the time or since say about them.
>
> The apostles tarried until they were imbued with power from on high,
> and then they reaped the harvest on the day of Pentecost, the
> celebration of the spring harvest.
>
> They certainly did tarry. The only point of dispute is whether they
> were regenerate prior to that.
I mean they did not wait 6 weeks after the the Holy Spirit became
available.... unlike "Alpha" on tv.
>
> Frankly, I do not see how they could not be called "believers" prior
> to Pentecost, having met the risen Lord.
>
> Was Paul a Christian before he went into the Arabian desert? (Where
> God taught him much, we presume).
Yes he received the Spirit while with Ananias.
Nick Ashton
> I'm going to have to agree with Pam here. Tongues is not the be all and end
> all of the Christain life.
Yes, I agree with that (and always have).
Nick Ashton
> >The infilling of the Spirit with speaking in tongues is.
>
> That's better. It's not what you said. :(
I said:-
.. . . all of which
confirms my belief that receiving the infilling of the Spirit,
speaking in tongues is not some opptional but desirable extra for
people that are already christians !
... . it *is* the born again experience !
I think my use of the comma left ambiguity.
I should have put the word "with" instead.
>
> The experience of the Holy Spirit differs from person to person,
what about the experience of *receiving* the Holy Spirit ...
How do the scriptures sghow that this differs from person to person ?
> but is
> definitely to be encouraged. Remember though, why I started this thread.
> I was concerned that the Alpha depicted on the TV seemed to push the
> Holy Spirit at the expense of Jesus. (Note, *my* experience of Alpha is
> not that, but the TV series seemed to.)
I disagree...
I believe that they did NOT push the HS...at the expense of Jesus !
Without the Spirit you CANNOT know Jesus !
1Co:2:9: But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither
have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared
for them that love him.
1Co:2:10: But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the
Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
2Co:5:16: Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea,
though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we
him no more.
Joh:3:3: Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto
thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
>
> >What do *you* think it is ?
>
> I can only encourage you to read my testimony, Nick.
Could you identify when people in the scriptures got born again, and
extrapolate that to people today ?
>
> Nick, I only have *one* disagreement with you, and that is that on the
> primacy of tongues. I teach it, lead people into it and proclaim that
> tongues are for all. But I don't deny the working of the Holy Spirit.
Neither do I deny the working of the Holy Spirit before and after people
speak in tongues.
>
> Relax, even if you can't agree with me. :-)
My relaxedness does not depend on whether other people agree with me
Mike.
Colin Bell
For what? I'm going to tell them what they want to know and what, in my
best judgement, they ought to know, when they want or ought to know it.
Colin
Peter Ould
news:Pine.SOL.4.33.01112...@green.csi.cam.ac.uk...
Possibly........
Peter (Finally worked out why I always liked black) Ould
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.303 / Virus Database: 164 - Release Date: 24/11/2001
Gareth McCaughan
[Debbie Herring:]
>> I assume from this that theta is the fast track route and gamma is the
>> one no-one admits to needing to go to :-)
[Colin:]
> Oh no, that's the one that lets you see through the glass less darkly.
> Very useful. Whereas delta promised to change my life, but only did so
> by a very small amount, and there was almost nothing in the epsilon
> course at all. Later ones in the series proved little better - the mu
> course caused considerable friction between members of my church, so there
> was enormous resistance to continuing on to omega. :-)
Ow. You'll be telling us next that the pi course just went round
in circles. And there I was, thinking that the theta course might
be something to do with Scientology.
(In our church, the chap running the lambda course had a terrible
lisp, and the sigma course was too stressful all round.)
--
Gareth McCaughan Gareth.M...@pobox.com
.sig under construc
Stephen Kingston
ground in the first half of the post before, but in the second half of
the post, there is an interesting issue that needs to be addressed
(although maybe other readers of this group are aware of Nick's views
on this issue already).
On Tue, 27 Nov 2001 20:33:50 +0000, Nick Ashton
<amet...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> [I wrote:]
> . . .
>> 3. A Christian must be baptised in the Spirit. If they have not had
>> this experience then they are not regenerate, and thus are not
>> Christians.
>
>Yes.
>
>> 4. All Christians must therefore have spoken in tongues at the moment
>> of Baptism with the Spirit. Thus, anyone who has not spoken in tongues
>> is not a regenerate Christian.
>
>Correct.
>>
>> If this is indeed your position, then this appears to me to be
>> palpable nonsense. It would suggest, for instance, that neither John
>> Wesley, nor his brother Charles, nor George Whitefiled, nor Daniel
>> Rowland, nor William Williams Pantycelyn, nor John Newton were
>> Christians. And that is just for starters!
>
>I have the following quote, I think it's from Souers history of the
>Christian church:-
>
>John WESLEY, founder of the Methodist Church, defended speaking in
>tongues,
[rest of quote snipped]
Yes, John Wesley defended the speaking in tongues. One of his
ministers did so.
However, my point is that John Wesley *himself* never did speak in
tongues. He had an experience of the Holy Spirit, which he sometimes
identifies with regeneration, and sometimes with a second work of the
Holy Spirit, but he himself *never* spoke in tongues.
Thus, applying your view, we must conclude that John Wesley's
experience of God was false, and further, that he was not himself a
Christian.
Frankly, that view is unacceptable.
Further, it is equally unacceptable to suppose that only one minister
in the methodist revival was a Christian, and that none of the people
I listed above was themself a Christian.
It is unacceptable to suppose that from the Montanists to the
Irvingites, there was a period of over 1500 years when the number of
Christians could be counted on one hand.
It is unacceptable to suppose that Christian theology held by you (I
presume) to be orthodox, on issues such as the Trinity, the canon of
Scripture, Christology and so forth must have been formulated through
the machinations of non Christians.
Bringing this bang up to date, it is unacceptable to suggest that
believers in the church who know Christ is their saviour, believe God
raised him from the dead and worship him with their mouths, working
for him day in and day out, out of love for him, - it is unacceptable
to say these people are not Christians.
>> The apostles tarried until they were imbued with power from on high,
>> and then they reaped the harvest on the day of Pentecost, the
>> celebration of the spring harvest.
>>
>> They certainly did tarry. The only point of dispute is whether they
>> were regenerate prior to that.
>
>I mean they did not wait 6 weeks after the the Holy Spirit became
>available.... unlike "Alpha" on tv.
I personally do not like the Alpha structure, with its strong
charismatic bias, but it seems to me that the *order* is quite right.
People do not become Christians on the first week. They must learn
about what Christ has done for them, and the gospel presentation is
split over many sessions. At some point, God may so call them that
they respond and become Christians.
Would you prefer that we talk about the Holy Spirit first, get them
speaking in tongues, and then tell them what Christ has done for them?
How would that be an improvement?
>> Frankly, I do not see how they could not be called "believers" prior
>> to Pentecost, having met the risen Lord.
>>
>> Was Paul a Christian before he went into the Arabian desert? (Where
>> God taught him much, we presume).
>
>Yes he received the Spirit while with Ananias.
Thus we see that Paul, who was converted by his encounter with the
risen Lord on the Damascus road, then went to Ananias, who prayed for
him, and he received a filling of the Holy Spirit. The work of
conversion began with his regeneration on the road. The filling of the
Spirit took place later.
*
>I ceased the discussion because I had already given my reasons why
>I do not believe the Spirit was given in John 20...
Your stated purpose of responding to me was that "[you are] seeking to
fill what [you] believe is a gap in [my] understanding". Nevertheless,
when I provided a refutation for your points, e.g.:
1. The resurrection of Christ was indeed to his *glory*, not his
*shame*, as you had suggested.
2. We should not decide what we think before starting to read
scripture, but should let the scripture speak to us.
You nevertheless failed to respond. I thus presumed you had no answer
to these points, and see no reason to fill the "gap" in my
understanding with your interpretation.
> I can only add
>the following thought:-
Perhaps you could reply to my points before simply adding more.
>*If* they received the Holy Spirit in John 20, why, after the gentiles
>received the Spirit (Acts 10) did Peter say:-
>
>Ac:11:17: 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?
>
>.... referring to Pentecost.
This does not preclude a different work of the Holy Spirit in
regeneration, just as a gift of faith, as described in 1 Corinthians
12 does not preclude the faith given by God to all believers.
>is there a difference between receiving the Holy Spirit and receiving
>the Holy Spirit of promise ?
There appear to be two works of the Holy Spirit. Regeneration and a
later work - a filling with the Spirit as at Pentecost, and as Paul
received following the laying on of hands by Ananias.
This is, of course, just a restatement of my view, just as your
question above is a restatement of your view. You provided no argument
here to actually support the view that there is but one work of the
Spirit.
>> Further there are other examples of believers who had not "received
>> the Holy Spirit when [they] believed", and of disciples receiving
>> further fillings of the Spirit (c.f Acts 4).
>
>I know there are examples of people NOT receiving the Spirit when
>they believed... how was it known that they had not received the Spirit,
>even though they believed ?
Possibly through the gift of tongues. (That is the argument from
silence). It is also possible that Paul spent a little time with them
and noticed a lack of passion, or noted that they did not speak of the
reality of the comfort, counsel and conviction that the Holy Spirit
can bring to the new believer. There are probably other possibilities
too.
>Further fillings occurred after they FIRST received theb Spirit &
>spoke in tongues. The 2 things should not be confused.
I agree that further fillings occured after the one at Pentecost, but
my point is that there is therefore no reason to insist that the
filling at Pentecost was the act of regeneration, because that would
suggest the disciples were becoming unregenerate each time they needed
a new filling from on high.
Regards,
Stephen
Stephen Kingston
I don't know how you *can* agree with that, when you also say that one
may not be a Christian if they have not spoken in tongues.
Regards,
Stephen
Pam
news:vsNM7.82421$JZ3.234444@NewsReader...
Peter:
> I'm going to have to agree with Pam here. Tongues is not the be all and end
> all of the Christain life.
I'm going to mark this date in my diary! :>0 :>)
> Are we to take it from your post that you *have* spoken in tongues at some
> point Pam?
>
> (A curious) Peter
Yes. I followed the "instructions" in the Alpha course to ask for tongues and
start speaking. As I said, I found it the least life-changing manifestation
of the Holy Spirit that I've experienced, but I *have* found it uniquely
helpful on two particular occasions. As part of my prayer-time, I try to
regularly have silent prayer in addition to "spoken/wordy" prayer. I try to
both send my unspoken petitions to God as well as to listen to what God wants
to tell me. The two particular times that tongues have been especially
useful was when I was too agitated to either form my own words or to be silent.
Otherwise, the combination of wordy and silent prayer works well for me. For
me, I see the silent prayer as a way of allowing the Holy Spirit to "groan"
on my behalf and I always ask the Holy Spirit to pray for me for that which
I don't know that I need.
I have never felt led to speak in tongues in public, so I have not done so.
I expect that God will let me know if he wants me to because he usually
manages to eventually let me know what he wants even if I don't listen the
first five or six times! For some reason, I don't think this is ever actually
something he's going to ask me to do, but God has been know to be surprising
before! So "never say never".
Blessings,
Nick Ashton
> >
> >> I'm going to have to agree with Pam here. Tongues is not the be all and end
> >> all of the Christain life.
> >
> >Yes, I agree with that (and always have).
>
> I don't know how you *can* agree with that, when you also say that one
> may not be a Christian if they have not spoken in tongues.
>
> Regards,
> Stephen
Eating is a neccessary *part* of life, but there is more to life than
food.
Tongues is means to the end, not the end itself. At the end, tongues
shall
cease.
Nick Ashton
> best judgement, they ought to know, when they want or ought to know it.
>
> Colin
That's my attitude too.
Peter Ould
Pam,
That's fantastic to hear. This of course means one of three things:
i) That you're obviously in the "in-crowd" as you have the gift - the next
person who calls you a "liberal" will get me coming round to beat them up (I
call this the "Nick Ashton" argument).
OR
ii) There is such a thing as a "Charismatic Liberal".... (I call this the
"Whatever next?" argument)
OR
iii) You have been deceived like all the Charismatics, there is no such
thing as speaking in tongues these days and in fact you have been possessed
by the devil. (I call this the "Ebenezer Wesleyan Reform Splinter KJV Only
Cessasionist Double-Predestination Post-Dispensationalist Mid-Tribulation
with a Cherry on Top Chapel" argument.)
Michael J Davis
>
>> >The infilling of the Spirit with speaking in tongues is.
>>
>> That's better. It's not what you said. :(
>I said:-
>
>.. . . all of which
>confirms my belief that receiving the infilling of the Spirit,
>speaking in tongues is not some opptional but desirable extra for
>people that are already christians !
>... . it *is* the born again experience !
>
>I think my use of the comma left ambiguity.
>I should have put the word "with" instead.
Yes. :-)
[snip stuff we've done before]
>
>> but is
>> definitely to be encouraged. Remember though, why I started this thread.
>> I was concerned that the Alpha depicted on the TV seemed to push the
>> Holy Spirit at the expense of Jesus. (Note, *my* experience of Alpha is
>> not that, but the TV series seemed to.)
>
>I disagree...
>I believe that they did NOT push the HS...at the expense of Jesus !
OK. At the end all we are discussing is what we observed from the
selective editing of the course.
>Without the Spirit you CANNOT know Jesus !
see [1]
>
Sorry, Nick, I am happy about these verses, but cannot see that they
confirm your statement.
>1Co:2:9:
>1Co:2:10:
>2Co:5:16:
>Joh:3:3:
>>
>> >What do *you* think it is ?
>>
>> I can only encourage you to read my testimony, Nick.
>
>Could you identify when people in the scriptures got born again, and
>extrapolate that to people today ?
I think I can, but we've been there before, too, Nick.
>>
>> Nick, I only have *one* disagreement with you, and that is that on the
>> primacy of tongues. I teach it, lead people into it and proclaim that
>> tongues are for all. But I don't deny the working of the Holy Spirit.
>
>Neither do I deny the working of the Holy Spirit before and after people
>speak in tongues.
[1] Now we're nearer agreement! If you accept that it is the Spirit
working in us that brings us into relationship with Jesus, and continues
to help us grow in our relationship with Jesus (rather than making it
just a one off experience) then I am more confident in your approach.
>
>> Relax, even if you can't agree with me. :-)
>
>My relaxedness does not depend on whether other people agree with me
>Mike.
Good. In which case, just relax! :-)
Blessings
Mike
--
Michael J Davis
Personal email replies may be made to mi...@trustsof.demon.co.uk
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| "These men are not drunk as you imagine, It just happens |
| there's a language school in the local pub!" not Acts 2:15 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
Michael J Davis
>Christian church:-
>
>John WESLEY, founder of the Methodist Church, defended speaking in
>tongues, affirming that this manifestation of the Holy Spirit was in
>operation in his day. He said "we seldom hear of them (the gifts)
>after that fatal period when the Emperor Constantine called himself a
>Christian and from a vain imagination of promoting the Christian cause
>thereby heaped riches and power upon the Christians in general and in
>particular upon the Christian clergy. From this time they almost
>totally ceased, the cause was not, as has been vulgarly supposed,
>because there is no more occasion for them because all the world became
>Christian. This is a miserable mistake, not a twentieth part of it
>was then nominally Christian. The real cause was: the lov of money,
>almost all Christians, so called, had waxed cold. The Christians
>had no more of the Spirit of Christ than the other heathen; the Son
>of Man when he came to examine His Church would hardly find faith . . .
>The grand reason why the miraculous gifts were so soon withdrawn was
>not only that faith holiness was well-nigh lost, but that dry, formal,
>orthodox men began to redicule whatever gifts they had not themselves.
>and to decry them as either madness or impostures"
Nick, can you quote the original source of that, please? (i.e. in
Wesley's writings). Apart from the fact that he is wrong about the
cessation of tongues (although the use of the word "almost" becomes a
let out), he shows he is also ignorant of the "miraculous gifts" which
had been in evidence throughout the history of the church, but were
attributed to "superstition" by the post reformers. It is my
understanding that he was better informed by the time he died.
Blessings
Mike
--
Michael J Davis
Personal email replies may be made to mi...@trustsof.demon.co.uk
<><
Nick Ashton
in your source ?
Nick Ashton
>
> [1] Now we're nearer agreement! If you accept that it is the Spirit
> working in us that brings us into relationship with Jesus, and continues
> to help us grow in our relationship with Jesus (rather than making it
> just a one off experience) then I am more confident in your approach.
The Spirit works on people to convict them of their need for Him.
He shows them God's goodness, people can receive answered prayer,
healings, direction etc but this does not mean the Spirit is "in" them.
- Nick
Pam Seeker
Peter:
> That's fantastic to hear. This of course means one of three things:
I have to confess that your response below totally flummoxes me. Could you
please translate your three points into something that verges on a view?
Blessings,
Pam
> i) That you're obviously in the "in-crowd" as you have the gift - the next
> person who calls you a "liberal" will get me coming round to beat them up (I
> call this the "Nick Ashton" argument).
>
> OR
>
> ii) There is such a thing as a "Charismatic Liberal".... (I call this the
> "Whatever next?" argument)
>
> OR
>
> iii) You have been deceived like all the Charismatics, there is no such
> thing as speaking in tongues these days and in fact you have been possessed
> by the devil. (I call this the "Ebenezer Wesleyan Reform Splinter KJV Only
> Cessasionist Double-Predestination Post-Dispensationalist Mid-Tribulation
> with a Cherry on Top Chapel" argument.)
Nick Ashton
>
> Thus, applying your view, we must conclude that John Wesley's
> experience of God was false, and further, that he was not himself a
> Christian.
No, people, myself included have true experiences of God before they
receive the Spirit (become "Christian") and speak in tongues
>
> Frankly, that view is unacceptable.
>
> Further, it is equally unacceptable to suppose that only one minister
> in the methodist revival was a Christian, and that none of the people
> I listed above was themself a Christian.
>
> It is unacceptable to suppose that from the Montanists to the
> Irvingites, there was a period of over 1500 years when the number of
> Christians could be counted on one hand.
I have the following information:-
IRENAEUS (A.D. 115 to 202) a pupil of Polycarp (A.D. 70-155), who was
himself a disciple of the Apostle John, wrote: "in like manner do we
also hear many brethren in the Church who possess prophetic gifts, and
who through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages, and bring to light
for the general benefit the hidden things of men and declare the
mysteries of God, whom also the apostle terms 'spiritual', they being
spiritual because they partake of the Spirit".
JUSTIN MARTYR (A.D.. 100-165) wrote that in his time the gifts of the
Spirit were active and operating in the Church.
TERTULLIAN (A.D. 160-220), according to Smith' dictionary of the Bible,
speaks in his writings of the gifts of the Spirit, including speaking
with tongues, as being manifested in his day.
OREGON (A.D. 186-253) and Cyprian (A.D. 200-258), his contemporaries,
give the same testimony.
PHILIP SCHAFF, in his classic History of the Christian Church affirms:
"The speaking with tongues, however, was not confined to the day of
Pentecost, together with the other extraordinary spiritual gifts ...
this gift also perpetuated itself in the Church. We find traces of it
still in the second and third centuries."
Many authorities quote AUGUSTINE, Bishop of Hippo, (A.D. 354-430): "We
still do what the apostles did when they laid hands on the Samaritans
and called down the Holy Spirit on them by the laying on of hands. It is
expected that converts should speak with new tongues."
Sir John CHRYSOSTOM (A.D. 347-407), who was Archbishop of Constantinople
until banished in the year 403, because of his attacks on immorality,
wrote: "Whoever was baptised in apostolic days, he straightway spake
with tongues, for since on their moving over from idols, without any
clear knowledge or training in the scriptures, they at once received the
Spirit; not that they saw the Spirit, for He is invisible, but God's
grace bestowed some sensible proof of His evergy ... and one straightway
spake in the Persian language, another in the Roman, another in the
Indian, another in some other tongue, and this made manifest to them
that
were without that it was the Spirit in the very person speaking."
Many contend that the great leader of the Reformation, Martin LUTHER,
was baptised in the Holy Spirit, and had the manifestations of the Holy
Spirit operating in his life and ministry. In History of the Christian
Church (1859) Dr T Souer (Ph.D.) writes: "Dr Martin Luther was a
prophet, evangelist, speaker in tongues and interpreter, in one person,
endowed with all the gifts of grace."
>
> It is unacceptable to suppose that Christian theology held by you (I
> presume) to be orthodox, on issues such as the Trinity, the canon of
> Scripture, Christology and so forth must have been formulated through
> the machinations of non Christians.
>
> Bringing this bang up to date, it is unacceptable to suggest that
> believers in the church who know Christ is their saviour, believe God
> raised him from the dead and worship him with their mouths, working
> for him day in and day out, out of love for him, - it is unacceptable
> to say these people are not Christians.
OK Stephen, you don't accept what I believe... we'll both just have to
live with that.
Jesus did warn that "many" will come to Him saying "Lord, Lord... we ate
& drank in your presence, you taught in our streets, we fed, clothed,
visited people, prophesied in your name etc
.... but they will be rejected
.... these people are "church-goers" not atheists !
>
> I personally do not like the Alpha structure, with its strong
> charismatic bias, but it seems to me that the *order* is quite right.
>
> People do not become Christians on the first week. They must learn
> about what Christ has done for them, and the gospel presentation is
> split over many sessions. At some point, God may so call them that
> they respond and become Christians.
>
> Would you prefer that we talk about the Holy Spirit first, get them
> speaking in tongues, and then tell them what Christ has done for them?
>
> How would that be an improvement?
Jesus died so that they could receive the New Life / The Spirit
(Galatians 3:13-14). Until people see the new life they have litle
appreciation of what Christ has done for them !
I saw the difference it made to others, it then took me a while to
realise I was getting nowhere spiritually without it, then I started
seriously praying to receive the same.
We spend a while testifying of the new life, some people respond quickly
(maybe they have already been through some life experiences that have
shown them their need for whatever God has to offer), others take more
time or perhaps never accept.
I see the same thing happening in Acts.
>
> Thus we see that Paul, who was converted by his encounter with the
> risen Lord on the Damascus road, then went to Ananias, who prayed for
> him, and he received a filling of the Holy Spirit. The work of
> conversion began with his regeneration on the road. The filling of the
> Spirit took place later.
He was converted to being a believer on the road, but he was not
converted
to being a son of God / born again until he was at Ananias' house.
Ac:3:19: Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be
blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence
of the Lord;
At Ananias' house, Paul was told to:-
Ac:22:16: And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash
away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
Similarly, Peter believed that Jesus was the Lord, but according to
Jesus,
he was not yet converted... until Pentecost:-
Lu:22:32: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when
thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.
Paul was NOT "regenerated" before he was infilled by the Spirit.
>
> 1. The resurrection of Christ was indeed to his *glory*, not his
> *shame*, as you had suggested.
Isa:50:6: I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that
plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting.
>
> 2. We should not decide what we think before starting to read
> scripture, but should let the scripture speak to us.
>
> You nevertheless failed to respond. I thus presumed you had no answer
> to these points, and see no reason to fill the "gap" in my
> understanding with your interpretation.
I already gave scriptural reasons why the Spirit was not given in John
20,
and then again to the same people in Acts 2.
You seem to be basing the whole thing on the fact that Jesus told Mary
not to touch him, but told thomes to thrust his hand in his side, I have
already shown that these are very different concepts.
>
> This does not preclude a different work of the Holy Spirit in
> regeneration, just as a gift of faith, as described in 1 Corinthians
> 12 does not preclude the faith given by God to all believers.
Notice that the baptism in the Spirit is not in "the gifts", in fact
this passage says:-
1Co: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.
Your doctrine says you can be a Christian and NOT baptised in the
Spirit,
which according to the above scripture means they are not in the body !
If a person is "regenerated", they are a new creature, complete in
Christ,
they do not need to receive power because they already have the Spirit
of power, love and sound mind.
Your idea that they lack something and need the baptism in the Spirit
undermines this.
So Stephen, are you saying that you can receive the Holy Spirit but
still need to receive "the gift of the Holy Spirit" ?
>
> >> Further there are other examples of believers who had not "received
> >> the Holy Spirit when [they] believed", and of disciples receiving
> >> further fillings of the Spirit (c.f Acts 4).
> >
> >I know there are examples of people NOT receiving the Spirit when
> >they believed... how was it known that they had not received the Spirit,
> >even though they believed ?
>
> Possibly through the gift of tongues. (That is the argument from
> silence). It is also possible that Paul spent a little time with them
> and noticed a lack of passion, or noted that they did not speak of the
> reality of the comfort, counsel and conviction that the Holy Spirit
> can bring to the new believer. There are probably other possibilities
> too.
In Acts 8 there was no lack of passion, AND when they received the
Spirit
they all knew straightaway (even the non-Christian Simon the sorceror) -
without any time taken to see if they spoke of "the reality of the
comfort, counsel and conviction that the Holy Spirit".
So, is there a way that God isn't telling us about, OR is there ONE way
that God *is* telling us about ?
3 Other accounts describe how they knew straightwaway when people
received
the Spirit (Acts 2, 10, 19). If there is another way of knowing, why is
it never offered or suggested ?
God gave them all the sign of tongues, why would he start dealing
differently ?
"God is no respecter of persons".
>
> >Further fillings occurred after they FIRST received theb Spirit &
> >spoke in tongues. The 2 things should not be confused.
>
> I agree that further fillings occured after the one at Pentecost, but
> my point is that there is therefore no reason to insist that the
> filling at Pentecost was the act of regeneration, because that would
> suggest the disciples were becoming unregenerate each time they needed
> a new filling from on high.
No, further fillings are not re-receiving the Spirit from on high,
they are making full use of what has already been received, as paul said
to Timothy:-
2Tm:1:6: Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift
of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands.
Eph:5:18: And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled
with the Spirit;
- Nick
Peter Ould
news:2eede6b991f1fc76777...@mygate.mailgate.org...
> "Peter Ould" <peter...@credit-scoring.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:C%3N7.84708$JZ3.258302@NewsReader...
>
> Peter:
>
> > That's fantastic to hear. This of course means one of three things:
>
> I have to confess that your response below totally flummoxes me. Could
you
> please translate your three points into something that verges on a view?
>
> Blessings,
> Pam
I was hoping you'd pick up the humour??
Peter
Steven Carr
news:7RLM7.17950$fa1.3...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> "David Ould" <ma...@davidould.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:9tom4g$4am$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > there was a very frightening moment at the end where one of the members
> said
> > "I've been saved".
> > They were then asked "what have you been saved from?"
> > to which the answer was "I don't know"!
> LOL! I wish I had seen it.
Wasn't the person saved from the wrath of God?
Steven Carr
--
Posted from [195.243.112.11]
Sun Kitten
> > believers in the church who know Christ is their saviour, believe God
> > raised him from the dead and worship him with their mouths, working
> > for him day in and day out, out of love for him, - it is unacceptable
> > to say these people are not Christians.
>
>
> OK Stephen, you don't accept what I believe... we'll both just have to
> live with that.
>
> Jesus did warn that "many" will come to Him saying "Lord, Lord... we ate
> & drank in your presence, you taught in our streets, we fed, clothed,
> visited people, prophesied in your name etc
> .... but they will be rejected
>
> .... these people are "church-goers" not atheists !
There are a number of things I want to ask you now, Nick.
First, I thought the requirements for being saved were to follow Jesus. To
have a personal relationship with him. I further thought that Jesus does
not let those who seek go unanswered, nor can I imagine someone praying to
him to be accepted and forgiven, and Jesus not answering that prayer. A
long time ago, I prayed that he would be mine. I have called myself a
Christian for 18 years. I have never spoken in tongues. Does that make me
a liar (since I have called myself a Christian) and does that mean my
prayers to him have gone unnoticed and that he is ignoring me? Why would
he do that? What did I do?
FWIW, I have prayed for the gift of tongues - twice. Both times, I came
away with the feeling that while it would be nice, it is not necessary or
it is not the right time as yet. Why would God ignore me when I have
sincerely come to him and asked him for these things? Why should I be
condemned and given no chance to belong to him? What should I do that I
have not already done to ask to be part of his kingdom?
Secondly, I was under the impression - not got precisely from any part of
the Bible - that it is not possible for any of us to point at someone and
say, 'You are not saved' (or, conversely, 'you are saved'). To insist upon
proof of salvation - whatever the proof - allows a dangerous exclusivity
into Christianity and surely does not fit with Jesus' love, which is far
bigger than any of us can imagine. Often, the only way I have reassured
myself that I *am* saved is that I *know* I meant what I said when I first
asked Jesus to be mine, and the many times since, and he has promised he
will not let an earnest seeker down. How then, can I rely on that promise
if I haven't got the necessary qualifications?
You cannot condemn people you don't know. You can't even condemn those you
do know. The only thing we can rely on is God - and he is all we need to
rely on. I know I am saved by virtue of his promises in his word. You say
I should be speaking in tongues. I am not.
Can you resolve the conflict? And if I do need to speak in tongues in
order to be counted as saved, can you tell me the right prayer to pray and
the right buttons to push? I kind of thought that if I prayed and God
said 'no', or 'not yet', then that was that and I should trust his
judgement on these things. Obviously that is not the case here. What do I
do, then, to receive this gift that I may be saved? Why is God not
listening to me?
I'll stop now before I repeat myself too much.
Morag
---
"I ... believe in the secret geometries, and in the colours on the edge of
light, and in the marvellous in everything."
-- Leonard of Quirm, 'The Last Hero', TP
Pam Seeker
Peter:
I think I felt that I said something very personal and somewhat vulnerable.
I picked up the humour and probably should have acknowledged it, but now I
feel a bit like I was an idiot to say something that personal in the first
place.
Blessings,
Pam
Peter Ould
> "Peter Ould" <peter...@credit-scoring.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:5L5N7.84928$JZ3.261968@NewsReader...
>
> > "Pam Seeker" <seek...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:2eede6b991f1fc76777...@mygate.mailgate.org...
> > > "Peter Ould" <peter...@credit-scoring.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:C%3N7.84708$JZ3.258302@NewsReader...
> > >
> > > Peter:
> > >
> > > > That's fantastic to hear. This of course means one of three things:
> > >
> > > I have to confess that your response below totally flummoxes me.
Could
> > you
> > > please translate your three points into something that verges on a
view?
> > >
> > > Blessings,
> > > Pam
> >
> > I was hoping you'd pick up the humour??
> >
> > Peter
>
> Peter:
>
> I think I felt that I said something very personal and somewhat
vulnerable.
> I picked up the humour and probably should have acknowledged it, but now I
> feel a bit like I was an idiot to say something that personal in the first
> place.
No, I really appreciated what you said and thought it was great. My post was
actually:
i) A gentle dig at those "fundies" who might lable you as "not-christian"
ii) A gentle dig at those in the church who tend to be terribly legalistic
about most things
Perhaps I'm the idiot for being so obtuse??
Peter
>
> Blessings,
> Pam
>
Stephen Kingston
<amet...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>Stephen Kingston wrote:
>> Thus, applying your view, we must conclude that John Wesley's
>> experience of God was false, and further, that he was not himself a
>> Christian.
>
>No, people, myself included have true experiences of God before they
>receive the Spirit (become "Christian") and speak in tongues
But the fact remains that Wesley never spoke in tongues, so you argue
that he was never a Christian.
As I said before:
>> Frankly, that view is unacceptable.
. . .
>> It is unacceptable to suppose that from the Montanists to the
>> Irvingites, there was a period of over 1500 years when the number of
>> Christians could be counted on one hand.
>
>I have the following information:-
>
>IRENAEUS (A.D. 115 to 202) a pupil of Polycarp (A.D. 70-155),
This is prior to the timeframe I mentioned, and I don't know why you
think I am not aware of these claims. If you would care to add up some
numbers, and you note that the Irvingites were a 19th century sect,
then subtracting 1500 years, you get back to the fourth century.
Montanist influences persisted into the 4th century, primarily under
the influence of Tertullian (born about 150 AD, and became a Montanist
in 202/203... i.e., after the death of Irenaeus).
>JUSTIN MARTYR (A.D.. 100-165)
A pre montanist
>TERTULLIAN (A.D. 160-220),
Became a montanist
>OREGON (A.D. 186-253) and Cyprian (A.D. 200-258), his contemporaries,
>give the same testimony.
Overlapped Montanism
>PHILIP SCHAFF, in his classic History of the Christian Church affirms:
>"The speaking with tongues, however, was not confined to the day of
>Pentecost, together with the other extraordinary spiritual gifts ...
>this gift also perpetuated itself in the Church. We find traces of it
>still in the second and third centuries."
He speaks primarily of Montanism.
*
Thus all your evidence thus far does not touch on my point, which I
repeat: why, after the death of Montanism, and before the Irvingites,
should we expect that the number of true Christians in the Church to
be vanishingly small? Why should we accept that the doctrines we hold
to be orthodox were formulated by non Christians? And why should we
accept those doctrines if that were the case?
>Many authorities quote AUGUSTINE, Bishop of Hippo, (A.D. 354-430): "We
>still do what the apostles did when they laid hands on the Samaritans
>and called down the Holy Spirit on them by the laying on of hands. It is
>expected that converts should speak with new tongues."
Please provide a source for this. I cannot find this quote in any of
the works of Augustine.
>Sir John CHRYSOSTOM (A.D. 347-407),
Sir?
Anyway, I have deleted this quote because he does not describe what
was happening then, but what happened in apostolic days. He never says
that *he* spoke in tongues.
>
>Many contend that the great leader of the Reformation, Martin LUTHER,
>was baptised in the Holy Spirit, and had the manifestations of the Holy
>Spirit operating in his life and ministry. In History of the Christian
>Church (1859) Dr T Souer (Ph.D.) writes: "Dr Martin Luther was a
>prophet, evangelist, speaker in tongues and interpreter, in one person,
>endowed with all the gifts of grace."
They may contend this, but the claim appears to be spurious.
Luther wrote:
"Also the fool doesn't understand St. Paul's words correctly when he
writes of speaking with tongues (I Cor. 14 [:2-29]). For St. Paul
writes of the office of preaching in the congregation, to which it is
to listen an to learn from it, when he says: Whoever comes forward,
and wants to read, teach, or preach, and yet speaks with tongues, that
is, speaks *Latin* instead of German, or some unknown language, he is
to be silent and preach to himself alone. "
[emphasis is mine]
From "Luther's Works", volume 40.
Luther regarded the speaking of Latin as tongues speaking it seems.
>> It is unacceptable to suppose that Christian theology held by you (I
>> presume) to be orthodox, on issues such as the Trinity, the canon of
>> Scripture, Christology and so forth must have been formulated through
>> the machinations of non Christians.
>>
>> Bringing this bang up to date, it is unacceptable to suggest that
>> believers in the church who know Christ is their saviour, believe God
>> raised him from the dead and worship him with their mouths, working
>> for him day in and day out, out of love for him, - it is unacceptable
>> to say these people are not Christians.
>
>OK Stephen, you don't accept what I believe... we'll both just have to
>live with that.
Clearly we can live with disagreement, but the purpose of debate, and
the benefit of a forum such as this is that we can test what we
believe and try to enhance and deepen our understanding .
If you decide you do not wish to debate the point further then sobeit,
but you should not then re-assert your point of view, as if the matter
is settled. Clearly there is considerable doubt over the issue, and
your error is, I think, a dangerous one, because it suggests that
those who are saved by grace, through faith are not Christians, simply
because they have not spoken in what you understand to be other
tongues.
>Jesus did warn that "many" will come to Him saying "Lord, Lord... we ate
>& drank in your presence, you taught in our streets, we fed, clothed,
>visited people, prophesied in your name etc
>.... but they will be rejected
>
>.... these people are "church-goers" not atheists !
Yes, and tongues speakers to boot.
>> Would you prefer that we talk about the Holy Spirit first, get them
>> speaking in tongues, and then tell them what Christ has done for them?
>>
>> How would that be an improvement?
>
>
>Jesus died so that they could receive the New Life / The Spirit
>(Galatians 3:13-14). Until people see the new life they have litle
>appreciation of what Christ has done for them !
>
>I saw the difference it made to others, it then took me a while to
>realise I was getting nowhere spiritually without it, then I started
>seriously praying to receive the same.
Why should I lend special credence to your testimony over the
testimony of some great Christian, such as Howell Harries, for
instance?
I do not doubt your experience, but I think you will find that a range
of theological positions can adopt your testimony without difficulty.
>> Thus we see that Paul, who was converted by his encounter with the
>> risen Lord on the Damascus road, then went to Ananias, who prayed for
>> him, and he received a filling of the Holy Spirit. The work of
>> conversion began with his regeneration on the road. The filling of the
>> Spirit took place later.
>
>
>He was converted to being a believer on the road, but he was not
>converted to being a son of God / born again until he was at Ananias' house.
In my Bible, John 3:16 reads:
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that
whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
So how can someone be a believer and *not* a Christian?
Ah, you say, but what about the devil, who believes and trembles.
We also read Paul's response on the Damascus road:
'"Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked'
And then Paul writes some years later:
'Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God
says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except
by the Holy Spirit.'
Paul knew at once he was speaking to the risen Lord. The question was
not necessary - he had already answered it when he asked 'who are you,
LORD?'.
And yet, he could not have said that Jesus is Lord, unless he spoke by
the Spirit of God.
And the same is true of many other Christians down through history who
have said that Jesus is Lord, and proclaimed the truth of their
proclamation in their hearts with their lives. These people make this
proclamation by the Holy Spirit.
>Similarly, Peter believed that Jesus was the Lord, but according to
>Jesus,
>he was not yet converted... until Pentecost:-
>Lu:22:32: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when
>thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.
Oh dear. You should really look these passages up in several versions.
NIV:
But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And
when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers."
RSV:
but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you
have turned again, strengthen your brethren."
Youngs (literal):
and I besought for thee, that thy faith may not fail; and thou, when
thou didst turn, strengthen thy brethren.'
The AV wording is leading you astray.
Note that Jesus speaks of Simon Peter's faith - that it will not fail.
He speaks of a time of doubt. He has prayed for Peter, that after that
time of doubt, he will turn back, be restored and strengthen his
brothers, because his faith will have not failed.
>Paul was NOT "regenerated" before he was infilled by the Spirit.
The Biblical account suggests otherwise.
>> 1. The resurrection of Christ was indeed to his *glory*, not his
>> *shame*, as you had suggested.
>
>Isa:50:6: I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that
>plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting.
This refers to his death on the cross, but not his ressurection -
which was to his glory.
>> 2. We should not decide what we think before starting to read
>> scripture, but should let the scripture speak to us.
>>
>> You nevertheless failed to respond. I thus presumed you had no answer
>> to these points, and see no reason to fill the "gap" in my
>> understanding with your interpretation.
>
>I already gave scriptural reasons why the Spirit was not given in John
>20,
You quoted scripture, but your exegesis was lacking, and there were
many unanswered points.
>and then again to the same people in Acts 2.
>You seem to be basing the whole thing on the fact that Jesus told Mary
>not to touch him, but told thomes to thrust his hand in his side, I have
>already shown that these are very different concepts.
No, I do not base the whole thing on that. However, it does work
around an apparent incongruity between the understanding of John and
the understanding of Luke.
As for your explanation: I showed you that you were relying too
heavily on a single version of the Bible. The NIV does indeed suggest
that Jesus said "do not hold on to me", but the wording is actually
"do not touch me", which is the same word used when Thomas was allowed
to touch Jesus' hands.
>> This does not preclude a different work of the Holy Spirit in
>> regeneration, just as a gift of faith, as described in 1 Corinthians
>> 12 does not preclude the faith given by God to all believers.
>
>Notice that the baptism in the Spirit is not in "the gifts", in fact
>this passage says:-
>1Co: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.
>
>Your doctrine says you can be a Christian and NOT baptised in the
>Spirit,
I understand this verse to be saying that it is by the work of the one
Spirit in regeneration that we are all Christians, and thus baptised
into one body - through baptims into the Christian Church.
I know of several other interpretations of the same verse, but again,
this does not preclude a seperate work of the Holy SPirit beyond
regeneration.
>which according to the above scripture means they are not in the body !
>
>If a person is "regenerated", they are a new creature, complete in
>Christ,
>they do not need to receive power because they already have the Spirit
>of power, love and sound mind.
>
>Your idea that they lack something and need the baptism in the Spirit
>undermines this.
No. I am a Christian and I need much from God, including the power of
His Spirit if I am to be succesful in ministry.
>In Acts 8 there was no lack of passion, AND when they received the
>Spirit they all knew straightaway (even the non-Christian Simon the sorceror) -
>without any time taken to see if they spoke of "the reality of the
>comfort, counsel and conviction that the Holy Spirit".
You are not reading the passage.
Simon followed Philip because of the miraculous signs he did (no
reason to suppose this was limited to tongues speaking). He went
through the motions of conversion, even getting baptised, and
continued to follow Philip around.
When Peter and John arrived from Jerusalem, Simon saw that the Spirit
was given by the laying on of hands by an apostle. He wanted what he
had seen with Philip, and believed it could be his through the laying
on of hands.
Thus it was not tongues, but the miracles done through Philip that
attracted Simon.
>God gave them all the sign of tongues, why would he start dealing
>differently ?
>"God is no respecter of persons".
You have said this many times, and I keep hearing this from those who
insist on homogenised Christianity, but I have no idea what they mean
by it.
As far as I know, this is not a quotation from the Bible, and the
closest passage I can find to it is the instruction to Israel: "You
shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: you shall not respect the
person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty"
It is clear that God takes no heed of our worldly strivings. I have as
much right to call on the name of the Lord if I am a miserable thief
as I have if I am the owner of an international media conglomerate. I
have the same need of God in each position too.
Thus God does not respect "persons", but too often, it seems to me
that people are saying that God does not respect personalities, which
is clearly wrong.
I am not sure what you mean by this phrase, but I would much rather
that you used one that is less ambiguous. If you are saying that God
is unchanging, then it is enough to state that he is the same now as
he was, and always will be.
In any case, it is not clear in the Bible that he gave all the sign of
tongues, so the point is moot.
>> >Further fillings occurred after they FIRST received theb Spirit &
>> >spoke in tongues. The 2 things should not be confused.
>>
>> I agree that further fillings occured after the one at Pentecost, but
>> my point is that there is therefore no reason to insist that the
>> filling at Pentecost was the act of regeneration, because that would
>> suggest the disciples were becoming unregenerate each time they needed
>> a new filling from on high.
>
>No, further fillings are not re-receiving the Spirit from on high,
The semantic distinction between "re-receiving" and "further filling"
eludes me. Please enlighten me.
Regards,
Stephen
Pam Seeker
[Pam]
> > I
> > feel a bit like I was an idiot to say something that personal in the first
> > place.
[Peter]
> Perhaps I'm the idiot for being so obtuse??
Peter:
OK, then we can both be idiots together. I don't /think/ that's what
the phrase "fool for Christ" actually means, but hey, why not? ;-)
RIchard Dudley
> Personally, (although I don't have a TV) I thought it was pretty suspicious,
> dropping Alpha in order to put on a Muslim thing. Very PC at the least.
Have you ever entertained the possibility, even for a nanosecond Ken,
that it might be just your suspicious mind ?
Richard
Nick Ashton
Sun Kitten wrote:
>
> There are a number of things I want to ask you now, Nick.
What did I say, what did I say ?? (why now ?)
- you needn't answer that.
>
> First, I thought the requirements for being saved were to follow Jesus. To
> have a personal relationship with him.
I agree. Remember though that Jesus began by demanding baptism, then he
deliberately prayed to receive the Spirit... when the Spirit came to him
God bare witness, there was a voice from heaven heard.
Secondly, to have a relationship with Jesus, who is in heaven, one must
know him by the Spirit...who was not given until Pentecost.
2Co:5:16: Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea,
though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we
him no more.
Joh:4:23: But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers
shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh
such to worship him.
I further thought that Jesus does
> not let those who seek go unanswered, nor can I imagine someone praying to
> him to be accepted and forgiven, and Jesus not answering that prayer. A
> long time ago, I prayed that he would be mine. I have called myself a
> Christian for 18 years. I have never spoken in tongues. Does that make me
> a liar (since I have called myself a Christian) and does that mean my
> prayers to him have gone unnoticed and that he is ignoring me? Why would
> he do that? What did I do?
It was 18 months after I first said to The Lord, Lord, I just want your
will,
before I received the Spirit, Anna the 88yr old prophetess served God
for
years in fastings and prayers before seeing the redemption she was
looking
for, then she said:-
Lu:2:29: Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according
to thy word:
The point is, it's not about what you may have achieved in this life,
salvation is by the grace which we receive in the Spirit (of course
Anna died before the Spirit was given, but she died in faith, trusting
in The Lord's promises, not her own 'service'). God knows our hearts
better than we do, he knows when we are ready to fully rely on that,
you now have a wonderful opportunity to have it and see what God can
do with you !... *you* may think it would have been better if you had
received it before, but God's strength is made perfect in our
weakness. I have known young people come to The Lord and drift away,
and also old people come along and show realisation of the gospel
that the others didn't.
Don't look back, if you've heard something from God, go for it ...
"today is the day of salvation, if this day you hear his voice, harden
not your hearts"
> FWIW, I have prayed for the gift of tongues - twice. Both times, I came
> away with the feeling that while it would be nice, it is not necessary or
> it is not the right time as yet. Why would God ignore me when I have
> sincerely come to him and asked him for these things? Why should I be
> condemned and given no chance to belong to him? What should I do that I
> have not already done to ask to be part of his kingdom?
God has no desire to condemn anyone !... in the bible they never prayed
to receive the gift of tongues, they just prayed to receive the Holy
Spirit,
He gave them the utterance.... when Jesus says "ask and it shall be
given
unto you" the word "ask" means crave/thirst, and fits in with the
parable
of a woman and the unjust judge (Luke 11:5-13)
*ALL* you can do is say to God that you want what he gave all those
people
in Acts... *HE* WILL do the rest !... he is the good shepherd, no sheep
will be lost. A friend of mine prayed several times... nothing
happened,
then his baby son became very sick, all he could do is pray over it...
he received the Spirit *then* (and the child recovered), others have
other
stories, and of course I hope you come and meet them.
The bible says
Ro:8:24: For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope:
for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?
If well-meaning people have led you to believe that you have already
received the Spirit you are not going to single-mindedly seek for what
you think you already have.
Receiving the Spirit is simply receiving what God wants to give you..
he gave Jesus so that you could receive this, you need to (a) trust
The Lord that He will and (b) desire it above all... if you hold onto
your own ideas instead of what you read in the word about receiving
the Spirit, this will delay what God can do for you.
>
> Secondly, I was under the impression - not got precisely from any part of
> the Bible - that it is not possible for any of us to point at someone and
> say, 'You are not saved' (or, conversely, 'you are saved'). To insist upon
> proof of salvation - whatever the proof - allows a dangerous exclusivity
> into Christianity and surely does not fit with Jesus' love, which is far
> bigger than any of us can imagine.
In the bible, Acts especially which deals with people reciving
salvation,
we read that God showed when people had or had not yet received the
Spirit:-
Luke 22:32 - Peter not yet "converted"
Acts 2:4, 33, 37-39 - Jews knew when they received the Spirit, others
told they needed to.
Acts 8:12-16 - Samarians who believe in Jesus offered prayer so that
they receive the Spirit.. not they receive the Spirit because they did
not get offended !
Acts 10: - Cornelius, a man who prayed to God always, gave alms, and had
heard
the message about Jesus (vv36-37) told that he needs to do hear from
Peter,
he receives the Spirit (vv45-46) because he is not offended.
Acts 19:1-6 - Paul prays withe people to receive the Spirit even though
they are already baptised.
Jude 3, 19-21 - Jude warns that people will move away from the
original,
and they "have not the Spirit" even though they "separate themselves",
i.e. say they are holy / Christian.
> Often, the only way I have reassured
> myself that I *am* saved is that I *know* I meant what I said when I first
> asked Jesus to be mine, and the many times since, and he has promised he
> will not let an earnest seeker down. How then, can I rely on that promise
> if I haven't got the necessary qualifications?
The fact that you have typed all these concerns shows your attitude..
many people are content to just accept what some minister of religion
tells them and get on with their lives because they feel ok. You,
conversely are seeking God's thoughts towards you. I can only express
in
a few words the love, revelations and ministry God wants to give you.
- Nick
Michael J Davis
>"Peter Ould" <peter...@credit-scoring.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:5L5N7.84928$JZ3.261968@NewsReader...
>
>I picked up the humour and probably should have acknowledged it, but now I
>feel a bit like I was an idiot to say something that personal in the first
>place.
No, I don't see that sharing a bit of who you are is being "idiotic"! It
made me appreciate you even more. Unless it endangers you (which I don't
think it does) it's a "good thing".
Anyone who,
1) wishes to make fun of it,
2) intends to argue it, or
3) cannot cope with the truth,
has problems of their own. *You* don't have to worry about it.
I *thought* he was joking, but you can't always be too sure...... :-)
Kim
> ii) There is such a thing as a "Charismatic Liberal".... (I call this the
> "Whatever next?" argument)
Jelly babies for Peter, Richard, he's realised it at last. :)
Kim
--
I'm fed up with junk emails.
Use this to reply:
kim....@virgin.net
Richard Emblem
Kingston) writes:
>I have switched the order of this post, as we have covered much of the
>ground in the first half of the post before, but in the second half of
>the post, there is an interesting issue that needs to be addressed
>(although maybe other readers of this group are aware of Nick's views
>on this issue already).
Unfortunately all too well :-(
I *did* issue a "hobby horse" warning.
--
Richard Emblem
How good and pleasant it is
when God's people live in unity.
(Psalm 133:1)
_______________________
Richard Emblem
<peter...@credit-scoring.co.uk> writes:
>That's fantastic to hear. This of course means one of three things:
>
>i) That you're obviously in the "in-crowd" as you have the gift - the next
>person who calls you a "liberal" will get me coming round to beat them up (I
>call this the "Nick Ashton" argument).
>
>OR
>
>ii) There is such a thing as a "Charismatic Liberal".... (I call this the
>"Whatever next?" argument)
>
>OR
>
>iii) You have been deceived like all the Charismatics, there is no such
>thing as speaking in tongues these days and in fact you have been possessed
>by the devil. (I call this the "Ebenezer Wesleyan Reform Splinter KJV Only
>Cessasionist Double-Predestination Post-Dispensationalist Mid-Tribulation
>with a Cherry on Top Chapel" argument.)
>
I think you might find there are quite a lot of us whom you would label as
"Charismatic Liberal".
P.S.I like your three categories :-)
Richard Emblem
<seek...@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>Yes. I followed the "instructions" in the Alpha course to ask for tongues
>and
>start speaking. As I said, I found it the least life-changing manifestation
>of the Holy Spirit that I've experienced, but I *have* found it uniquely
>helpful on two particular occasions. As part of my prayer-time, I try to
>regularly have silent prayer in addition to "spoken/wordy" prayer. I try to
>both send my unspoken petitions to God as well as to listen to what God wants
>to tell me. The two particular times that tongues have been especially
>useful was when I was too agitated to either form my own words or to be
>silent.
>Otherwise, the combination of wordy and silent prayer works well for me. For
>me, I see the silent prayer as a way of allowing the Holy Spirit to "groan"
>on my behalf and I always ask the Holy Spirit to pray for me for that which
>I don't know that I need.
Thanks Pam. A wonderful personal testimony.
But was it *valid* prayer - you don't mention whether your head was covered :-)
Richard Emblem
Kitten <ma...@hermes.cam.ac.uk> writes:
There is no conflict. You are correct in all you have said. Please ignore any
answer you may receive to the contrary.
Sid Hopper
> "Phil Saunders" <philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:9VIM7.20615$i37.3...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> > "Nick Ashton" <amet...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> > news:3C02C0CF...@ntlworld.com...
> >
> > > 6) Those seeking membership of the church are encouraged to do an
Alpha
> > > course before proceeding to Beta and full membership.
> >
> > And then on to a theta, delta and epsilon?
>
> "I'm glad I'm not doing an Epsilon because they're terribly hard. I did a
> Delta because that's what I'm good at. Besides, Epsilon is for the real
> theologic brains.
>
> As for those who only end up doing Theta, they can't manage a Delta so I
> really don't want to play with them. On top of that they wear green all
the
> time, not just at Easter, and green is such a beastly colour. Then there
are
> those people who only manage Alpha or Beta. I feel really sorry for them
and
> they can only do little bits of singing and listen to sermons for less
than
> 10 minutes.
>
> Oh no, I did a Delta course. I'm glad I'm not doing an Epsilon because
> they're ......."
>
> Peter (Theta Plus & best pals with Mustapha Mond) Ould
I went on a Wordplus course once. W comes before Z for Zeta which must be
the end. But I read somewhere that Omega is the end and Alpha the beginning.
Have I become a Christian sect or am I just talking in Greek to you all.
Jesus bless,
Sid Hopper
Gareth McCaughan
> "Peter Ould" <peter...@credit-scoring.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:in7N7.85103$JZ3.265109@NewsReader...
>
>
> [Pam]
>>> I
>>> feel a bit like I was an idiot to say something that personal in the first
>>> place.
>
> [Peter]
>> Perhaps I'm the idiot for being so obtuse??
>
> Peter:
>
> OK, then we can both be idiots together. I don't /think/ that's what
> the phrase "fool for Christ" actually means, but hey, why not? ;-)
For what it's worth, I thought Pam's article was serious and helpful,
and Peter's was humorous and very funny. But then, I've never seen
the problem with combining the serious and the funny. (G K Chesterton
has some good things to say about this towards the start of "Heretics",
I think.)
--
Gareth McCaughan Gareth.M...@pobox.com
.sig under construc
Robert Pearce
<Gareth.M...@pobox.com> enlightened us thusly :
>
>(In our church, the chap running the lambda course had a terrible
>lisp, and the sigma course was too stressful all round.)
At the risk of being wayyyyyyy too technical and obscure....
Our lambda course was a very well balanced mix of its constituent parts,
neither too little nor too much of any of them.
--
Rob Pearce http://www.bdt-home.demon.co.uk
If you must reply by | No matter how old a mother is, she watches her
e-mail please use | middle-aged children for signs of improvement.
"news_reply" at | -- Florida Scott-Maxwell
bdt-home dot demon etc. |
Ken Down
<amet...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Sir John CHRYSOSTOM (A.D. 347-407), who was Archbishop of Constantinople
St John Chrysostom.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
__ __ __ __ __
| \ | / __ / __ | |\ | / __ |__ All the latest archaeological news
|__/ | \__/ \__/ | | \| \__/ __| from the Middle East with David Down
================================= and "Digging Up The Past"
Web site: www.argonet.co.uk/education/diggings
e-mail: digg...@argonet.co.uk
Pam
news:20011128173344...@nso-bh.aol.com...
> Thanks Pam. A wonderful personal testimony.
> But was it *valid* prayer - you don't mention whether your head was covered :-)
Richard:
I think I was wearing a balaclava (sp?) at the time! <g>
Stephen Kingston
<amet...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>we read that God showed when people had or had not yet received the
>Spirit:-
>
>Luke 22:32 - Peter not yet "converted"
I answered this in my last message to you, which again you seem to
have ignored. Do you ignore posts when you have no answer to them?
This verse reads:
'But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And
when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers."'
The only version to say "converted" is the AV, but clearly the meaning
in 16th Century English is not the same theological meaning we attach
to it now. The verse speaks of "turning back".
Notice that Jesus prays that Simon Peter's faith may not fail. This
implies that he has a faith, for it would be foolish to pray for a
non-existent faith, that it may not fail.
Jesus did not say "I will pray that your faith will be established".
It seems clear that Peter was already a man of faith, but one who was
about to endure a time of severe doubt and anguish. Jesus prayed for
him that, after that period, he would turn back to his Saviour.
>Acts 8:12-16 - Samarians who believe in Jesus offered prayer so that
>they receive the Spirit.. not they receive the Spirit because they did
>not get offended !
In the Acts 2 passage (which I deleted for space), Peter tells the
people to repent, and then be baptised. Thus we know the Samaritan
Christians must have repented prior to Phillip baptising them.
Further we know that God so loved the world that he gave his one and
only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have
eternal life.
Thus these believers would not perish. They were saved at that point,
their faith being credited to them as righteousness. We also know that
this faith was through the washing of regeneration and renewal by the
Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5), so we are left with a need to explain the
arrival of the apostles from Jerusalem. We are left with two
possibilities:
1. The liberal view: that Luke's pneumatology was very different from
Paul's and John's. (Needless to say, I reject this view).
2. The evangelical view: that this was some second filling of the Holy
Spirit, either as some early pastoral necessity, or because there is a
second part of the process of salvation - the filling with the Spirit,
or Baptism with the Spirit, which is seperate and distinct from the
work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration (although it might occur very
close to the former work - and probably should do in the normal
Christian birth).
(So as not to present a false dichotomy, I will state that I can
imagine a range of views between these two. These just seem the two
best explanations to me).
Further, this passage does not state that these people spoke in
tongues. This is why I have pointed out to you several times that you
are arguing from silence here.
>Acts 10: - Cornelius, a man who prayed to God always, gave alms, and had
>heard
>the message about Jesus (vv36-37) told that he needs to do hear from
>Peter,
>he receives the Spirit (vv45-46) because he is not offended.
A special case - the first gentile convert - may have demanded a
special sign, so that the Jews would identify the sign they saw in the
household of Cornelius with the sign they saw at Pentecost.
Again, I have made this point before.
>Acts 19:1-6 - Paul prays withe people to receive the Spirit even though
>they are already baptised.
Yes, these believers apparently knew nothing of the Holy Spirit,
although they knew of Christ, and believed in him. It is still quite
possible to believe that the SPirit had secretly regenerated their
hearts, just as we might argue the same of the thief on the cross, who
also heard nothing of the Holy Spirit, and just as we might argue of
anyone who believes, but has note heard of the personal work of the
Spirit.
Paul puts them right, and prays for a sensible baptism with the
Spirit, which they receive. A second work of the Spirit, accompanied
by tongues and prophecy.
This passage does not make it clear whether some were tongues
speakers, whilst others prophecied, or whether all spoke in tongues
and all prophecied.
This being the case, I am not sure why you do not allow prophecy as a
valid sign of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit.
>Jude 3, 19-21 - Jude warns that people will move away from the
>original,
>and they "have not the Spirit" even though they "separate themselves",
>i.e. say they are holy / Christian.
And yet, he does not say they were never tongues speakers, so this
passage is not really relevant - unless I have missed some analysis
(which seems unlikely, because you haven't presented any analysis).
Regards,
Stephen
Sun Kitten
> What did I say, what did I say ?? (why now ?)
> - you needn't answer that.
Tough - I'm going to :)
You said that Christians without the gift of tongues are not Christians.
If you didn't say that, then my apologies for misunderstanding, but you
need to be careful how you phrase your posts.
> Secondly, to have a relationship with Jesus, who is in heaven, one must
> know him by the Spirit...who was not given until Pentecost.
That's what happens when someone asks to belong to God. God gives them his
Spirit. If we ask Jesus into our lives, we ask all of God into our lives.
Since Pentecost has long gone, I rather suspect that when I became a
Christian, God gave his Spirit to me and he has been there since -
whatever I thought about it. It's a promise. Jesus said he would leave us
a counsellor. Therefore, he did. Therefore, when someone prays in earnest,
seeking God sincerely, God answers and gives his Spirit. What is there to
debate about? If someone has 'prayed the prayer' and meant it, they have
the Spirit.
> The point is, it's not about what you may have achieved in this life,
> salvation is by the grace which we receive in the Spirit (of course
> Anna died before the Spirit was given, but she died in faith, trusting
> in The Lord's promises, not her own 'service'). God knows our hearts
> better than we do, he knows when we are ready to fully rely on that,
> you now have a wonderful opportunity to have it and see what God can
> do with you !... *you* may think it would have been better if you had
> received it before, but God's strength is made perfect in our
> weakness. I have known young people come to The Lord and drift away,
> and also old people come along and show realisation of the gospel
> that the others didn't.
Actually, I don't think it would have been better if I'd had it before. I
don't think I'm ready for tongues yet :)
But surely if it is salvation by grace and all up to God, then the lack of
possession of the gift of tongues means nothing. God may choose to give me
tongues on my deathbed, or he may choose never to do so. I still belong to
him.
> God has no desire to condemn anyone !... in the bible they never prayed
> to receive the gift of tongues, they just prayed to receive the Holy
> Spirit,
> He gave them the utterance.... when Jesus says "ask and it shall be
> given
> unto you" the word "ask" means crave/thirst, and fits in with the
> parable
> of a woman and the unjust judge (Luke 11:5-13)
I did. I can assume from the Bible that I have received what I ask for.
Therefore, if I do not speak in tongues, then that does not class me as a
non-Christian - merely one of the many who have not received tongues, for
whatever God's mysterious purpose is.
> *ALL* you can do is say to God that you want what he gave all those
> people
> in Acts... *HE* WILL do the rest !...
I have. I prayed. I am saved 'cos that's what God promised us. I want to
know why you contradict that promise (that if we truly repent then we are
saved) by saying that because I do not have tongues, I am not a proper
Christian. Have I misunderstood? (I hope so!)
> If well-meaning people have led you to believe that you have already
> received the Spirit you are not going to single-mindedly seek for what
> you think you already have.
I have the Spirit! I asked for it when I became a Christian! I know God
gave it to me, not least because of what he has done in my life but also
because he promised me. He keeps his promises!
Thinking about it, nobody has actually said to me, 'You have the Holy
Spirit'. I know I do because of what I read in the Bible.
> Receiving the Spirit is simply receiving what God wants to give you..
> he gave Jesus so that you could receive this, you need to (a) trust
> The Lord that He will and (b) desire it above all... if you hold onto
> your own ideas instead of what you read in the word about receiving
> the Spirit, this will delay what God can do for you.
I desire God above all. Funnily enough, while it'd be rather cool, I don't
desire the gift of tongues that much. I don't see that it would be much
use to me outside of my own room. I'd far rather have the gift of
patience, or the gift of being able to talk to people, or the gift of
self-control. Does that make me a heretic?
I trust God that he'll give me what I need to get through each day. More
than that is up to him. Indeed, he has given me more than I need (he's
very cool :) and I have assumed that the lack of the gift of tongues,
along with the lack of prophecy, healing and knowledge, are simply because
God has chosen not to give them yet. It's up to him, ne?
> > Often, the only way I have reassured
> > myself that I *am* saved is that I *know* I meant what I said when I first
> > asked Jesus to be mine, and the many times since, and he has promised he
> > will not let an earnest seeker down. How then, can I rely on that promise
> > if I haven't got the necessary qualifications?
>
> The fact that you have typed all these concerns shows your attitude..
> many people are content to just accept what some minister of religion
> tells them and get on with their lives because they feel ok. You,
> conversely are seeking God's thoughts towards you. I can only express
> in
> a few words the love, revelations and ministry God wants to give you.
I'm sorry. I do not get a feeling of love from this particular post. I do
not appreciate being told I am not a Christian. I'm hoping I misread your
post.
To summarise: I know I am a Christian. I know this because God promises in
the Bible that he will save those who repent and believe, which I have
done. Therefore, I belong to him fully and truly. He has given and will
continue to give to me that which I need to fulfill his purpose here on
this earth. I can only assume right now that that does not include the
gift of tongues, since God has chosen not to grant me that just yet.
To say I am not a Christian seems, to me, to be denying what God promised.
Morag
---
COGITO EGGO SUM -- I think, therefore I am a waffle
Michael J Davis
>In article <C%3N7.84708$JZ3.258302@NewsReader>, "Peter Ould"
><peter...@credit-scoring.co.uk> writes:
>
>>That's fantastic to hear. This of course means one of three things:
>>
>>i) That you're obviously in the "in-crowd" as you have the gift - the next
>>person who calls you a "liberal" will get me coming round to beat them up (I
>>call this the "Nick Ashton" argument).
>>
>>OR
>>
>>ii) There is such a thing as a "Charismatic Liberal".... (I call this the
>>"Whatever next?" argument)
>>
>>OR
>>
>>iii) You have been deceived like all the Charismatics, there is no such
>>thing as speaking in tongues these days and in fact you have been possessed
>>by the devil. (I call this the "Ebenezer Wesleyan Reform Splinter KJV Only
>>Cessasionist Double-Predestination Post-Dispensationalist Mid-Tribulation
>>with a Cherry on Top Chapel" argument.)
>>
>
>I think you might find there are quite a lot of us whom you would label as
>"Charismatic Liberal".
>P.S.I like your three categories :-)
Of course, but distinguish between "Charismatic liberals" and "Liberal
charismatics"! I see you as the former, and not the latter, Richard!!
Nick Ashton
>
> But the fact remains that Wesley never spoke in tongues, so you argue
> that he was never a Christian.
(1) prove to me that he didn't
(2) does it change the scriptures whether he did or not ?
> >
> >IRENAEUS (A.D. 115 to 202) a pupil of Polycarp (A.D. 70-155),
>
> This is prior to the timeframe I mentioned, and I don't know why you
> think I am not aware of these claims. If you would care to add up some
> numbers, and you note that the Irvingites were a 19th century sect,
> then subtracting 1500 years, you get back to the fourth century.
Re:11:3: And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall
prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in
sackcloth.
.....
Re:11:6: These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days
of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and
to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will.
Studends of bible prophesy know to cound a year for a day (Ezek.4:6)
so we have 1260 years of "no rain", or at least potentially no rain.
Even you admit that history shows a time between the early church and
the great numbers of people receiving the Spirit (the life giving rain,
living water) in these days when very few people had the Spirit.
Ho:6:3: Then shall we know, if we follow on to know the LORD: his going
forth is prepared as the morning; and he shall come unto us as the rain,
as the latter and former rain unto the earth.
If you don't accept that this is the fulfilment of the prophesy, what is
?
>
> If you decide you do not wish to debate the point further then sobeit,
> but you should not then re-assert your point of view, as if the matter
> is settled. Clearly there is considerable doubt over the issue, and
> your error is, I think, a dangerous one, because it suggests that
> those who are saved by grace, through faith are not Christians, simply
> because they have not spoken in what you understand to be other
> tongues.
There is considerable doubt in your mind, but you have given me no
reason to doub...name one person saved by grace in the bible who didn't
speak in tongues... I know you can't so there is already serious doubt
in your assertion... we have entry into the new covenant by a way God
never tells us about... which raises serious doubt about what the
scriptures mean when they talk of a "common salvation", and "one f
aith" etc.
How are you judging that these people who have not spoken in tongues
to be saved ?
>
> >Jesus did warn that "many" will come to Him saying "Lord, Lord... we ate
> >& drank in your presence, you taught in our streets, we fed, clothed,
> >visited people, prophesied in your name etc
> >.... but they will be rejected
> >
> >.... these people are "church-goers" not atheists !
>
> Yes, and tongues speakers to boot.
Yes, many who receive the Spirit will fall away for one reason or
another.
>
> Why should I lend special credence to your testimony over the
> testimony of some great Christian, such as Howell Harries, for
> instance?
Just lend credence to the bible, if what you believe is true, where
are all the christians in the bible that never spoke in tongues ?
Name ONE !
How are you judging him to be a great Christian ?
> >He was converted to being a believer on the road, but he was not
> >converted to being a son of God / born again until he was at Ananias' house.
>
> In my Bible, John 3:16 reads:
>
> "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that
> whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
>
> So how can someone be a believer and *not* a Christian?
The word "Christ" or Messiah means "anointed one", the anointing is the
Holy Spirit and..
Ro:8:9: But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that
the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of
Christ, he is none of his.
I have shown you various examples of people in the bible that believeb
in Jesus before they actually received the Spirit.
>
> Ah, you say, but what about the devil, who believes and trembles.
>
> We also read Paul's response on the Damascus road:
>
> '"Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked'
>
> And then Paul writes some years later:
>
> 'Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God
> says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except
> by the Holy Spirit.'
It is blatantly obvious that anyone can say "Jesus is Lord", and as I
have told you before, MANY will come to Jesus at judgement day saying
"Lord, lord... didn't we...." but will be told "I never knew you"
So, you are misunderstanding what Paul is saying here and making a
whole new (and false) salvation doctrine out of it !
It was the Spirit that gave this, and all revelations about Jesus.
Initially Peter was Shown "you are the Christ"... just because people
today pick up a bible and agree with this statement does NOT mean they
have received the Spirit.
Jesus explained that "believers" will receive the Holy Spirit and
speak in tongues (as well as other signs that follow believers at
other times)... sure enough all believers did.
So where does that leave your concept of believing on the Lord jesus ?
> >Lu:22:32: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when
> >thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.
>
> Oh dear. You should really look these passages up in several versions.
Oh dear, so you judge the word of God by what the majority of
theologians
say ?
The majority in Jesus day rejected him, and the bible says that things
won't get better.
From the English we can see that the conversion Jesus is referring
to enables Peter to "strengthen the brethren", when was Peter doing
this before Luke 2:32 ?
I have already quoted verses that use the same word converted (strongs
1994)
to show that it means a change of state, not a returning to what you
were
sometime before:-
Ac:3:19: Repent ye therefore, and be *converted*, that your sins may be
blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence
of the Lord;
Ac:28:27: For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears
are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should
see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their
heart, and should be *converted*, and I should heal them.
>
> The AV wording is leading you astray.
>
> Note that Jesus speaks of Simon Peter's faith - that it will not fail.
> He speaks of a time of doubt. He has prayed for Peter, that after that
> time of doubt, he will turn back, be restored and strengthen his
> brothers, because his faith will have not failed.
No, you don't understand what was going on, Peter like the other
disciples
was of "little faith", they were to hold onto this faith that he would
somehow do what he was talking about, even though they didn't understand
it
properly. None had yet received the faith of Jesus, the ability to see
things as he does, by receiving the Spirit:-
Ga:2:16: Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law,
but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ,
that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works
of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Joh:16:12: I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear
them now.
Jude:1:3: Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the
common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort
you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once
delivered unto the saints.
>
> >Paul was NOT "regenerated" before he was infilled by the Spirit.
>
> The Biblical account suggests otherwise.
How ?
According to you he was "regenerated" but still unwashed from his sin !
Ananias speaking to Paul:-
Ac:22:16: And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash
away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
>
> You quoted scripture, but your exegesis was lacking, and there were
> many unanswered points.
If you were believing what the bible says, those "points" would never
arise !
Your exegesis is lacking and leaves the following ananswered points:-
1) Jesus was not going to be with the disciples when they received the
Spirit, but would send Him from heaven:-
Joh:15:26: But when the Comforter is come, whom I will *send unto you
from the Father*, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the
Father, he shall testify of me:
Joh:16:7: Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you
that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto
you; but if I depart, I will *send him unto you*.
Yet you say they received the Holy Spirit in John 20:22 when Jesus was
obviously with them !
Either Jesus got it wrong, or you have...
2) In John 20:22 Jesus certainly commands them to receive the Spirit.
You assume that they in fact received the Spirit at that time because
it says "Jesus breathed on them". But it certainly does not say they
received the Spirit, neither do their actions after suggest they are
any different from what they were before, unlike Pentecost which
obviously changed them !
What did their so called receiving the Spirit in John 20 achieve ?
3) At Pentecost there was a "wind" (BREATH in the greek), so Jesus
seems to me to be being prophetic of this in John 20.
Just like he washed their feet physically showing them what they should
later do spiritually... do you physically wash the feet of other peiople
in the church u go to Stephen ?
4) At other times when Jesus called one of them, or gave them power
over evil spirits, they were quick to tell the other disciples what
happened.
Yet when Thomas later appears they don't even mention receiving the Holy
Spirit !
5) At Pentecost they received "the gift of the Holy Spirit" also called
"the promise of the Holy Spirit" and "the promise of the Father" and
having
the Spirit "shed on" and "poured out".
You still have to explain how and why this is different from "receiving
the holy Spirit" !
How can a person be regenerated by receiving the Spirit and still
need to receive the gift of the Spirit, or the promise of the Spirit,
seeing as there is "one Spirit" which must therefore be "the Spirit of
promise" !
Stephen, the more I think about your doctrine... the more rediculous it
becomes !
Another point... the crowd are told:-
Ac:2:38: ...Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of
Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of
the Holy Ghost.
....note that the crowd are not told to first receive the Holy Spirit
BEFORE receiving the gift of the Spirit, as you say happened to the
disciples !
....why is this ?
6) If they received in John 20, it would BREAK OT pattern/foreshadow.
Pentecost was 50 days after the firstfruits (Jesus resurrection).
50 is Jubilee, representing setting free. It is the Spirit that sets
people free, so they needed to receive the Spirit at Pentecost.
Pentecost also required a NEW meat offering, with leaven.
If they were ALREADY regenerated in John 20, they were already new
and unleavened.
>
> No, I do not base the whole thing on that. However, it does work
> around an apparent incongruity between the understanding of John and
> the understanding of Luke.
What incongruity is that ?
>
> As for your explanation: I showed you that you were relying too
> heavily on a single version of the Bible. The NIV does indeed suggest
> that Jesus said "do not hold on to me", but the wording is actually
> "do not touch me", which is the same word used when Thomas was allowed
> to touch Jesus' hands.
Baloney:-
John 20:17 - "touch me not" - 680 - to attach oneself to
Hohn 20:25 - "thrust your hand" - 906 - to throw
In attition the difference in attitude of Mary and Thomas can be seen
from
the English.
>
> >> This does not preclude a different work of the Holy Spirit in
> >> regeneration, just as a gift of faith, as described in 1 Corinthians
> >> 12 does not preclude the faith given by God to all believers.
> >
> >Notice that the baptism in the Spirit is not in "the gifts", in fact
> >this passage says:-
> >1Co: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.
> >
> >Your doctrine says you can be a Christian and NOT baptised in the
> >Spirit,
>
> I understand this verse to be saying that it is by the work of the one
> Spirit in regeneration that we are all Christians, and thus baptised
> into one body - through baptims into the Christian Church.
>
> I know of several other interpretations of the same verse, but again,
> this does not preclude a seperate work of the Holy SPirit beyond
> regeneration.
What other "interpretation" of
"for by one Spirit (pneuma, not water=hudatos) are we all baptised into
one body"
fits the scriptures ?
I guess you will try and say that it means water baptism...
The disciples and many others were baptised unto Jesus before they
received the Spirit, yet they were not in the body of Christ yet because
Jesus was still with them, he needed to be "broken" for them to begin
eating of it by receiving the Spirit.
Also, Simon the Sprceror was baptised unto Jesus, yet he was still
"in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity." - Acts 8:23
>
> No. I am a Christian and I need much from God, including the power of
> His Spirit if I am to be succesful in ministry.
If you are a Christian you already have the power
2Tm:1:7: For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and
of love, and of a sound mind.
If you need to receive it you are not a christian.
>
> You are not reading the passage.
>
<snip>
>
> Thus it was not tongues, but the miracles done through Philip that
> attracted Simon.
You are not reading the passage, despite seeing various signs and
wonders showing the genuinenes of the Samarians, it was known that
they had not yet received the Spirit, and when they did receive, simon
"saw" something ... they all knew immediately, there was not time taken
to see if the Samarians spoke of the reality of the comfort, counsel and
conviction that the Holy Spirit as you said last time !
Of course the miracles attracted Simon, but what did he see that showed
him
thst people had just received beforehand ? and how did the Christians
know that they had not received beforehand ?
>
> >God gave them all the sign of tongues, why would he start dealing
> >differently ?
> >"God is no respecter of persons".
>
> You have said this many times, and I keep hearing this from those who
> insist on homogenised Christianity, but I have no idea what they mean
> by it.
Why not look at the passage ! (Acts 10:34 area) - after which Peter
says:-
Ac:11:15: And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us
at the beginning.
Ac:11:16: 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.
Ac:11:17: 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?
This ties in with :-
Jude:1:3: ... the *common* salvation (same for all), .... once delivered
unto the saints.
Eph:4:5: One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
Ga:1:8: But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel
unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
>
> The semantic distinction between "re-receiving" and "further filling"
> eludes me. Please enlighten me.
When a person receives the Spirit, they receive the fulness thereof, not
part of the Spirit, or the Spirit without the power. After that people
should learn to use what they have already received.
- Nick
Nick Ashton
>
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2001 18:37:06 +0000, Nick Ashton
> <amet...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> >we read that God showed when people had or had not yet received the
> >Spirit:-
> >
> >Luke 22:32 - Peter not yet "converted"
>
> I answered this in my last message to you, which again you seem to
> have ignored. Do you ignore posts when you have no answer to them?
No, I answered Morag's before reading your post, this point is now
dealt with on my reply to this post of yours
>
> >Acts 8:12-16 - Samarians who believe in Jesus offered prayer so that
> >they receive the Spirit.. not they receive the Spirit because they did
> >not get offended !
>
> In the Acts 2 passage (which I deleted for space), Peter tells the
> people to repent, and then be baptised. Thus we know the Samaritan
> Christians must have repented prior to Phillip baptising them.
>
> Further we know that God so loved the world that he gave his one and
> only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have
> eternal life.
>
> Thus these believers would not perish. They were saved at that point,
> their faith being credited to them as righteousness.
Like many today, you have this concept of "believing on Jesus" which
actually ignores the things the bible says believers will do, and did,
as detailed on my other reply.
We also know that
> this faith was through the washing of regeneration and renewal by the
> Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5),
No we don't, that washing is by the Spirit being "shed on" people ,
which had not yet happened.
They had not received the Spirit, they were not yet regenerated.
>
> Further, this passage does not state that these people spoke in
> tongues. This is why I have pointed out to you several times that you
> are arguing from silence here.
I have already pointed out that the way they knew people had just
received the Spirit had already been made elsewhere, the point does not
need to be repeated, it is because you are not following the conclusions
from elsewhere that you are thrown by this passage that does not repeat
the same detail again... reminding me of:-
Joh:10:24: Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How
long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.
Joh:10:25: Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the
works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.
and
Joh:9:26: Then said they to him again, What did he to thee? how opened
he thine eyes?
Joh:9:27: He answered them, I have told you already, and ye did not
hear: wherefore would ye hear it again? will ye also be his disciples?
There is ONE way Stephen, the SAME apostles had the SAME judgement with
the Samarians as they did with the Jews (Acts 2) and the Gentiles (Acts
10)... as Jesus had said:-
Ac:1:8: But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come
upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in
all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
> A special case - the first gentile convert - may have demanded a
> special sign, so that the Jews would identify the sign they saw in the
> household of Cornelius with the sign they saw at Pentecost.
>
> Again, I have made this point before.
So why does every member of the fellowship I'm in have this "special
sign" ?
I'll tell you, it's because we *believe* that the New Covenant continues
unchanged, so says the scripture:-
Ga:3:15: Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a
man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth
thereto.
>
> Paul puts them right, and prays for a sensible baptism with the
> Spirit, which they receive. A second work of the Spirit, accompanied
> by tongues and prophecy.
This doesn't even fit your idea that receiving the Spirit is the first
work followed by some "second work":-
Ac:19:2: He said unto them, Have ye *received the Holy Ghost* since ye
believed?
....
Ac:19:6: And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came
on them;
Paul's concern was for them to receive the Spirit, who "came" in v6.
Your idea that they received the Spirit in between but God doesn't
bother
to mention this is... well you can believe it if you want to !
>
> This passage does not make it clear whether some were tongues
> speakers, whilst others prophecied, or whether all spoke in tongues
> and all prophecied.
>
> This being the case, I am not sure why you do not allow prophecy as a
> valid sign of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit.
People prophesied before the Spirit was given, they were never said to
have
received the Spirit, no-one spoke in tongues until the Spirit was
given...
a new sign for a new covenant !
Just like God gave the sign of the rainbow to Noah when he entered into
that Covenant (Gen.9:12-15), and circumcision to the Abrahamic covenant
(Gen.17:11).
>
> And yet, he does not say they were never tongues speakers, so this
> passage is not really relevant - unless I have missed some analysis
> (which seems unlikely, because you haven't presented any analysis).
>
What other way of praying in the Holy Ghost does the bible give Stephen
?
I Corinthians tells us that it will not be understood (14:2, 14-18), and
others will think you "a barbarian" so it will be heard, so it must be
words other than the langauge you understand.
How do you pray in the Spirit ?
- Nick
Nick Ashton
>
> > > There are a number of things I want to ask you now, Nick.
> > What did I say, what did I say ?? (why now ?)
> > - you needn't answer that.
>
> Tough - I'm going to :)
> You said that Christians without the gift of tongues are not Christians.
> If you didn't say that, then my apologies for misunderstanding, but you
> need to be careful how you phrase your posts.
I never said that, you need to be careful how you read posts.
The trouble is that people repeatedly hear their religious leaders
and others quote the 1 Cor. 12 passage out of context that people
get indoctrinated and cannot see easily what this and Acts are really
showing us. The fact that all spoke in tongues in Acts, which deals
with receiving the Spirit is brushed aside as "special cases",
and 1 Cor. 12 is presented as being about what different people
get when they receive the Spirit.
The question of why it says "to one is given faith... wisdom..
knowledge... tongues etc is never really gone into and so the people are
left with all sorts of ideas about what the gifts are and what receiving
the Spirit is.
>
> That's what happens when someone asks to belong to God. God gives them his
> Spirit. If we ask Jesus into our lives, we ask all of God into our lives.
> Since Pentecost has long gone, I rather suspect that when I became a
> Christian, God gave his Spirit to me and he has been there since -
> whatever I thought about it. It's a promise. Jesus said he would leave us
> a counsellor. Therefore, he did. Therefore, when someone prays in earnest,
> seeking God sincerely, God answers and gives his Spirit. What is there to
> debate about? If someone has 'prayed the prayer' and meant it, they have
> the Spirit.
Jesus spoke of receiving the counsellor... Acts details receiving the
counsellor !
Why not pray to receive what they all got ?
If you don't receive it straightaway, you will understand why Jesus told
that parable in Luke 11:5-13 !
>
> Actually, I don't think it would have been better if I'd had it before. I
> don't think I'm ready for tongues yet :)
> But surely if it is salvation by grace and all up to God, then the lack of
> possession of the gift of tongues means nothing. God may choose to give me
> tongues on my deathbed, or he may choose never to do so. I still belong to
> him.
Like all the others in the church I'm in, I pray in tongues privately,
but in a meeting I may or may not receive "a gift of tongues".
There are children who pray in tongues, why aren't you ready ?
>
> > *ALL* you can do is say to God that you want what he gave all those
> > people
> > in Acts... *HE* WILL do the rest !...
>
> I have. I prayed. I am saved 'cos that's what God promised us. I want to
> know why you contradict that promise (that if we truly repent then we are
> saved) by saying that because I do not have tongues, I am not a proper
> Christian. Have I misunderstood? (I hope so!)
No you have not, you have just confessed that ou are not ready for
tongues.
Therefore you have not prayed and thirsted for what God gave all the
disciples from Pentecost.
>
> > Receiving the Spirit is simply receiving what God wants to give you..
> > he gave Jesus so that you could receive this, you need to (a) trust
> > The Lord that He will and (b) desire it above all... if you hold onto
> > your own ideas instead of what you read in the word about receiving
> > the Spirit, this will delay what God can do for you.
>
> I desire God above all. Funnily enough, while it'd be rather cool, I don't
> desire the gift of tongues that much. I don't see that it would be much
> use to me outside of my own room. I'd far rather have the gift of
> patience, or the gift of being able to talk to people, or the gift of
> self-control. Does that make me a heretic?
Tongues edifies the speaker, you allow the Spirit to lead you in prayer,
you draw on God's power, this gives you His patience, experience,
confidence and self-control... look at the difference in the disciples
before and after Pentecost !
Like many others, you may notice that after tongues, various other
things seem to come along !
Here are some scriptures for you:-
Isa:28:11: For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to
this people.
Isa:28:12: To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the
weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
(quoted in 1 Cor. 14:21-22... "wherefore tongues...")
Zep:3:9: For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they
may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent.
Ro:8:26: Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know
not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh
intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
Ro:8:27: And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of
the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to
the will of God.
1Co: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.
1Co:14:4: He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself;
1Co:14:14: For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my
understanding is unfruitful.
1Co:14:15: What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray
with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will
sing with the understanding also.
> It's up to him, ne?
Yes, and He wants to show you his grace but he can only give according
as you *believe*.
>
> I'm sorry. I do not get a feeling of love from this particular post. I do
> not appreciate being told I am not a Christian. I'm hoping I misread your
> post.
Love is not a feeling, love believes all things, there is no love in
lies.
I've told you God's very positive message about what He will do, you
have
confessed that you are not ready for it.. who is not loving ?... who is
hardening their heart ?... the Samarians and the discipels and others
were
all told they needed to receive the Spirit, so by implication they had
not
yet... they did not get offended, as you have, therefore they received,
and
you have not, but God's patience remains, you can freely repent and
receive
the same from God.
I know I have loved you more than others on this discussion, of course
you may reject that, in which case I will say no more to you.
- Nick
Paul Wright
Sun Kitten <ma...@hermes.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>> > There are a number of things I want to ask you now, Nick.
>> What did I say, what did I say ?? (why now ?)
>> - you needn't answer that.
>
>Tough - I'm going to :)
>You said that Christians without the gift of tongues are not Christians.
>If you didn't say that, then my apologies for misunderstanding, but you
>need to be careful how you phrase your posts.
Information which you may or may not know already:
Nick is part of a sect (cult?) called the Revival Fellowship which
insists that all Christians speak in tongues. I think he is slightly
circumspect about it here because our moderator comes down hard on
people saying other people aren't Christians.
You can read about them at http://www.cults.org/
Their official web pages are at http://www.revivalfellowship.org/
--
----- Paul Wright ------| "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same
-paul....@pobox.com--| God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and
http://pobox.com/~pw201 | intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
| --Galileo Galilei
Nick Ashton
The big denominations of Jesus time were called sects, and of course
they labelled that small band of hill-billy Galileans a sect and
heresy.
It's tempting to assume you are not part of a sect yourself if you have
got lots of well spoken of people patting you on the back telling you
that
you are a christian walking with God, but you will not escape being in a
sect until God reveals his true way to you.
By the way I'm not with "Revival Centres".
Ken Down
<amet...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> I agree. Remember though that Jesus began by demanding baptism, then he
> deliberately prayed to receive the Spirit... when the Spirit came to him
> God bare witness, there was a voice from heaven heard.
You have evidence that Jesus "deliberately prayed to receive the Spirit"?
And when God bore witness, it was not in tongues.
Ken Down
dig...@my-deja.com (RIchard Dudley) wrote:
> Have you ever entertained the possibility, even for a nanosecond Ken,
> that it might be just your suspicious mind ?
Moi?
Phil Saunders
> On Mon, 26 Nov 2001 09:17:55 -0000 "Phil Saunders"
> <philip....@ntlworld.com> jumped up and down excitedly and wrote
> the following:
>
> >The NIV?
>
> New International Version, currently one of the most popular, (and my
> own choice).
>
> Cheers
>
> Neil
It was meant to be a joke (Ie Why would they accept the NIV) ha ha.
sorry I'll get my coat.
Phil
Richard Emblem
<mi...@trustsof.demon.co.uk> writes:
>Of course, but distinguish between "Charismatic liberals" and "Liberal
>charismatics"! I see you as the former, and not the latter, Richard!!
LOL - thanks Mike.