Bewildered
HMK
why the Churches of Great Britain in these times are not being used as
stress relief, let me tell you a story, some years ago I was under some
pressure and I felt that the world was on top of me, as I am not a believer
in Psychiatry or Counselling ( I would not let most of them council a dog ),
I was passing a church that I had passed a million times, it was mid
afternoon so I drove my car into the car park of the Church and I decided to
go into the Church, it was completely empty, so I sat down and I closed my
eyes, after a while I got a feeling safety, this feeling was quite powerful
and my problems had gone completely from my mind I felt so strange then I
started to cry ( something I had not done since I was a child ), I stayed
for about an hour then I put some money in the box by the door and left.
I felt good all that day.
My question is, why cant the leaders of the Christian Church urge big
business and other people who find it difficult to cope with everyday life
to use the Churches in this way? especially during the day.
I am sure many people would benefit more from sitting in a church for about
an hour a week if they were left alone in silence with God, rather than
someone preaching to them.
I also believe that some time in the future the Christian people will arrest
the Churches from the leaders and use them for this purpose, their are 40
million Christians in Great Britain and the Church belong to them.
Eve Munro
I am sure that most Churches would love to leave the door open in
order that everyone could find peace and solace. In the not so distant
past, the door of the Church was never locked. Many are still able
to do this and encourage all who enter to do so quietly in order to
facilitate private contemplation and prayer. However, in the last
decade or so, the respect paid to any "House of God" has declined to
the extent that, in a lot of areas, building and contents now have to
be protected. The cost of hiring security and/or the difficulty of
finding someone to act as caretaker, now means that access may have to
be restricted.
Pam
> eyes, after a while I got a feeling safety, this feeling was quite
powerful
> and my problems had gone completely from my mind I felt so strange
then I
> started to cry ( something I had not done since I was a child ), I
stayed
> for about an hour then I put some money in the box by the door and
left.
> I felt good all that day.
HMK:
I'm glad God "put her/his arms around you" in that situation.
I take Eve's point about the fact that its getting dangerous to leave
our doors open. Still, your post speaks to me of the fact that the
church should exist primarily for the people outside of it.
I hope God continues to bless you.
--
Pam
Give a hungry person a free meal when you visit
http://www.thehungersite.com
Homepage: http:/www.geocities.com/seeker963/
Nick Milton
the collective wisdom with:
>I am not a religious person, I have been baffled these past few years as to
>why the Churches of Great Britain in these times are not being used as
>stress relief
I think that many of them are, but they are not advertised as such.
Our local church runs a rota of church watchers, so the building can
be kept open for visitors. I know another parish where they lock the
main door but keep open a tiny door (too small for people to carry
lecterns, pews etc out through) so people can come in and "be quiet"
When I am up in London on business meetings, I very often pop into the
nearest church for some stress relief.
Do you think it needs more advertisement? If so, where?
Nick
EasyGeeza
God says he doesn't dwell in buildings made with man's hands.
Rather, you were able to psycho-somatically reduce your stress by
choosing
not to think about problems, perhaps a belief that there is a loving God
helped you in this.
However, there is a way to be at peace even in the midst of the storm,
not by finding the right building, but by "entering into the sanctuary"
of agreeing with God, then you know that all things will work for your
benefit. Obviously you have to know God's will to do this.
Psalms:73:
Truly God is good to Israel, even to such as are of a clean heart.
But as for me, my feet were almost gone; my steps had well nigh slipped.
For I was envious at the foolish, when I saw the prosperity of the
wicked.
For there are no bands in their death: but their strength is firm.
They are not in trouble as other men; neither are they plagued like
other men.
Therefore pride compasseth them about as a chain; violence covereth them
as a garment.
Their eyes stand out with fatness: they have more than heart could wish.
. . . . .
:16-17: When I thought to know this, it was too painful for me;
Until I went into the sanctuary of God; then understood I their end.
If you receive the Holy Spirit, the Life of Jesus Christ, you are able
to see
things as God does, you are His temple, you share the mind of Christ . .
..
Ro:8:5-6: For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the
flesh;
but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life
and peace.
I appreciate your well-meaning suggestion about church buildings, but
helping man is God's Big Business . . .care to understand more about
receiving the Holy Spirit ?
- Nick
Nick Milton
enhanced the collective wisdom with:
>I believe there is nothing special about the building you went into.
Well, HMK found something special there. So maybe there was something
special about it, even if it was merely it's dedication to God.
We all know God is everywhere, but maybe He is easier to tune in to in
some places than in others
Nick
Tim Jones
>Well, HMK found something special there. So maybe there was something
>special about it, even if it was merely it's dedication to God.
>
>We all know God is everywhere, but maybe He is easier to tune in to in
>some places than in others
Places which have been worshipped in for a long time do seem to acquire
something. They have sometimes been described as "thin" places. It could
partly be simple psychology -- e.g. a church is carefully set up to remind
you of God's presence in all kinds of ways -- but from experience I think
there's more to it than that. It's as though places which are habitually
used for meeting with God become places where it's easier to.
This isn't something I'd choose to believe, because I believe the whole of
creation is sacred, yet my observation, and that of others, is that there
are places which have a startling capacity to make God's presence felt.
Don't underestimate what it means to be prayed for, and don't forget that
many people worshipping in the church will have been praying "for people who
come into this building". In which case, when you go into the building and
find yourself in God's presence, their prayers are being answered.
Tim.
EasyGeeza
>
> This isn't something I'd choose to believe, because I believe the whole of
> creation is sacred, yet my observation, and that of others, is that there
> are places which have a startling capacity to make God's presence felt.
Is it really God's presence being felt ?
Tim Jones
Well if you're going to be strictly literal about it, God is present
everywhere and I'm saying that there are places where for some reason it's
easier for us to recognise that presence and respond to it. All that we
can actually feel is feelings [1], but in this case they're the feelings
associated with encountering and responding to God. Those feelings mght
arise for psychological reasons [2], or as a
result of being prayed for [3], or because for some reason God chooses to
prompt them, or from a combination of those, or for some other reason...
[1] In the same way that all we can ever see is signals from
our retina representing incident light.
[2] e.g. symbolism of church architecture and the knowledge that
people have worshipped there for many centuries; or still water
encouraging inner stillness conducive to a meditative and
prayerful frame of mind
[3] People sometimes report an unexpected sense of peace
when prayed for. Recently I've had the experence a number
of times of experiencing a sudden sense of peace and
reassurance around 30 seconds to a minute before receiving
a message from a close friend who prays for me a lot.
Tim.
Nick Milton
enhanced the collective wisdom with:
>Tim Jones wrote:
>
>>
>> This isn't something I'd choose to believe, because I believe the whole of
>> creation is sacred, yet my observation, and that of others, is that there
>> are places which have a startling capacity to make God's presence felt.
>
>Is it really God's presence being felt ?
yes
EasyGeeza
others later, they *become* the temple of God !
Have you had this experience Tim ?
Gareth McCaughan
[Tim Jones:]
>> This isn't something I'd choose to believe, because I believe the whole of
>> creation is sacred, yet my observation, and that of others, is that there
>> are places which have a startling capacity to make God's presence felt.
>
> Is it really God's presence being felt ?
Well, let's see. A man goes into a building dedicated
to the worship of God. He feels a sense of peace, which
prompts him (even though he's not a Christian) to seek
comments from Christians. That sounds like God at work
to me, even if the possibility doesn't fit in well with
your theology.
--
Gareth McCaughan Gareth.M...@pobox.com
.sig under construc
Robert Marshall
GM> "EasyGeeza" wrote: [Tim Jones:]
>>> This isn't something I'd choose to believe, because I believe the
>>> whole of creation is sacred, yet my observation, and that of
>>> others, is that there are places which have a startling capacity
>>> to make God's presence felt.
>
EG> Is it really God's presence being felt ?
GM> Well, let's see. A man goes into a building dedicated to the
GM> worship of God. He feels a sense of peace, which prompts him
GM> (even though he's not a Christian) to seek comments from
GM> Christians. That sounds like God at work to me, even if the
GM> possibility doesn't fit in well with your theology.
ISTM there's a danger in all this that thinking that God's presence is best
seen/experienced in a certain class of places which will tend to be the
easy places. `You are nearer God's heart in a garden...', the nearest place
to God's heart was a rubbish dump outside Jerusalem, I'm not saying there
aren't peaceful places that are special and that we'll return to again in
search of `presence'. I am saying the startling places are (by definition)
the most unlikely
R
--
Robert Marshall
Conformity means death for any comunity. A loyal opposition is a necessity
in any community -- Karol Wojtyla (1969)
Tony Gillam
message news:wkvgsx7...@mail.chezmarshall.freeserve.co.uk...
> `You are nearer God's heart in a garden...', the nearest place
> to God's heart was a rubbish dump
I haven't heard anyone say they are closest to God at Junction 7a of
the M6 for instance. ISTM that any place of tranquillity will provide
a quiet environment for God to be able to get a word in edgeways.
--
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
Gareth McCaughan
[Nick Ashton:]
> EG> Is it really God's presence being felt ?
[me:]
> GM> Well, let's see. A man goes into a building dedicated to the
> GM> worship of God. He feels a sense of peace, which prompts him
> GM> (even though he's not a Christian) to seek comments from
> GM> Christians. That sounds like God at work to me, even if the
> GM> possibility doesn't fit in well with your theology.
[Robert:]
> ISTM there's a danger in all this that thinking that God's presence is best
> seen/experienced in a certain class of places which will tend to be the
> easy places.
Yes, that's a danger. It is possible to meet God anywhere.
Even in a church. I suspect that for Nick, a church is not
an "easy place" in your sense. :-)
Gareth McCaughan
The Bible does not say that "this experience" is what
makes someone "the temple of God". You are reading into
the text something that is not there.
Ken Down
<Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Well, let's see. A man goes into a building dedicated
> to the worship of God. He feels a sense of peace, which
> prompts him (even though he's not a Christian) to seek
> comments from Christians. That sounds like God at work
> to me, even if the possibility doesn't fit in well with
> your theology.
Hear hear.
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:3A2D8BAD...@ntlworld.com...
There seems to be a strong implication there that Tim could not
possibly have experienced the Holy Spirit. If so, on what basis do
you make that statement? It sort of looks like the assumption is
being made because he's floated an idea you don't agree with.
EasyGeeza
>
> The Bible does not say that "this experience" is what
> makes someone "the temple of God". You are reading into
> the text something that is not there.
>
What does make someone a temple of God then Gareth ?
1Co:6:19: What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy
Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
Tim Jones
Where did he write that? I can't see the post.
In 1980 I had an experience which charismatics at the time interpreted as
"baptism in the Spirit". However, I had been a Christian for a number of
years and the Spirit was already at work in my life, so I don't believe that
my body *suddenly became* "a temple of the Holy Spirit" at that point. It
was simply a point at which I was made very *aware* of the Spirit who was
already active in my life and who had chosen to give me that awareness. I
welcomed the experience, I'm glad I had it, and it's influenced my theology
and my spirituality for the last 20 years, but the theology which other
people wanted to attach to it seemed all wrong to me at the time, and still
does.
>The Bible does not say that "this experience" is what
>makes someone "the temple of God". You are reading into
>the text something that is not there.
I agree.
Tim.
Ken Down
Marshall <rob...@chezmarshall.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> ISTM there's a danger in all this that thinking that God's presence is
> best seen/experienced in a certain class of places
I wonder whether it is God's presence or the piety of worshippers through
the ages? Don't ask me for a rational explanation, but places do have
atmosphere. My son and a friend investigated a ruined farmhouse some years
ago and came out with great speed and vertical hair, complaining of a
terrifying sense of evil. We subsequently became aware that satanic rituals
were performed there.
On the other hand, I felt tremendous awe the first time I climbed Mt Sinai -
still do, though to a lesser extent, on subsequent climbs. Many old churches
convey a feeling of peace and - well - holiness.
I don't want to descend into prattle about "vibrations", but there is no
question in my mind that people can leave "vibes" that others can pick up.
Paul Wright
Pam <seek...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>"EasyGeeza" <amet...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>news:3A2D8BAD...@ntlworld.com...
>> and others later, they *become* the temple of God ! Have you had
>> this experience Tim ?
>
>possibly have experienced the Holy Spirit. If so, on what basis do you
>make that statement? It sort of looks like the assumption is being
>made because he's floated an idea you don't agree with.
Nick (or Geeza) thinks that anyone who hasn't spoken in tongues hasn't
received the Holy Spirit, or at least, he did the last time we discussed
this.
--
----- Paul Wright ------| Early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets
-paul....@pobox.com--| the cheese.
http://pobox.com/~pw201 |
Gareth McCaughan
[I said:]
>> The Bible does not say that "this experience" is what
>> makes someone "the temple of God". You are reading into
>> the text something that is not there.
>
> What does make someone a temple of God then Gareth ?
>
> 1Co:6:19: What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy
> Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
Belonging to God makes someone a temple of God. I know
that *you* believe that "this experience" is had by all
who belong to God and by none who do not, but I don't
agree.
EasyGeeza
>
> Where did he write that? I can't see the post.
Above Gareth's
>
> In 1980 I had an experience which charismatics at the time interpreted as
> "baptism in the Spirit". However, I had been a Christian for a number of
> years and the Spirit was already at work in my life, so I don't believe that
> my body *suddenly became* "a temple of the Holy Spirit" at that point.
In the bible it was always known precicely when people received the
Spirit (Acts 2:4, 33; 8:17-18, 10:44, 19:6 i.e. became the temple
1 Cor.6:19), just like in the OT, when God entered the man-made temple,
they knew !
Do you know when you received the Spirit Tim ?
If so, how ?
- Nick
Nick Milton
enhanced the collective wisdom with:
>I don't want to descend into prattle about "vibrations", but there is no
>question in my mind that people can leave "vibes" that others can pick up.
Oooh Ken Down you closet new-ager you!
Nick
(I think your observations are valid btw but could not resist a tease)
Pam
news:90mktv$5at$1...@verence.demon.co.uk...
>
> Nick (or Geeza) thinks that anyone who hasn't spoken in tongues
hasn't
> received the Holy Spirit, or at least, he did the last time we
discussed
> this.
Paul:
Thanks for the explanation.
<sighs>
Blessings,
Ken Down
<amet...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> What does make someone a temple of God then Gareth ?
We are all by nature temples of the Holy Spirit. Not all of us recognise our
obligations in that respect, however; we defile the temple or close its
doors and prevent God having His rightful place inside us.
David Ould
well, I know that I received the Spirit the moment I gave my life to the
Lord.
Why do I know this? Because the Bible tells me so. I don't need an
"experience" to tell me so. God's told me in his word.
>
> If so, how ?
>
> - Nick
David
Pam
news:90mktv$5at$1...@verence.demon.co.uk...
Paul:
Yes, I realise who this is now. I seem to recall having got an email
when I first arrived on this board stating that I had just become a
Christian. I seem to recall being told that I wouldn't actually be a
Christian until all sorts of Holy Spirit manifestations had happened
to me. I'm only glad I wasn't an 18 year old girl who didn't know
anything about theology. Whilst I have nothing against charismatics,
I think this is an example of the worst kind of behaviour possible.
FWIW, I *have* spoken in tongues and actually found it to be a highly
useful way to pray in specific circumstances. At no time did God make
it known to me that this experience had suddenly made me a Christian,
that my previous commitment to Christ was false, and that I had to try
to bully other people into experiencing God the way I do.
Gareth McCaughan
> Gareth McCaughan wrote in message <86vgsxm...@g.local>...
>> "EasyGeeza" wrote:
>>
> Where did he write that? I can't see the post.
The Message-ID is <3A2D8BAD...@ntlworld.com> .
EasyGeeza
> well, I know that I received the Spirit the moment I gave my life to the
> Lord.
> Why do I know this? Because the Bible tells me so. I don't need an
> "experience" to tell me so. God's told me in his word.
David, I'd be interested to know where the bible says / teaches
that if you give your life to The Lord you thereby receive the Spirit.
The bible does say that "the heart is deceitful above all things"
(Jer.17:2) so how are you judging your heart that you have in fact done
this. The Christians in the bible certainly were able to say that
people had just received the Spirit but NOT because the people concerned
said they had "repented" or "given their lives to The Lord".
The bible makes statements about believers, but we cannot be sure
it refers to us particularly until we see God baring witness.
Jesus said:- Joh:5:31
If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.
So, who are we to bare witness of ourselves ?
That's why the disciples waited for God to "bare witness" His way
Ac:15:8: And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving
them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
On a more general note, in John 16, the disciples decided they
believed:-
Joh:16:29: His disciples said unto him, Lo, now speakest thou plainly,
and speakest no proverb.
Joh:16:30: Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not
that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth
from God.
. . . .but Jesus immediately said:-
Joh:16:31: Jesus answered them, Do ye now believe?
Joh:16:32: Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be
scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am
not alone, because the Father is with me.
Jesus knew they had not received the Spirit yet.
Are you sure you have received the Spirit David ?
- Nick
Paul Wright
EasyGeeza <amet...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>David Ould wrote:
>
>
>> well, I know that I received the Spirit the moment I gave my life to the
>> Lord.
>> Why do I know this? Because the Bible tells me so. I don't need an
>> "experience" to tell me so. God's told me in his word.
>
>
>David, I'd be interested to know where the bible says / teaches
>that if you give your life to The Lord you thereby receive the Spirit.
1 John 4:15 If anyone confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God
resides in him and he in God
Eph 1:13 And when you heard the word of truth (the gospel of your
salvation)-when you believed in Christ-you were marked with the seal
of the promised Holy Spirit
Gal 3:2 The only thing I want to learn from you is this: Did you
receive the Spirit by doing the works of the law or by believing what
you heard?
(Paul clearly intends to remind the Galations that it was the latter,
since they are tempted to go back to the former).
>The bible does say that "the heart is deceitful above all things"
>(Jer.17:2) so how are you judging your heart that you have in fact done
>this. The Christians in the bible certainly were able to say that
>people had just received the Spirit but NOT because the people
>concerned said they had "repented" or "given their lives to The Lord".
>
>The bible makes statements about believers, but we cannot be sure it
>refers to us particularly until we see God baring witness.
Do you really think God does not bear witness within us? John tells us
in 1 John how we may know that we are Christians: that we believe that
Jesus is the the Christ and the Son of God, that we love other
Christians. He says what he says about Jesus and above love and then he
says:
5:13 I have written these things to you who believe in the name of the
Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.
So, John says that they may know that they have eternal life by the
things which he writes. These things which give the Christian assurance
are things which only we can judge in our hearts, since only you know
whether you have believed and loved (though I suppose others might have
some idea about the latter). Yet John says that those who believe and
love may then *know* they have eternal life. The heart is deceitful, but
there are still some things we can usefully know about our status with
God.
>Jesus said:- Joh:5:31
>If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.
>
>So, who are we to bare witness of ourselves ?
We do not bear witness to ourselves. The Spirit within us bears witness
to us. Someone might say: How do we know we have the right spirit?
John says:
"Now by this we know that God resides in us: by the Spirit he has given
us.
Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to
determine if they are from God, because many false prophets have gone
out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit
that confesses Jesus as the Christ who has come in the flesh is from
God..." (end of 1 John 3 and beginning of 4)
I take this to mean that John says we will know that God resides in us
by the Spirit telling us so. But how do we know whether it is really the
Spirit in us? If a spirit confesses the Jesus is the Christ, it is the
Spirit of God.
>That's why the disciples waited for God to "bare witness" His way
>Ac:15:8: And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving
>them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
>
>On a more general note, in John 16, the disciples decided they
>believed:-
...
>Jesus knew they had not received the Spirit yet.
>Are you sure you have received the Spirit David ?
I am not sure whether "bearing witness" in what you right refers to we
ourselves knowing that we have the Spirit or other people knowing it
about us. My arguments are mostly addressed to how we know about
ourselves.
As for whether we can know about others, what gives you the authority to
say whether David has or has not received the Spirit? You are not Jesus.
Jesus knew what was in the hearts of others (Mark 2:8), you do not.
Perhaps you'd like to point to where in the Bible it says that we will
always be able to tell whether someone else has received the Spirit.
--
----- Paul Wright ------| The I.S.O. standard unit of female pulchritude is
-paul....@pobox.com--| the milli-helen. This is the amount of beauty capable
http://pobox.com/~pw201 | of causing the launching of a single ship.
moderator for uk.religion.christian
wrote <3A30B868...@ntlworld.com>:
>Jesus knew they had not received the Spirit yet.
>Are you sure you have received the Spirit David ?
Nick, you must stop questioning people's faith in this way - you
appear to be suggesting that they are not Christian, and this is
considered to be personal abuse under the terms of the charter. If
you do it again, I will set you to manual moderation for two weeks.
Debbie
--
Moderator for uk.religion.christian
Debbie Herring
articles go to : uk-religio...@usenet.org.uk
moderator is at: uk-religion-ch...@usenet.org.uk
charter : http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.religion.christian.html
meta-FAQ : http://www.anweald.co.uk/uk.religion.christian.metaFAQ.html
EasyGeeza
>
> 1 John 4:15 If anyone confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God
> resides in him and he in God
Jesus warned that "many" will come to Him calling Him Lord, Lord
but will be rejected, so other verses show what it means to confess
Jesus.
The word "confess" is homo logos in greek which means to speak the
same word. 2 Cor. 11:4 warns of those who preach "another Jesus"
to the one the apostles preached.
So for example, just as John came baptising in water, Jesus came
to baptise in the Spirit, as experienced from Acts 2 onwards.
This is how God comes to reside "in" people.
Interesting that the apostles never got people to
"confess Jesus is the Son of God" in order to say that God now
resides in them.
>
> Eph 1:13 And when you heard the word of truth (the gospel of your
> salvation)-when you believed in Christ-you were marked with the seal
> of the promised Holy Spirit
KJV says "after that you believed"
Ac:19:1: And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul
having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding
certain disciples, . .. .
Ac:19:6: And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came
on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
How did Paul know that believed and were sealed with the Spirit ?
>
> Gal 3:2 The only thing I want to learn from you is this: Did you
> receive the Spirit by doing the works of the law or by believing what
> you heard?
>
> (Paul clearly intends to remind the Galations that it was the latter,
> since they are tempted to go back to the former).
Amen, and again, how did Paul know that believed and were sealed with
the Spirit ?
>
> Do you really think God does not bear witness within us?
God's witness was not just "within", others without saw and heard the
witness
> John tells us
> in 1 John how we may know that we are Christians: that we believe that
> Jesus is the the Christ and the Son of God, that we love other
> Christians. He says what he says about Jesus and above love and then he
> says:
>
> 5:13 I have written these things to you who believe in the name of the
> Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.
>
> So, John says that they may know that they have eternal life by the
> things which he writes.
1Jo:2:3: And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his
commandments.
1Jo:2:5: But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God
perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
If we are faithful to God's commandments and words we are assured of
eternal life
> I am not sure whether "bearing witness" in what you right refers to we
> ourselves knowing that we have the Spirit or other people knowing it
> about us. My arguments are mostly addressed to how we know about
> ourselves.
My point is that the Spirit's witness when one receives the Spirit is
also witnessed by others.
>
> As for whether we can know about others, what gives you the authority to
> say whether David has or has not received the Spirit? You are not Jesus.
> Jesus knew what was in the hearts of others (Mark 2:8), you do not.
Amen, that's why I wouldn't dare say that I, or anyone else has
received the Spirit until God bares witness, *His* way, as detailed
in the bible.
How were Philip and the other christians able to judge that the
believing Samarians (Acts 8:12-16) had not received the Spirit ?
Would they be moderated from this ng ?
(if not, why not ?)
Please realise that when you refer to yourself or anyone else
as a "Christian" or that they *have* received the Spirit, you are
making a judgement !
Are you sure that you are doing it with God's authority ?
I am doing as you quoted:-
1Jo:4:1: Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether
they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the
world.
Jude was able to say:-
Jude:1:19: These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not
the Spirit.
Jude:1:20: But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy
faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,
in vv3-4 he warns of people changing the original faith.
These things *have* happened BIGTIME !
My motive is not to catch people out, rather to draw attention to
these things that are catching people out.
>
> Perhaps you'd like to point to where in the Bible it says that we will
> always be able to tell whether someone else has received the Spirit.
There is ONE faith / gospel / covenant.
The apostles soon realised that the gentiles got the same as the jews.
God confirmed previous covenants witha sign/token, with Noah it was
"my bow" (Gen.9:12-15), with Abraham and his seed it was circumcision
(Gen.17:11)
With Jesus all receive a "new heart" and they all spoke in tongues as
the Spirit gave utterance.
*if* you can reecive the Spirit but NOT speak in tongues, the apostles
could NOT judge that people had *just received* the Spirit - see the
point ? (it's simple logic).
No-one ever suggests that maybe they or anyone else had received
the Spirit sometime before, or that there is an alternative way
of knowing that people have just received the Spirit.
Acts 2:4, 33; 10:44-46; 19:5-6, Romans 8:15-16, Gal.4:6.
John's letters, and Paul's were written to people who were all judged
to have received the Spirit, even though (in the case of 1 corinthians)
their behaviour did not indicate it.
- Nick
moderator for uk.religion.christian
wrote <3A31A4CA...@ntlworld.com>:
>
>How were Philip and the other christians able to judge that the
>believing Samarians (Acts 8:12-16) had not received the Spirit ?
>Would they be moderated from this ng ?
>(if not, why not ?)
The job of the moderator is to make sure that all posts comply *WITH
THE CHARTER*, not to determine matters of faith or doctrine.
Personal abuse if not permitted by the terms of the charter, and if
Philip or anyone else waded in here and started accusing individuals
of not being Christian, which has been established by long practice as
personal abuse, he'd be moderated out.
Understand now?
EasyGeeza
> Understand now?
>
> Debbie
> --
Indeed
Colin Bell
>
> KJV says "after that you believed"
> Ac:19:1: And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul
> having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding
> certain disciples, . .. .
> Ac:19:6: And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came
> on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
>
> How did Paul know that believed and were sealed with the Spirit ?
>
> >
> > Gal 3:2 The only thing I want to learn from you is this: Did you
> > receive the Spirit by doing the works of the law or by believing what
> > you heard?
> >
> > (Paul clearly intends to remind the Galations that it was the latter,
> > since they are tempted to go back to the former).
>
> Amen, and again, how did Paul know that believed and were sealed with
> the Spirit ?
Later in the same book, Paul wrote: '... the fruit of the Spirit is
love,
joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and
self-control'.
On this basis, I have confidence that the majority [1] of regular
posters to this group are filled with the Spirit.
Colin
[1] I will clarify this to the extent that I'm not 'accusing' anyone
who denies being a Christian of in fact being one.
Gareth McCaughan
[Nick Ashton:]
>> Jesus knew they had not received the Spirit yet.
>> Are you sure you have received the Spirit David ?
>
> Nick, you must stop questioning people's faith in this way - you
> appear to be suggesting that they are not Christian, and this is
> considered to be personal abuse under the terms of the charter. If
> you do it again, I will set you to manual moderation for two weeks.
I think Nick Ashton's theology is dead wrong, and I think
his repeated questioning of other people's salvation is
uncalled-for (even if his theology were right) and rude;
but I *don't* think it violates the charter, and I *don't*
think it warrants putting him on manual moderation unless
he goes so far as to tell someone that they *aren't* saved.
Still, it's your call.
Christ's Disciple
news:867l593...@g.local...
Well, I can't see how telling some-one they aren't saved can be classed as a
'Personal abuse'.
It is no more offensive then stating, God hates your sin, repent or you will
die.
But with the rest, on this occasion, I agree entirely with Gareth.
Jeff...
Christ's Disciple
David Ould
message news:3a3161fb....@news.dial.pipex.com...
> On Fri, 08 Dec 2000 10:31:04 +0000, EasyGeeza <amet...@ntlworld.com>
> wrote <3A30B868...@ntlworld.com>:
>
> >Jesus knew they had not received the Spirit yet.
> >Are you sure you have received the Spirit David ?
>
> Nick, you must stop questioning people's faith in this way - you
> appear to be suggesting that they are not Christian, and this is
> considered to be personal abuse under the terms of the charter. If
> you do it again, I will set you to manual moderation for two weeks.
Debbie,
I, personally, have no problem with what Nick wrote.
It's just a matter of knowing *all* of what scripture has to say on the
subject and not just selective portions.
I am confident of my status as an adopted child of God and no questioning
will persuade me otherwise. I know what God has promised in his word and I
rely on it.
So, if Nick wants to pursue this line with me then please allow him to do
so. Others might not be so certain about the basis of where they stand with
God and so be troubled by questions like these. As for myself, feel free to
let Nick question away.
>
> Debbie
DAvid
David Ould
absolutely.
first, when we all became Christians that was a work of the Spirit. John3:16
and now that I am a Christian I have the witness of the Spirit in my life,
testifying to my spirit that I am a child of God. Rom8:15.
Have a good read through Rom8. To be a Christian is to have the Spirit. To
have the Spirit is to be a Christian.
I know that my heart cries "Abba, Father" all the time.
>
> - Nick
David
Patrick Herring
>In article <wkvgsx7...@mail.chezmarshall.freeserve.co.uk>, Robert
>Marshall <rob...@chezmarshall.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> ISTM there's a danger in all this that thinking that God's presence is
>> best seen/experienced in a certain class of places
>
>I wonder whether it is God's presence or the piety of worshippers through
>the ages? Don't ask me for a rational explanation, but places do have
>atmosphere. My son and a friend investigated a ruined farmhouse some years
>ago and came out with great speed and vertical hair, complaining of a
>terrifying sense of evil. We subsequently became aware that satanic rituals
>were performed there.
>
>On the other hand, I felt tremendous awe the first time I climbed Mt Sinai -
>still do, though to a lesser extent, on subsequent climbs. Many old churches
>convey a feeling of peace and - well - holiness.
"A place where prayer has been valid" [1]
Entirely agree. The church I used to go to in London (St Mary's
Prmrose Hill) had such a feeling. OTOH I once went to Canterbury and
felt the place was deeply tired of all those people turning up &
taking without giving.
>I don't want to descend into prattle about "vibrations", but there is no
>question in my mind that people can leave "vibes" that others can pick up.
Quite, on both counts. Since spiritual matters aren't about the
physical level how can that possibly happen? etc etc. I think one does
have to descend into talk about vibrations & resonance etc to get
anywhere.
Have you ever tried dowsing? I did a bit last summer with some
coat-hangers in a field & a stone circle, and I have say there is
something that happens for real, though I don't know what. But it has
to be the same sort of thing as "holiness-vibes", to a first
approximation.
[1] assuming no-one else has quoted that one yet.
Patrick Herring, Sheffield, UK
http://www.anweald.co.uk
EasyGeeza
> > Are you sure you have received the Spirit David ?
>
> absolutely.
> first, when we all became Christians that was a work of the Spirit. John3:16
> and now that I am a Christian I have the witness of the Spirit in my life,
> testifying to my spirit that I am a child of God. Rom8:15.
>
> Have a good read through Rom8. To be a Christian is to have the Spirit. To
> have the Spirit is to be a Christian.
> I know that my heart cries "Abba, Father" all the time.
>
David, Romans 8:15-16, and Gal.4:6 say that it is The Spirit that
bares (independant) witness, not OUR spirit/heart saying
"Abba father" . . .do you see the difference ?
Jesus says
Joh:5:31: If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.
and
Joh:5:36: But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works
which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear
witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.
Joh:10:37: If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.
The works are the miracles.
Joh:14:12: Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the
works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he
do; because I go unto my Father.
Therefore if any church claiming to be Christs doesn't do His works,
I have His authority NOT to believe them (John 10:37).
In addition to the works that Jesus performed on earth, the believers
saw the miraculous sign of speaking in tongues following, because
Jesus had gone to the Father. Jesus healed and cast out devils
and said "the kingdom is come nigh unto you", the virgin birth
was given as a sign of God with them, will God / the kingdom
come INTO people WITHOUT a sign ?
"Abba" is like "Daddy" or "Papa", a term used only toward the child's
father and since "God is a Spirit" and 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. (John 4v23-24) it follows
that the "cry" identifying sonship should be a of God's Spirit, not
man's.
Jesus said "the hour cometh", i.e. something new is coming
"and now is" - Jesus already had the Spirit indwelling, and of
course there was a voice from heaven when The Spirit came to Him,
Jesus did't just say "I'm the Christ because I say so".
- Nick
P.S. I'm sorry if anyone thinks I'm "rude", I don't mean to be.
P.P.S. HMK - are you still following this discussion ?
Ken Down
(Patrick Herring) wrote:
> Quite, on both counts. Since spiritual matters aren't about the
> physical level how can that possibly happen? etc etc. I think one does
> have to descend into talk about vibrations & resonance etc to get
> anywhere.
I doubt it, since vibrations and resonance are physical phenomena while what
we are discussing is a spiritual one. I merely mentioned "vibrations" and
"vibes" because that was the common parlance of my youth.
> Have you ever tried dowsing?
Yes. It works.
Paul Wright
EasyGeeza <amet...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>Paul Wright wrote:
>>
>> 1 John 4:15 If anyone confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God
>> resides in him and he in God
>
>Jesus warned that "many" will come to Him calling Him Lord, Lord
>but will be rejected, so other verses show what it means to confess
>Jesus.
>The word "confess" is homo logos in greek which means to speak the
>same word. 2 Cor. 11:4 warns of those who preach "another Jesus"
>to the one the apostles preached.
But I am not talking about people who preach another Jesus than the
apostles, but people who confess that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of
God (as the apostles did). I am not sure of the relevance of what you've
written above in that case.
>So for example, just as John came baptising in water, Jesus came
>to baptise in the Spirit, as experienced from Acts 2 onwards.
>This is how God comes to reside "in" people.
I don't disagree that God resides in people by the Spirit. I disagree
that there is always a sure-fire way to tell that this has occurred, and
that that way is by their speaking in tongues.
>Interesting that the apostles never got people to "confess Jesus is the
>Son of God" in order to say that God now resides in them.
How often is the apostle's method for determining that God now resides
in a person actually spelt out? I can think of the example of the
believers at Cornelius's house who are later talked about in the Jewish
church.
In this case, it's clear that a dramatic sign is needed to convince the
Jewish believers that the unthinkable has happened and that God has
given his Spirit to Gentiles, as Peter is in big trouble otherwise.
No-where is it said that this sign will always accompany the receiving
of the Spirit.
>> Eph 1:13 And when you heard the word of truth (the gospel of your
>> salvation)-when you believed in Christ-you were marked with the seal
>> of the promised Holy Spirit
>
>KJV says "after that you believed"
>Ac:19:1: And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul
>having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding
>certain disciples, . .. .
>Ac:19:6: And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came
>on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
>
>How did Paul know that believed and were sealed with the Spirit ?
We're not told. Perhaps Paul thought that anyone who had been baptized
into the name of Jesus (rather than just John as in the example) would
receive the Spirit.
Even if Paul could tell on this occasion because they spoke in tongues,
no-where is it said that we can always tell or that we can always tell
by this method.
>> Gal 3:2 The only thing I want to learn from you is this: Did you
>> receive the Spirit by doing the works of the law or by believing what
>> you heard?
>>
>> (Paul clearly intends to remind the Galations that it was the latter,
>> since they are tempted to go back to the former).
>
>Amen, and again, how did Paul know that believed and were sealed with
>the Spirit ?
We're not told. Because they said they did and their actions matched
with what they said?
>> I am not sure whether "bearing witness" in what you right refers to
>> we ourselves knowing that we have the Spirit or other people knowing
>> it about us. My arguments are mostly addressed to how we know about
>> ourselves.
>
>My point is that the Spirit's witness when one receives the Spirit is
>also witnessed by others.
How do you know that this is always the case?
>> As for whether we can know about others, what gives you the authority to
>> say whether David has or has not received the Spirit? You are not Jesus.
>> Jesus knew what was in the hearts of others (Mark 2:8), you do not.
>
>Amen, that's why I wouldn't dare say that I, or anyone else has
>received the Spirit until God bares witness, *His* way, as detailed
>in the bible.
>
>How were Philip and the other christians able to judge that the
>believing Samarians (Acts 8:12-16) had not received the Spirit ?
We are not told in the passage (and tongues are not mentioned, either).
Perhaps they had a gift of discernment?
>Please realise that when you refer to yourself or anyone else
>as a "Christian" or that they *have* received the Spirit, you are
>making a judgement !
>Are you sure that you are doing it with God's authority ?
For myself, yes. For other Christians, no. Even if they speak in
tongues, I cannot do this, as people here have said that they have faked
tongues under pressure from their peers to speak in tongues.
Of course, you cannot know that I do this with God's authority anymore
than I can know it about anyone else. All we can do with regard to other
people is look at the outward signs. Only God knows the heart. For that
reason, I generally take people's word for it when they say they are a
Christian. On the occasions where someone might lie about it, such as
wanting to get into a position of church authority and use that for
their own gain, I think the people chosing leaders need to pray for
discernment and look at the past record of the candidate's character and
ability (as Paul recommends in one of his pastoral letters).
>I am doing as you quoted:-
>1Jo:4:1: Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether
>they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the
>world.
So am I. I am also doing it by the test which John recommends:
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus
Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
John does not say
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit by which you speak in
tongues is of God:
(and with good reason, as other religions also have believers who speak
in tongues).
>> Perhaps you'd like to point to where in the Bible it says that we will
>> always be able to tell whether someone else has received the Spirit.
>
>There is ONE faith / gospel / covenant.
>The apostles soon realised that the gentiles got the same as the jews.
>God confirmed previous covenants witha sign/token, with Noah it was
>"my bow" (Gen.9:12-15), with Abraham and his seed it was circumcision
>(Gen.17:11)
>With Jesus all receive a "new heart" and they all spoke in tongues as
>the Spirit gave utterance.
Where does the Scripture compare these confirmatory signs with speaking
in tongues? The reference to Christians's circumcision in Col 2:11 and
following seems to suggest that the sign which corresponds to
circumcision is baptism, if I'm following Paul's argument correctly.
Colossians 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision
made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by
the circumcision of Christ: 12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also
ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who
hath raised him from the dead.
This makes some kind of sense: if circumcision is the outward sign of
entering the Jewish community, baptism is at least the outward sign of
entering the Christian community. (I say "at least" because I think
baptism does more than that).
And of course, baptism has traditionally required a profession of faith.
:-)
>*if* you can reecive the Spirit but NOT speak in tongues, the apostles
>could NOT judge that people had *just received* the Spirit - see the
>point ? (it's simple logic).
There are two occasions where tongues are mentioned in Acts apart from
at Pentecost. These are Acts 10:44-46 and 19:5-6.
In the case of Acts 10, what seems to be important is that the Gentiles
receive the Spirit in the same manner that the apostles did at
Pentecost. There can be no doubt in the minds of the Jewish people that
Gentiles can receive the Spirit after this has happened. There's no
particular reason why this sign should always be present once the Jewish
believers had been convinced of this.
In Acts 19, Luke does not say that the speaking in tongues part is how
Paul knew that they had received, he just says it happened. Perhaps Paul
knew what happened when he laid on hands (ie he knew what God was doing
through him).
There are other occasions where people believe in Acts where tongues are
not mentioned (the jailer in Acts 16 does not speak in tongues. The
Ethiopian eunuch doesn't either (Acts 8)).
>No-one ever suggests that maybe they or anyone else had received
>the Spirit sometime before, or that there is an alternative way
>of knowing that people have just received the Spirit.
No-one ever suggests that there is always sure-fire way of knowing that
people have just received the Spirit.
>Acts 2:4, 33; 10:44-46; 19:5-6, Romans 8:15-16, Gal.4:6.
>
>John's letters, and Paul's were written to people who were all judged
>to have received the Spirit, even though (in the case of 1 corinthians)
>their behaviour did not indicate it.
This argument won't do, I'm afraid. If you decide that you can define
who these letters were written to according to your own scheme, that's a
circular argument. For example of the sort of argument I mean, take a
look at a group of people called British Israelites. Some of these
people believe that these letters are written to the descendants of
Israel, who they think are now resident in Britain. As a result, they
can do away with all the verses which say that the gospel is for all
races (eg Gal 3:28) by saying these verses cannot mean that as the
letters in which this verses occur were written to the "True Israel"
(which is now Britian, you'll remember, or the white parts of it, as I
suspect they mean).
Anyway, if you've decided that these letters were written for people who
all spoke in tongues, you're making the same sort of argument. I can't
show you you're wrong, any more than you can show me that I'm wrong if I
claim that the letters were written only to people who stand on one leg
and recite the Lord's Prayer every morning: if you try to say that this
isn't mentioned anywhere in the letters, I'll just say that's because
everyone who received the letters already knew they had to do this and
had shown that they did do it.
--
----- Paul Wright ------| Finally, there were places where there was only one
-paul....@pobox.com--| set of footprints. "What does that mean?" I asked
http://pobox.com/~pw201 | God. God said: "There, we were hopping."
Gareth McCaughan
[DAvid Ould:]
>> Have a good read through Rom8. To be a Christian is to have the Spirit. To
>> have the Spirit is to be a Christian.
>> I know that my heart cries "Abba, Father" all the time.
>
> David, Romans 8:15-16, and Gal.4:6 say that it is The Spirit that
> bares (independant) witness, not OUR spirit/heart saying
> "Abba father" . . .do you see the difference ?
The Spirit works in our hearts. Luke 24:31, Romans 5:5,
2 Corinthians 1:21, 2 Corinthians 4:6, Galatians 4:6 (which
is clearly what David is describing), Ephesians 3:17 and
so on. If David's heart cries "Abba, Father" and confesses
Christ as Lord, then there is no other spirit that can be
responsible.
> Jesus says
> Joh:5:31: If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.
> and
> Joh:5:36: But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works
> which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear
> witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.
> Joh:10:37: If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.
>
> The works are the miracles.
>
> Joh:14:12: Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the
> works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he
> do; because I go unto my Father.
>
> Therefore if any church claiming to be Christs doesn't do His works,
> I have His authority NOT to believe them (John 10:37).
So you would have had authority not to believe John the Baptist?
> "Abba" is like "Daddy" or "Papa", a term used only toward the child's
> father and since "God is a Spirit" and 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. (John 4v23-24) it follows
> that the "cry" identifying sonship should be a of God's Spirit, not
> man's.
It follows that anyone crying to God as Father does so by the
Spirit of God, I think. Paul certainly wrote that "no one can
say `Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit".
Gareth McCaughan
> "A place where prayer has been valid" [1]
...
> [1] assuming no-one else has quoted that one yet.
I think it's a little ironic to have it quoted, because
Eliot's whole point is that such places are not there
to be enjoyed or "felt" or whatever: the correct response
is, simply, prayer. In full: "You are not here to verify, /
instruct yourself, or inform curiosity / or carry report.
You are here to kneel / where prayer has been valid."
EasyGeeza
>
> The Spirit works in our hearts. Luke 24:31, Romans 5:5,
> 2 Corinthians 1:21, 2 Corinthians 4:6, Galatians 4:6 (which
> is clearly what David is describing), Ephesians 3:17 and
> so on. If David's heart cries "Abba, Father" and confesses
> Christ as Lord, then there is no other spirit that can be
> responsible.
Well, I accept that The Holy Spirit gives all revelation about
Christ, but just because a person quotes truths revealed to others
(like the 7 sons of Sceva - Acts 19v13) does NOT prove that THEY
have received the Spirit !
But then Jesus did warn that MANY will come to Him, calling
Him Lord, Lord etc . . .
Here is a thought-provoker:-
"And you", said Jesus, "Who do you say I am?"
Simon Peter answered "You are the Messiah, the son of the living God"
Then Jesus said "Simon, son of Jonah, you are favoured indeed! You did
not learn that from mortal man; my heavenly father revealed it to you"
Jesus "And you, who do you say I am?"
Modern church-goer:- "You are the son of the living God"
Jesus "Right. But how unfortunate you are that you learned this from
mortal man. It has not yet been revealed to you by my father"
Church-goer:- "True Lord, I have been cheated. Somebody gave me the
answers before your father could speak. I marvel at your wisdom that
you said nothing to Simon yourself, but waited for your father to
speak first"
>
> > Jesus says
> > Joh:5:31: If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.
> > and
> > Joh:5:36: But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works
> > which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear
> > witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.
> > Joh:10:37: If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.
> >
> > The works are the miracles.
> >
> > Joh:14:12: Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the
> > works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he
> > do; because I go unto my Father.
> >
> > Therefore if any church claiming to be Christs doesn't do His works,
> > I have His authority NOT to believe them (John 10:37).
>
> So you would have had authority not to believe John the Baptist?
Yes, I believe he is not the Christ on earth.
If you lived in John's time Gareth, would you go to him or his disciples
to be immersed in water ?
Have you gone to a disciple of Jesus to be immersed, or were you just
taken as a baby to be sprinkled with water ?
- Nick
Patrick Herring
>
> In article <3a34198f....@news.ntlworld.com>, anw...@ntlworld.com
> (Patrick Herring) wrote:
>
> > Quite, on both counts. Since spiritual matters aren't about the
> > physical level how can that possibly happen? etc etc. I think one does
> > have to descend into talk about vibrations & resonance etc to get
> > anywhere.
>
> I doubt it, since vibrations and resonance are physical phenomena while what
> we are discussing is a spiritual one. I merely mentioned "vibrations" and
> "vibes" because that was the common parlance of my youth.
Vibrations and resonance can have a non-physical meaning eg music. So
can writing, but that isn't usually available in this context.
> > Have you ever tried dowsing?
>
> Yes. It works.
Do you use it at all in archaeology, just out of interest?
--
Patrick Herring
http://www.dcs.shef.ac.uk/cgi-bin/makeperson?P.Herring
EasyGeeza
>
> Later in the same book, Paul wrote: '... the fruit of the Spirit is
> love,
> joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and
> self-control'.
>
> On this basis, I have confidence that the majority [1] of regular
> posters to this group are filled with the Spirit.
You will find that all "good" parents show these attributes, as do
all "professional" business people, so what makes them any less
"christian" on this basis ?
- Nick
EasyGeeza
> But I am not talking about people who preach another Jesus than the
> apostles, but people who confess that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of
> God (as the apostles did). I am not sure of the relevance of what you've
> written above in that case.
Because preaching "Jesus" is more that just saying "he's the Son of God"
He died so that man could receive His Life through the baptism in the
Spirit, get this wrong and it's a words-only message that saves no-one.
Christ is not just the anointed, he's the anointer.
The anointing is The Spirit who was not given until Pentecost, Jew
and Gentile get the same because there is 1 gospel.
Paul *knew* the Corinthians had received this, even though they
were showing the wrong fruit:-
1Co:1:4: I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God
which is given you by Jesus Christ;
1Co:1:5: That in every thing ye are enriched by him, in all utterance,
and in all knowledge;
1Co:1:6: Even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you:
1Co:1:7: So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of
our Lord Jesus Christ:
>
> >So for example, just as John came baptising in water, Jesus came
> >to baptise in the Spirit, as experienced from Acts 2 onwards.
> >This is how God comes to reside "in" people.
>
> I don't disagree that God resides in people by the Spirit. I disagree
> that there is always a sure-fire way to tell that this has occurred, and
> that that way is by their speaking in tongues.
What alternative does the bible give ?
>
> >Interesting that the apostles never got people to "confess Jesus is the
> >Son of God" in order to say that God now resides in them.
>
> How often is the apostle's method for determining that God now resides
> in a person actually spelt out?
How many times do you need ?
What alternatives are ever used ?
> I can think of the example of the
> believers at Cornelius's house who are later talked about in the Jewish
> church.
>
> In this case, it's clear that a dramatic sign is needed to convince the
> Jewish believers that the unthinkable has happened and that God has
> given his Spirit to Gentiles, as Peter is in big trouble otherwise.
>
> No-where is it said that this sign will always accompany the receiving
> of the Spirit.
There is ONE gospel, ONE faith, and the covenant does not change since
it began.
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.
God got it right at the start, as well as Acts 2(jews), 10(gentiles),
they spoke in tongues in 19 (Ephasus), they already knew that the
gentiles were accepted on equal terms.
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.
common means same for all
"the faih once delivered" shows it's the same as at the start
God confirmed previous covenants with a specific sign -
Ge:9:12: And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make
between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for
perpetual generations:
Ge:9:13: I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a
covenant between me and the earth.
Ge:17:11: And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it
shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.
Similarly with man's covevants, we may agree with the words, but until
it is signed, it is not in force.
Jesus healed and cast out devils and said "the kingdom is come nigh unto
you", the virgin birth was given as a sign of God with them, will God
/ the kingdom come INTO people WITHOUT a sign ?
The apostles were able to say precicely when people received the Spirit
- can you do the same ?
- How ?
>
> >I am doing as you quoted:-
> >1Jo:4:1: Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether
> >they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the
> >world.
>
> So am I. I am also doing it by the test which John recommends:
>
> 2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus
> Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
What do you understand by the above scripture ?
Jesus said to John:-
Joh:14:20: At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in
me, and I in you.
What day did they know ?
How did they know ?
Acts 2:4, 33 gives you the answer
Immediately after talking about the common salvation, Jude warms of
people who are creeping in "unawares" to change the grace of God, so
they
will be talking about Jesus but changing the original . . . . later in
the letter referred to those who "separate themselves" i.e. say they are
of God but who "have NOT the Spirit" - (Jude 4, 19), he then contrasts
them with "but ye beloved, building yourselves up on your most Holy
Faith,
praying in the Holy Ghost".
Out of interest Paul, how does one do this without praying in tongues ?
>
> John does not say
>
> 2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit by which you speak in
> tongues is of God:
>
> (and with good reason, as other religions also have believers who speak
> in tongues).
Really ? You know that they speak real language that they never learned
?
Please give details / evidence . . .
Does this language edify them ?
>
> >> Perhaps you'd like to point to where in the Bible it says that we will
> >> always be able to tell whether someone else has received the Spirit.
> >
> >There is ONE faith / gospel / covenant.
> >The apostles soon realised that the gentiles got the same as the jews.
> >God confirmed previous covenants witha sign/token, with Noah it was
> >"my bow" (Gen.9:12-15), with Abraham and his seed it was circumcision
> >(Gen.17:11)
> >With Jesus all receive a "new heart" and they all spoke in tongues as
> >the Spirit gave utterance.
>
> Where does the Scripture compare these confirmatory signs with speaking
> in tongues? The reference to Christians's circumcision in Col 2:11 and
> following seems to suggest that the sign which corresponds to
> circumcision is baptism, if I'm following Paul's argument correctly.
Circumcision is bt the Spirit, the early Christians knew that water
baptism does not signify that a person has received the Spirit.
See Acts 8:12-16
Also in Acts 10, the gentiles were known to have received the Spirit
before they were commanded to be baptised.
>
> Colossians 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision
> made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by
> the circumcision of Christ: 12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also
> ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who
> hath raised him from the dead.
"wherein" refers to christ, not water baptism. See also:-
1Pe:3:21: The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us
(not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a
good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
Water baptism does not put off the sinful nature.
Acts shows that water baptism and receiving the Spirit, while related
are in fact separate experiences, sometimes occurring one after the
other
in either order, sometimes with a gap in between.
>
> >Acts 2:4, 33; 10:44-46; 19:5-6, Romans 8:15-16, Gal.4:6.
> >
> >John's letters, and Paul's were written to people who were all judged
> >to have received the Spirit, even though (in the case of 1 corinthians)
> >their behaviour did not indicate it.
>
> This argument won't do, I'm afraid.
You say:-
"I generally take people's word for it when they say they are a
Christian"
Did the apostles ever do this ?
You have evidently decided that this will "do".
It is clear that the letters were written to people who were *known*
to have received the Spirit at some time in the past, unless you
know how, you have no authority from God to say that *anyone*, yourself
included, have received the Spirit.
Do you agree ?
If not, why not ?
- Nick
Gareth McCaughan
[I said:]
>> The Spirit works in our hearts. Luke 24:31, Romans 5:5,
>> 2 Corinthians 1:21, 2 Corinthians 4:6, Galatians 4:6 (which
>> is clearly what David is describing), Ephesians 3:17 and
>> so on. If David's heart cries "Abba, Father" and confesses
>> Christ as Lord, then there is no other spirit that can be
>> responsible.
>
> Well, I accept that The Holy Spirit gives all revelation about
> Christ, but just because a person quotes truths revealed to others
> (like the 7 sons of Sceva - Acts 19v13) does NOT prove that THEY
> have received the Spirit !
I am not talking about "quoting truths revealed to others".
> But then Jesus did warn that MANY will come to Him, calling
> Him Lord, Lord etc . . .
>
> Here is a thought-provoker:-
>
> "And you", said Jesus, "Who do you say I am?"
> Simon Peter answered "You are the Messiah, the son of the living God"
> Then Jesus said "Simon, son of Jonah, you are favoured indeed! You did
> not learn that from mortal man; my heavenly father revealed it to you"
>
> Jesus "And you, who do you say I am?"
> Modern church-goer:- "You are the son of the living God"
> Jesus "Right. But how unfortunate you are that you learned this from
> mortal man. It has not yet been revealed to you by my father"
> Church-goer:- "True Lord, I have been cheated. Somebody gave me the
> answers before your father could speak. I marvel at your wisdom that
> you said nothing to Simon yourself, but waited for your father to
> speak first"
Very interesting, but not actually in the Bible.
>>> Jesus says
>>> Joh:5:31: If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.
>>> and
>>> Joh:5:36: But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works
>>> which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear
>>> witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.
>>> Joh:10:37: If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.
>>>
>>> The works are the miracles.
>>>
>>> Joh:14:12: Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the
>>> works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he
>>> do; because I go unto my Father.
>>>
>>> Therefore if any church claiming to be Christs doesn't do His works,
>>> I have His authority NOT to believe them (John 10:37).
>>
>> So you would have had authority not to believe John the Baptist?
>
> Yes, I believe he is not the Christ on earth.
I agree: he is not the Christ on earth. So what? Does that
mean what he said was wrong?
> If you lived in John's time Gareth, would you go to him or his disciples
> to be immersed in water ?
>
> Have you gone to a disciple of Jesus to be immersed, or were you just
> taken as a baby to be sprinkled with water ?
I have not the slightest intention of being suckered by your
ad-hominem diversions. It's much easier, when someone says
something you don't agree with, to attack them rather than
dealing with what they say; much easier, but wrong.
Ken Down
<p.he...@dcs.shef.ac.uk> wrote:
> Vibrations and resonance can have a non-physical meaning eg music. So
> can writing, but that isn't usually available in this context.
Really? When I blow my trumpet, the vibrations are very physical.
> Do you use it at all in archaeology, just out of interest?
No - haven't really had the opportunity. It would be interesting to do so.
The trouble is that I am a mere neophyte and couldn't tell you when the rods
were reacting to gold, water, stone or what, nor how deap it might be.
EasyGeeza
>
> "EasyGeeza" wrote:
>
> [I said:]
> >> The Spirit works in our hearts. Luke 24:31, Romans 5:5,
> >> 2 Corinthians 1:21, 2 Corinthians 4:6, Galatians 4:6 (which
> >> is clearly what David is describing), Ephesians 3:17 and
> >> so on. If David's heart cries "Abba, Father" and confesses
> >> Christ as Lord, then there is no other spirit that can be
> >> responsible.
> >
> > Well, I accept that The Holy Spirit gives all revelation about
> > Christ, but just because a person quotes truths revealed to others
> > (like the 7 sons of Sceva - Acts 19v13) does NOT prove that THEY
> > have received the Spirit !
>
> I am not talking about "quoting truths revealed to others".
How do you know ? I mean just because a person thinks they
understand / believe does not mean that they do, as the bible shows:-
The disciples decided they believed:-
Joh:16:29: His disciples said unto him, Lo, now speakest thou plainly,
and speakest no proverb.
Joh:16:30: Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not
that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth
from God.
. . . .but Jesus immediately said:-
Joh:16:31: Jesus answered them, Do ye now believe?
Joh:16:32: Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be
scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am
not alone, because the Father is with me.
Jesus knew they had not received the Spirit yet.
>
> > But then Jesus did warn that MANY will come to Him, calling
> > Him Lord, Lord etc . . .
> >
> > Here is a thought-provoker:-
> >
> > "And you", said Jesus, "Who do you say I am?"
<snip>
>
> Very interesting, but not actually in the Bible.
It is actually, though not in those precice words . . .
"many will come uton me saying lord, lord . . .you taught in our
streets"
>
> >>> Jesus says
> >>> Joh:5:31: If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.
> >>> and
> >>> Joh:5:36: But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works
> >>> which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear
> >>> witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.
> >>> Joh:10:37: If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.
> >>>
> >>> The works are the miracles.
> >>>
> >>> Joh:14:12: Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the
> >>> works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he
> >>> do; because I go unto my Father.
> >>>
> >>> Therefore if any church claiming to be Christs doesn't do His works,
> >>> I have His authority NOT to believe them (John 10:37).
> >>
> >> So you would have had authority not to believe John the Baptist?
> >
> > Yes, I believe he is not the Christ on earth.
>
> I agree: he is not the Christ on earth. So what? Does that
> mean what he said was wrong?
John did no miracle, but his job was to direct people to the one who
does, which he did, and so indirectly, miracles followed John's
ministry. It is the same with the true church today, the individuals
themselves are not doiung any miracles, but if they are pointing to
the right Jesus, miracles follow.
John later questioned "are you the christ or is there another"
Jesus didn't say "tell John I am the Christ", Jesus said
"tell John what you see . . .." he listed the miracles
again showing the true Jesus, and thereby the true church.
- Nick
Patrick Herring
>
> In article <3A3644BC...@dcs.shef.ac.uk>, Patrick Herring
> <p.he...@dcs.shef.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > Vibrations and resonance can have a non-physical meaning eg music. So
> > can writing, but that isn't usually available in this context.
>
> Really? When I blow my trumpet, the vibrations are very physical.
True, but one doesn't hear 800hz one hears a particular quality, which
isn't a physical thing.
> > Do you use it at all in archaeology, just out of interest?
>
> No - haven't really had the opportunity. It would be interesting to do so.
> The trouble is that I am a mere neophyte and couldn't tell you when the rods
> were reacting to gold, water, stone or what, nor how deap it might be.
Indeed, but I found it easy to find cavities for example.
Tim Jones
>> Vibrations and resonance can have a non-physical meaning eg music. So
>> can writing, but that isn't usually available in this context.
>
>Really? When I blow my trumpet, the vibrations are very physical.
What's more, your trumpet is basically an adjustable resonant air column,
with you using your fingers to control its length and your lips to choose
the mode of vibration...
OTOH music can "resonate" emotionally when we hear something which is "in
tune with us".
Tim.
Gareth McCaughan
[I said:]
>>>> The Spirit works in our hearts. Luke 24:31, Romans 5:5,
>>>> 2 Corinthians 1:21, 2 Corinthians 4:6, Galatians 4:6 (which
>>>> is clearly what David is describing), Ephesians 3:17 and
>>>> so on. If David's heart cries "Abba, Father" and confesses
>>>> Christ as Lord, then there is no other spirit that can be
>>>> responsible.
>>>
>>> Well, I accept that The Holy Spirit gives all revelation about
>>> Christ, but just because a person quotes truths revealed to others
>>> (like the 7 sons of Sceva - Acts 19v13) does NOT prove that THEY
>>> have received the Spirit !
>>
>> I am not talking about "quoting truths revealed to others".
>
> How do you know ?
I know what I am talking about because it is I who am
talking. Of course it's possible that David is lying or
wrong when he says that his heart cries "Abba, father"
(though in fact I think that very unlikely), but if it
is indeed so then what he's doing is not "quoting truths
revealed to others".
> I mean just because a person thinks they
> understand / believe does not mean that they do, as the bible shows:-
>
> The disciples decided they believed:-
>
> Joh:16:29: His disciples said unto him, Lo, now speakest thou plainly,
> and speakest no proverb.
> Joh:16:30: Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not
> that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth
> from God.
>
> . . . .but Jesus immediately said:-
> Joh:16:31: Jesus answered them, Do ye now believe?
> Joh:16:32: Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be
> scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am
> not alone, because the Father is with me.
>
> Jesus knew they had not received the Spirit yet.
That doesn't mean that they didn't believe. It means
that they weren't perfect. If it comes to that, they
weren't perfect after they received the Spirit either.
>>> But then Jesus did warn that MANY will come to Him, calling
>>> Him Lord, Lord etc . . .
>>>
>>> Here is a thought-provoker:-
>>>
>>> "And you", said Jesus, "Who do you say I am?"
> <snip>
>>
>> Very interesting, but not actually in the Bible.
>
> It is actually, though not in those precice words . . .
> "many will come uton me saying lord, lord . . .you taught in our
> streets"
You will notice that the passage you are quoting
does not insinuate that every "modern church-goer"
is in their position. Neither does it say that
learning about God from other people is useless.
What it does say is that (as another NT writer
put it) "faith without works is dead". (I am inclined
to add some punctuation, in fact, and render it as
"`faith' without works is dead".) And this applies
no matter what the source of the alleged faith. If
one person learns about God from their parents or
friends, and then truly follows Christ and does
what God wants him to, and another person has deep
truths revealed to him by the Spirit but fails to
live accordingly, then it is the second and not the
first who should be frightened by Jesus's warning.
>>>>> The works are the miracles.
>>>>>
>>>>> Joh:14:12: Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the
>>>>> works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he
>>>>> do; because I go unto my Father.
>>>>>
>>>>> Therefore if any church claiming to be Christs doesn't do His works,
>>>>> I have His authority NOT to believe them (John 10:37).
>>>>
>>>> So you would have had authority not to believe John the Baptist?
>>>
>>> Yes, I believe he is not the Christ on earth.
>>
>> I agree: he is not the Christ on earth. So what? Does that
>> mean what he said was wrong?
>
> John did no miracle, but his job was to direct people to the one who
> does, which he did, and so indirectly, miracles followed John's
> ministry. It is the same with the true church today, the individuals
> themselves are not doiung any miracles, but if they are pointing to
> the right Jesus, miracles follow.
In which case, your demand that individuals should all
exhibit miraculous signs breaks down. What they need to
do is to point others to Jesus. Much as John did, in fact.
> John later questioned "are you the christ or is there another"
> Jesus didn't say "tell John I am the Christ", Jesus said
> "tell John what you see . . .." he listed the miracles
> again showing the true Jesus, and thereby the true church.
The things he listed were not all miracles. The last
was "the good news is preached to the poor". I mention
this just as a warning against lopsidedness...
Gareth McCaughan
[Patrick Herring:]
>>> Vibrations and resonance can have a non-physical meaning eg music. So
>>> can writing, but that isn't usually available in this context.
[Ken:]
>> Really? When I blow my trumpet, the vibrations are very physical.
>
> What's more, your trumpet is basically an adjustable resonant air column,
> with you using your fingers to control its length and your lips to choose
> the mode of vibration...
>
> OTOH music can "resonate" emotionally when we hear something which is "in
> tune with us".
I think Ken and Tim have both misinterpreted Patrick's
words in the same way as I did at first. I was most of
the way through writing an article disagreeing with him
when I realised. :-)
I think what he actually means is not "The words `vibrations'
and `resonance' can have meanings that don't denote physical
things", but "Even though vibrations and resonance are physical
things, they can carry non-physical meaning, as for instance
when they form music".
I'm not convinced that this is a helpful reply to the
article Patrick was replying to when he said that, but
that's a different complaint altogether. :-)
Gerald Yuen
<p.he...@dcs.shef.ac.uk> wrote:
>Ken Down wrote:
>> I doubt it, since vibrations and resonance are physical phenomena while
>> what we are discussing is a spiritual one. I merely mentioned "vibrations"
>> and "vibes" because that was the common parlance of my youth.
>Vibrations and resonance can have a non-physical meaning eg music. So
>can writing, but that isn't usually available in this context.
Erm...from what I remember of my A-level physics, vibrations and resonance in
music are very much physical phenomena, and references within music are
physical.
Minor quibble. :)
Gerald.
--
Gerald Yuen. e-mail: gc....@ukonline.co.uk PGP key on web site.
Hate the sin and love the sinner. Mahatma Gandhi
Ken Down
> OTOH music can "resonate" emotionally when we hear something which is "in
> tune with us".
Indeed, but that is not the sense in which the hippies of my youth spoke of
vibes or Patrick - I think - of resonance.
EasyGeeza
>
> "EasyGeeza" wrote:
>
> [I said:]
> >>>> The Spirit works in our hearts. Luke 24:31, Romans 5:5,
> >>>> 2 Corinthians 1:21, 2 Corinthians 4:6, Galatians 4:6 (which
> >>>> is clearly what David is describing), Ephesians 3:17 and
> >>>> so on. If David's heart cries "Abba, Father" and confesses
> >>>> Christ as Lord, then there is no other spirit that can be
> >>>> responsible.
> >>>
> >>> Well, I accept that The Holy Spirit gives all revelation about
> >>> Christ, but just because a person quotes truths revealed to others
> >>> (like the 7 sons of Sceva - Acts 19v13) does NOT prove that THEY
> >>> have received the Spirit !
> >>
> >> I am not talking about "quoting truths revealed to others".
> >
> > How do you know ?
>
> I know what I am talking about because it is I who am
> talking.
No, just because a person is quoting from the bible, believing
they understand and have what it is talking about, does not
mean that they do ! This is why Jesus warned of "MANY"
coming to Him saying Lord . . ., and why I keep drawing attention
for the need for God to bare witness, rather than just us
baring witness of ourselves.
>
> >>> But then Jesus did warn that MANY will come to Him, calling
> >>> Him Lord, Lord etc . . .
> >>>
> >>> Here is a thought-provoker:-
> >>>
> >>> "And you", said Jesus, "Who do you say I am?"
> > <snip>
> >>
> >> Very interesting, but not actually in the Bible.
> >
> > It is actually, though not in those precice words . . .
> > "many will come uton me saying lord, lord . . .you taught in our
> > streets"
>
> You will notice that the passage you are quoting
> does not insinuate that every "modern church-goer"
> is in their position.
I didn't say "every", Jesus insinuated "many", that's the point.
> Neither does it say that
> learning about God from other people is useless.
Neither do I, God uses teachers, though not every "christian teacher"
is from God of course.
>
> In which case, your demand that individuals should all
> exhibit miraculous signs breaks down. What they need to
> do is to point others to Jesus. Much as John did, in fact.
Not at all, all who truly go to the Jesus John pointed to
receive the Spirit as detailed in Acts, i.e. with sign(s)
following
>
> > John later questioned "are you the christ or is there another"
> > Jesus didn't say "tell John I am the Christ", Jesus said
> > "tell John what you see . . .." he listed the miracles
> > again showing the true Jesus, and thereby the true church.
>
> The things he listed were not all miracles. The last
> was "the good news is preached to the poor". I mention
> this just as a warning against lopsidedness...
No, the poor are the poor in Spirit, who can now receive the Spirit
following Jesus death and resurrection.
- Nick
Paul Dean
> No, just because a person is quoting from the bible, believing
> they understand and have what it is talking about, does not
> mean that they do ! This is why Jesus warned of "MANY"
> coming to Him saying Lord . . ., and why I keep drawing attention
> for the need for God to bare witness, rather than just us
> baring witness of ourselves.
I agree with you, except maybe with a crucial difference. Someone
wrote, "Take heed thou speakest not peace to thyself before God speaks
it; but hearken what he says to thy soul."
Surely this is what the bible is saying? You say that God speaking it
will mean miracles. I say that miracles can be faked or
misinterpreted. What is important is to have that relationship with
God whereby He can speak into our hearts. I would rather put my trust
in that sort of revelation rather than being able to blurble noises in
a spiritual manner.
--
Paul
http://www.redeemed.org.uk/
Patrick Herring
>
> Tim Jones wrote:
>
> [Patrick Herring:]
> >>> Vibrations and resonance can have a non-physical meaning eg music. So
> >>> can writing, but that isn't usually available in this context.
> [Ken:]
> >> Really? When I blow my trumpet, the vibrations are very physical.
> >
> > What's more, your trumpet is basically an adjustable resonant air column,
> > with you using your fingers to control its length and your lips to choose
> > the mode of vibration...
> >
> > OTOH music can "resonate" emotionally when we hear something which is "in
> > tune with us".
>
> I think Ken and Tim have both misinterpreted Patrick's
> words in the same way as I did at first. I was most of
> the way through writing an article disagreeing with him
> when I realised. :-)
Sorry to have wasted your excellent efforts <g>
> I think what he actually means is not "The words `vibrations'
> and `resonance' can have meanings that don't denote physical
> things", but "Even though vibrations and resonance are physical
> things, they can carry non-physical meaning, as for instance
> when they form music".
Correct, IANAH. I think the general point is the difference between
sense-data and qualia. I can't think of a case where you get a quale
other than by the sense-datum being a frequency-based thing, except for
writing and that isn't "communication" between "nature" and a person but
between persons, so doesn't count when wondering how the spiritual could
possibly persist in a physical location.
Paul Wright
EasyGeeza <amet...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>Paul Wright wrote:
>
>> But I am not talking about people who preach another Jesus than the
>> apostles, but people who confess that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of
>> God (as the apostles did). I am not sure of the relevance of what you've
>> written above in that case.
>
>Because preaching "Jesus" is more that just saying "he's the Son of God"
>He died so that man could receive His Life through the baptism in the
>Spirit, get this wrong and it's a words-only message that saves no-one.
I think from your use of the word "gospel" in your posting that you do
not mean the same thing by it as I do. What I mean is "the good news
about Jesus Christ". Paul spells out what he means by "gospel" in 1
Corinithians 15:
15:1 Now I want to make clear for you, brothers and sisters, the
gospel that I preached to you, that you received and on which you stand,
15:2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message
I preached to you-unless you believed in vain. 15:3 For I passed on to
you as of first importance what I also received-that Christ died for
our sins according to the scriptures, 15:4 and that he was buried, and
that he was raised4 on the third day according to the scriptures, 15:5
and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
So Paul says "hold on to the message (gospel) I preached to you". What
is that message: that Christ died for sins, was buried and rose again.
Paul sums it up again at the beginning of Romans: look at Rom 1:1-4.
The fact is that it is the gospel message that saves and that enables
people to receive life. The Spirit comes to live in Christians as a
result of that, but the teaching about the gift of the Spirit is not the
gospel in Paul's sense of the word, as you can see from the passages
above.
I am not sure what you mean by a "words-only" message. Paul writes that
these words are "the power of God for the salvation of all who believe".
God's words are powerful.
>Christ is not just the anointed, he's the anointer.
>The anointing is The Spirit who was not given until Pentecost, Jew
>and Gentile get the same because there is 1 gospel.
But the gospel is not about whether a person speaks in tongues.
>> >So for example, just as John came baptising in water, Jesus came
>> >to baptise in the Spirit, as experienced from Acts 2 onwards.
>> >This is how God comes to reside "in" people.
>>
>> I don't disagree that God resides in people by the Spirit. I disagree
>> that there is always a sure-fire way to tell that this has occurred, and
>> that that way is by their speaking in tongues.
>
>What alternative does the bible give ?
The Bible does not give an alternative because it does *not* teach a
sure fire way to tell that someone has received the Spirit. As it does
not teach this, it certainly does not teach how it occurs.
>> >Interesting that the apostles never got people to "confess Jesus is the
>> >Son of God" in order to say that God now resides in them.
>>
>> How often is the apostle's method for determining that God now resides
>> in a person actually spelt out?
>
>How many times do you need ?
Once you wrote that you required the testimony of 2 or 3 witnesses. You
have one in the passage about Cornelius. That is the only occasion where
the Scripture mentions the apostles reasoning about the Spirit from
the occurrence of speaking in tongues, and it is arguably a unique
occasion (see below).
If this is the way by which we may test that someone is has the Spirit, I
would expect it to be mentioned explicitly: perhaps in the Pastoral
letters where Paul writes about how to run a church and who to let into
leadership.
>What alternatives are ever used ?
My point is that alternatives are not used because in general we are not
always able to tell for certain that someone has received the Spirit.
>> I can think of the example of the
>> believers at Cornelius's house who are later talked about in the Jewish
>> church.
>>
>> In this case, it's clear that a dramatic sign is needed to convince the
>> Jewish believers that the unthinkable has happened and that God has
>> given his Spirit to Gentiles, as Peter is in big trouble otherwise.
>>
>> No-where is it said that this sign will always accompany the receiving
>> of the Spirit.
>
>There is ONE gospel, ONE faith, and the covenant does not change since
>it began.
>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.
>
>God got it right at the start, as well as Acts 2(jews), 10(gentiles),
>they spoke in tongues in 19 (Ephasus), they already knew that the
>gentiles were accepted on equal terms.
Peter says he knew the Gentiles had received the Spirit because it
happened to the household of Cornelius just as it did to them at
Pentecost. Before this happened, they did *not* know that the Gentiles
were accepted on equal terms: that's why some people thought they
weren't. By reproducing Pentecost, God showed that the Gentiles were now
accepted just as the Jews were.
My point is that this sign only needed to occur to convinced the Jewish
believers of this. In a Bible version I have, the translators mention
that Peter seems to be saying that the household of Cornelius received
"in the same manner as" the Jews did at Pentecost: that is, the argument
is not so much "look, we know they have received the Spirit because they
spoke in tongues" as "look, it happened to them exactly as it happened
to us: either the Gentiles must be able to receive the Holy Spirit, or
we were wrong to think we did."
>God confirmed previous covenants with a specific sign -
[snip]
You keep mentioning the rainbow, circumcision and so on, and I keep
asking for the Scripture which compares tongues to these things. So you
quote the passages from Genesis (which don't mention tongues) or the
passages on circumcision (which don't mention tongues). Can you in fact
produce any evidence that tongues is like these things apart from to
keep quoting verses which do not mention tongues?
>The apostles were able to say precicely when people received the Spirit
>- can you do the same ?
No. That's precisely my point: I think that in general it is not
possible to do this with absolute certainty.
>> >I am doing as you quoted:-
>> >1Jo:4:1: Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether
>> >they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the
>> >world.
>>
>> So am I. I am also doing it by the test which John recommends:
>>
>> 2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus
>> Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
>
>What do you understand by the above scripture ?
If a spirit within someone tells them that Jesus is the Christ, come in
the flesh, then that is in fact the Holy Spirit within them. If a person
finds that they believe this, I think that the Holy Spirit has taught it
to them: it's the work of the Spirit at the start of the Christian's
life to convert people and let them know who Jesus is. Sin,
righteousness and judgement, and so on.
>Jesus said to John:-
>Joh:14:20: At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in
>me, and I in you.
>
>What day did they know ?
>
>How did they know ?
>
>Acts 2:4, 33 gives you the answer
No it doesn't. You seem to suggest that the apostles knew Jesus was in
them because they spoke in tongues. That can't be right, because Jesus
doesn't tell them beforehand what sign to look for to know that he is
now in them. They knew because they were given the Spirit and the Spirit
himself gave them the assurance that Jesus was within them.
>Immediately after talking about the common salvation, Jude warms of
>people who are creeping in "unawares" to change the grace of God, so
>they will be talking about Jesus but changing the original . . . .
>later in the letter referred to those who "separate themselves" i.e.
>say they are of God but who "have NOT the Spirit" - (Jude 4, 19), he
>then contrasts them with "but ye beloved, building yourselves up on
>your most Holy Faith, praying in the Holy Ghost".
What are you insinuating? The people Jude writes about "deny our only
Master and Lord, Jesus Christ." (end of Jude 4) Are you trying to say
that Christians who teach that it is not necessary to speak in tongues
are denying Jesus Christ? Anyone who accepts the gospel does not deny
Jesus Christ, whether they speak in tongues or not.
>Out of interest Paul, how does one do this without praying in tongues ?
By praying for the things for which the Spirit wants us to pray. Paul
says to "pray in the Spirit at all times with all kinds of prayers and
requests". How does one do that if it is always praying in tongues,
given that the person praying does not understand what they are saying?
>> John does not say
>>
>> 2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit by which you speak
>> in tongues is of God:
>>
>> (and with good reason, as other religions also have believers who
>> speak in tongues).
>
>Really ? You know that they speak real language that they never
>learned ? Please give details / evidence . . .
The Encyclopedia Britanica article at
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/0/0,5716,74780+1+72874,00.html?query=glossolalia
mentions that other religions practiced speaking in tongues. (I'm not
sure whether the link above will take you back to the page: try
searching for glossolalia in their search engine if not).
The web page at
http://www.bible411.com/glossolalia/glossolalia_4.htm
undoubtedly has a cessationist axe to grind, but does seem to give some
good references for glossolalia in other religions.
>Does this language edify them ?
As they weren't Christians, I don't expect the Christian concept of
being edified would mean much to them.
>You say:-
>"I generally take people's word for it when they say they are a
>Christian"
>
>Did the apostles ever do this ?
They do it all the time. Certainly we don't ever see them say to anyone
"prove to me that you're a Christian/have the Holy Spirit by speaking in
tongues".
>It is clear that the letters were written to people who were *known*
>to have received the Spirit at some time in the past,
I think Paul writes to people who he thinks have come to faith, although
I don't think he can be absolutely sure (unless God tells him about
specific people). Why does he think he's writing to Christians? Paul
tells the Ephesians he has "heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and
your love for all the saints" not "I have heard that you all speak in
tongues". He writes the same in Philemon, and similarly in Romans 1:8.
He tells the Colossians "we heard about your faith in Christ Jesus and
the love that you have for all the saints. 1:5 Your faith and love have
arisen from the hope laid up for you in heaven, which you have heard
about in the message of truth, the gospel..." (note again how faith
comes from hearing the word of the gospel).
With these passages in mind, I suggest that when considering whether
others have received the Spirit, we look at the fruit of the Spirit, and
principally faith and love (the same things as John mentions in 1 John,
in fact). But that's not a definite way: some people deserted Paul who
he presumably thought were Christians. But it's enough evidence for
Paul to address the people he writes to as fellow believers.
I'd also add a caution that in many cases, it is not our place to make a
judgement about what God is doing in someone else. In most cases, I
think the only time we should consider doing this is when the well-being
of the church requires it.
>unless you know how, you have no authority from God to say that
>*anyone*, yourself included, have received the Spirit.
I have no authority from God about anyone other than myself. As for
myself, I trust what God said through Paul and John.
--
----- Paul Wright ------| The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time.
-paul....@pobox.com--| -- Bertrand Russell
http://pobox.com/~pw201 |
EasyGeeza
>
> I think from your use of the word "gospel" in your posting that you do
> not mean the same thing by it as I do. What I mean is "the good news
> about Jesus Christ". Paul spells out what he means by "gospel" in 1
> Corinithians 15:
>
> 15:1 Now I want to make clear for you, brothers and sisters, the
> gospel that I preached to you, that you received and on which you stand,
> 15:2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message
> I preached to you-unless you believed in vain. 15:3 For I passed on to
> you as of first importance what I also received-that Christ died for
> our sins according to the scriptures, 15:4 and that he was buried, and
> that he was raised4 on the third day according to the scriptures, 15:5
> and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
>
> So Paul says "hold on to the message (gospel) I preached to you". What
> is that message: that Christ died for sins, was buried and rose again.
> Paul sums it up again at the beginning of Romans: look at Rom 1:1-4.
Of course this is a very selective use of scripture, ignoring (1) the
immediate context of the letter and (2) other statements in the NT by
Paul and others.
(1) 1Co:2:4: And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words
of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
1Co:2:5: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in
the power of God.
Paul wanted their faith to stand in the power of God so that they would
actually *have* the power of the Spirit that raised Christ, rather than
just believe the words that Christ was raised. And of course Paul
begins the letter with the affirmation that they have received that
Spirit
(1:4-7) and the rest of the letter is only written to them because of
this.
I notice that you stop at v4, Paul goes on to say how The Lord appeared
also to Him and then refers to the grace bestowed upon Him, have you
considered what The Lord *said* when he appeared ?
The Lord had a common message for the 12 and Paul namely to receive the
Spirit ! (Acts 9:6, 17, 22:16, Acts 1:4-8)
Any "gospel" that leaves this out is a tree without fruit !
a words-only Gospel !
(2) Ga:3:13: Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being
made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth
on a tree:
Ga:3:14: That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through
Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through
faith.
Anyone without the promise of the Spirit (the baptism in the Spirit -
see Acts 1:4-8, 2:33) does not yet have what Jesus died to give.
Pentecost is no more optional than Calvary !
Calvary was to enable Pentecost to happen
Calvary is paying the price, Pentecost is receiving the goods.
Ti:3:5: Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according
to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing
of the Holy Ghost;
Ti:3:6: Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
the "shedding on" of the Spirit is what happened in Acts, it is
receiving the Life of Jesus, until then, we are "in the flesh" /
unregenerated. The Spirit is the power that saves/delivers us from the
weakness of the flesh:-
2Tm:1:7: For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and
of love, and of a sound mind.
Ro:1:16: For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the
power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew
first, and also to the Greek.
The Romans, the Jews, the Greeks, and the Corinthians all received this
power.
>
> The fact is that it is the gospel message that saves and that enables
> people to receive life. The Spirit comes to live in Christians as a
> result of that, but the teaching about the gift of the Spirit is not the
> gospel in Paul's sense of the word, as you can see from the passages
> above.
I believe you have your fact wrong. The Spirit comes in people to make
them Christians, they are not Christians before.
>
> The Bible does not give an alternative because it does *not* teach a
> sure fire way to tell that someone has received the Spirit. As it does
> not teach this, it certainly does not teach how it occurs.
When was there ever any doubt ?
>
> >> >Interesting that the apostles never got people to "confess Jesus is the
> >> >Son of God" in order to say that God now resides in them.
> >>
> >> How often is the apostle's method for determining that God now resides
> >> in a person actually spelt out?
> >
> >How many times do you need ?
>
> Once you wrote that you required the testimony of 2 or 3 witnesses. You
> have one in the passage about Cornelius. That is the only occasion where
> the Scripture mentions the apostles reasoning about the Spirit from
> the occurrence of speaking in tongues, and it is arguably a unique
> occasion (see below).
Jesus says " in the mouth of two or three witnesses *every word* may be
established." (Matt.18:16)
1- Acts 2 (jews)
Ac:2:33: Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having
received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed
forth this, which ye now see and hear.
2- Acts 10 (gentiles)
Ac:10:44: While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on
all them which heard the word. . . . .For they heard them speak with
tongues,
3- Acts 19 (greeks)
Ac:19:6: And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came
on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
>
> If this is the way by which we may test that someone is has the Spirit, I
> would expect it to be mentioned explicitly: perhaps in the Pastoral
> letters where Paul writes about how to run a church and who to let into
> leadership.
In Acts 10 it wasn't just apostles, those with Peter also knew that the
Gentiles had just received the Spirit. The letters are written to
people
who already know about receiving the Spirit, seeing as they all have.
>
> My point is that this sign only needed to occur to convinced the Jewish
> believers of this.
My point was that it happened again in Acts 19, which is *after* Acts
10.
The Apostles already knew that the Gentiles were accepted on equal
terms,
so it obviously wasn't just to show this.
In a Bible version I have, the translators mention
> that Peter seems to be saying that the household of Cornelius received
> "in the same manner as" the Jews did at Pentecost: that is, the argument
> is not so much "look, we know they have received the Spirit because they
> spoke in tongues" as "look, it happened to them exactly as it happened
> to us: either the Gentiles must be able to receive the Holy Spirit, or
> we were wrong to think we did."
They only knew "it" happened (i.e. people received the Spirit)
because they spoke in tongues, no-one ever suggests the possibility
of another way, or that maybe thet received some time before.
Cornelius was a believer in God and . . .
Ac:10:36: The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching
peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:)
Ac:10:37: That word, I say, *ye know*, which was published throughout
all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John
preached;
. . . yet no-one suggested that maybe they already had the Spirit.
>
> >God confirmed previous covenants with a specific sign -
> [snip]
>
> You keep mentioning the rainbow, circumcision and so on, and I keep
> asking for the Scripture which compares tongues to these things. So you
> quote the passages from Genesis (which don't mention tongues)
Of course not ! why would you expect them to ?
I keep giving you the comparison, all refer to people entering into
covenant with God.
or the
> passages on circumcision (which don't mention tongues). Can you in fact
> produce any evidence that tongues is like these things apart from to
> keep quoting verses which do not mention tongues?
<sigh>
>
> >The apostles were able to say precicely when people received the Spirit
> >- can you do the same ?
>
> No. That's precisely my point: I think that in general it is not
> possible to do this with absolute certainty.
I'll stick with the apostles.
>
> >> >I am doing as you quoted:-
> >> >1Jo:4:1: Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether
> >> >they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the
> >> >world.
> >>
> >> So am I. I am also doing it by the test which John recommends:
> >>
> >> 2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus
> >> Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
> >
> >What do you understand by the above scripture ?
>
> If a spirit within someone tells them that Jesus is the Christ, come in
> the flesh, then that is in fact the Holy Spirit within them.
The devils knew that Jesus was the Christ, did those possessed people
have the Holy Spirit ?
The Samarians in Acts 8 believed Philip who preached Christ, and were
baptised, yet they had *not* yet received the Spirit . . .
Why did they get baptised in the name of Jesus if they did not believe
that Jesus was the Christ ?
(Acts 8:12-16)
>
> >Jesus said to John:-
> >Joh:14:20: At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in
> >me, and I in you.
> >
> >What day did they know ?
> >
> >How did they know ?
> >
> >Acts 2:4, 33 gives you the answer
>
> No it doesn't. You seem to suggest that the apostles knew Jesus was in
> them because they spoke in tongues. That can't be right, because Jesus
> doesn't tell them beforehand what sign to look for to know that he is
> now in them. They knew because they were given the Spirit and the Spirit
> himself gave them the assurance that Jesus was within them.
What is this assurance that the Spirit gave Peter ?
an inner voice ?
a warm feeling ?
. . .read for yourself and see what Peter says !
In addition, Jesus spoke of signs to look for after he was raised from
the dead (Mark 16:15-20), all of which were already encountered
previously (see Luke 10:9, 19 for example), with the exception of
"speaking in tongues", why do you think tongues was never encountered
*before* Pentecost ?
>
> What are you insinuating? The people Jude writes about "deny our only
> Master and Lord, Jesus Christ." (end of Jude 4) Are you trying to say
> that Christians who teach that it is not necessary to speak in tongues
> are denying Jesus Christ? Anyone who accepts the gospel does not deny
> Jesus Christ, whether they speak in tongues or not.
Jude warns of those who are subtle, they creep in among Christians, so
they obviously profess faith, but Jude is able to say that they have
not the Spirit - how ?
>
> >Out of interest Paul, how does one do this without praying in tongues ?
>
> By praying for the things for which the Spirit wants us to pray. Paul
> says to "pray in the Spirit at all times with all kinds of prayers and
> requests". How does one do that if it is always praying in tongues,
> given that the person praying does not understand what they are saying?
You see a need, you do not understand how God is going to meet it,
that's
why you need God's help.
>
> >> John does not say
> >>
> >> 2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit by which you speak
> >> in tongues is of God:
> >>
> >> (and with good reason, as other religions also have believers who
> >> speak in tongues).
> >
> >Really ? You know that they speak real language that they never
> >learned ? Please give details / evidence . . .
>
> The Encyclopedia Britanica article at
> http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/0/0,5716,74780+1+72874,00.html?query=glossolalia
> mentions that other religions practiced speaking in tongues. (I'm not
> sure whether the link above will take you back to the page: try
> searching for glossolalia in their search engine if not).
>
> The web page at
> http://www.bible411.com/glossolalia/glossolalia_4.htm
> undoubtedly has a cessationist axe to grind, but does seem to give some
> good references for glossolalia in other religions.
It's always a report that someone else claimed they saw / heard, I've
never
met anyone who actually does it. Jesus and the apostles encountered
plenty of false religion, yet they never mentioned that these people
also have the miraculous ability to speak in tongues.
>
> >Does this language edify them ?
>
> As they weren't Christians, I don't expect the Christian concept of
> being edified would mean much to them.
1Co:14:4: He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself
>
> >You say:-
> >"I generally take people's word for it when they say they are a
> >Christian"
> >
> >Did the apostles ever do this ?
>
> They do it all the time.
(whisper) . . . is thst the *truth* Paul ?
can you give me just one example ?
Certainly we don't ever see them say to anyone
> "prove to me that you're a Christian/have the Holy Spirit by speaking in
> tongues".
>
> >It is clear that the letters were written to people who were *known*
> >to have received the Spirit at some time in the past,
>
> I think Paul writes to people who he thinks have come to faith, although
> I don't think he can be absolutely sure (unless God tells him about
> specific people). Why does he think he's writing to Christians? Paul
> tells the Ephesians he has "heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and
> your love for all the saints" not "I have heard that you all speak in
> tongues". He writes the same in Philemon, and similarly in Romans 1:8.
> He tells the Colossians "we heard about your faith in Christ Jesus and
> the love that you have for all the saints. 1:5 Your faith and love have
> arisen from the hope laid up for you in heaven, which you have heard
> about in the message of truth, the gospel..." (note again how faith
> comes from hearing the word of the gospel).
Faith is invisible, but is shown by the loving, showing that these
people
are *using* the Spirit they received.
- Nick
Paul Dean
> Faith is invisible, but is shown by the loving, showing that these
> people are *using* the Spirit they received.
That is exactly the point!
A living faith is *always* shown by radical loving. There is no
reason to believe that it is always shown by "speaking in tongues".
There's no reason to even believe that the modern phenomena is the
same thing that happened in the first century.
Love is a wonderful gift from God and is the most fundamental gift
from His Holy Spirit. Why do you concentrate on a gift which can be
so easily faked[1]? If you are so concerned with being able to tell
whether someone else[2] is a Christian or not, look for radical,
self-denying love! That measure won't be far out.
[1] someone making noises which I cannot understand is absolutely ZERO
indication to me that the person is a Christian, so it's not a very
good way to tell is it?
[2] or whether you are yourself!
--
Paul
http://www.redeemed.org.uk/
EasyGeeza
>
> EasyGeeza <amet...@ntlworld.com> writes:
>
> > Faith is invisible, but is shown by the loving, showing that these
> > people are *using* the Spirit they received.
>
> That is exactly the point!
>
> A living faith is *always* shown by radical loving. There is no
> reason to believe that it is always shown by "speaking in tongues".
Paul, you have ignored all the reasons previosly given in this
discussion,
if you are going to reject them, at least say why.
> There's no reason to even believe that the modern phenomena is the
> same thing that happened in the first century.
"no reason", hmmm
So, what is the modern phenomena about ?
What do you think of people that do speak in tongues ?
>
> Love is a wonderful gift from God and is the most fundamental gift
> from His Holy Spirit. Why do you concentrate on a gift which can be
> so easily faked[1]?
"the gift of tongues" refers specifically to the use of tongues in
meetings,
I'm not focusing on that.
Love is also faked, for example Romans 16:18 warns of those who use nice
words to you, thereby deceiving those who aren't discerning.
- Nick
Gareth McCaughan
>>>>> Well, I accept that The Holy Spirit gives all revelation about
>>>>> Christ, but just because a person quotes truths revealed to others
>>>>> (like the 7 sons of Sceva - Acts 19v13) does NOT prove that THEY
>>>>> have received the Spirit !
>>>>
>>>> I am not talking about "quoting truths revealed to others".
>>>
>>> How do you know ?
>>
>> I know what I am talking about because it is I who am
>> talking.
>
> No, just because a person is quoting from the bible, believing
> they understand and have what it is talking about, does not
> mean that they do !
I never said that it does. I said that if David's heart cries
"Abba, Father" then that shows God's spirit to be at work in
his heart. I did not say that everyone who utters the words
"Abba, Father" has God's spirit at work in them.
>> Neither does it say that
>> learning about God from other people is useless.
>
> Neither do I, God uses teachers, though not every "christian teacher"
> is from God of course.
No indeed. Some teach divisive and damaging things.
>> In which case, your demand that individuals should all
>> exhibit miraculous signs breaks down. What they need to
>> do is to point others to Jesus. Much as John did, in fact.
>
> Not at all, all who truly go to the Jesus John pointed to
> receive the Spirit as detailed in Acts, i.e. with sign(s)
> following
Proof by repeated assertion, I see.
>>> John later questioned "are you the christ or is there another"
>>> Jesus didn't say "tell John I am the Christ", Jesus said
>>> "tell John what you see . . .." he listed the miracles
>>> again showing the true Jesus, and thereby the true church.
>>
>> The things he listed were not all miracles. The last
>> was "the good news is preached to the poor". I mention
>> this just as a warning against lopsidedness...
>
> No, the poor are the poor in Spirit, who can now receive the Spirit
> following Jesus death and resurrection.
Eisegesis. I prefer to assume that when Jesus said "the
good news is preached to the poor" he meant that, well,
the good news is preached to the poor.
--
Paul Dean
> Paul Dean wrote:
> >
> > EasyGeeza <amet...@ntlworld.com> writes:
> >
> > > Faith is invisible, but is shown by the loving, showing that these
> > > people are *using* the Spirit they received.
> >
> > That is exactly the point!
> >
> > A living faith is *always* shown by radical loving. There is no
> > reason to believe that it is always shown by "speaking in tongues".
>
> Paul, you have ignored all the reasons previosly given in this
> discussion, if you are going to reject them, at least say why.
A couple of reasons for rejection:
o You are implying that there were *no* Christians between the 2nd
century and the 20th century.
o You are implying that I wasn't a Christian until 5 years after I
know that I met the Lord and received His Spirit.
To prove these two unlikely things(at least the first has to be seen
as extremely unlikely) you need to do more than wave your hands about
and extrapolate a universal principle from a few particular cases.
> > There's no reason to even believe that the modern phenomena is the
> > same thing that happened in the first century.
>
> "no reason", hmmm
The only reason you have is just to assume a prior that it is...
> So, what is the modern phenomena about ?
> What do you think of people that do speak in tongues ?
I can speak in tongues, and occasionally do. I think it is a useful
physiological device whereby we can express our innermost selves to
God with more honesty and more passion using words of which we are not
burdened with intellectually understanding. That is what I am doing,
and, listening to other people do it, I am certain that they are doing
the same thing.
I think first century tongues was speaking in a different (and human)
language as one of many signs of the inauguration of the new kingdom.
> > Love is a wonderful gift from God and is the most fundamental gift
> > from His Holy Spirit. Why do you concentrate on a gift which can be
> > so easily faked[1]?
>
> "the gift of tongues" refers specifically to the use of tongues in
> meetings, I'm not focusing on that.
ok.
> Love is also faked, for example Romans 16:18 warns of those who use
> nice words to you, thereby deceiving those who aren't discerning.
True, although I think radical love is more difficult to fake than
tongues. My point is that love is more fundamental than being able to
pray in a particular way.
--
Paul
http://www.redeemed.org.uk/
Paul Wright
<amet...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>Paul Dean wrote:
>>
>> EasyGeeza <amet...@ntlworld.com> writes:
>>
>> > Faith is invisible, but is shown by the loving, showing that these
>> > people are *using* the Spirit they received.
>>
>> That is exactly the point!
>>
>> A living faith is *always* shown by radical loving. There is no
>> reason to believe that it is always shown by "speaking in tongues".
>
>Paul, you have ignored all the reasons previosly given in this
>discussion, if you are going to reject them, at least say why.
Because Paul Dean isn't me so he doesn't have to continue our discussion
(of course, I don't have to either but it'd be more reasonable to ask
why not in my case). There are at least two Pauls on uk.r.c and probably
more than that.
I'm not going to have time to reply to you until next week, I shouldn't
think, so I'll leave you in Paul's capable hands in the meantime.
--
----- Paul Wright ------| Make up industrial quantities of rice, and there is
-paul....@pobox.com--| room for disagreement about what "Christian doctrine"
http://pobox.com/~pw201 | is. -- MegaHAL
EasyGeeza
>
> I never said that it does. I said that if David's heart cries
> "Abba, Father" then that shows God's spirit to be at work in
> his heart. I did not say that everyone who utters the words
> "Abba, Father" has God's spirit at work in them.
So what makes David's heart diffreent from these other people's ?
i.e. how do you judge that it is the Spirit and God in David's heart
and not in others ?
- Nick
EasyGeeza
>
> A couple of reasons for rejection:
>
> o You are implying that there were *no* Christians between the 2nd
> century and the 20th century.
You say I am.
What are you relying upon in order to make this statement ?
>
> o You are implying that I wasn't a Christian until 5 years after I
> know that I met the Lord and received His Spirit.
How do you know ?
>
> > > There's no reason to even believe that the modern phenomena is the
> > > same thing that happened in the first century.
> >
> > "no reason", hmmm
>
> The only reason you have is just to assume a prior that it is...
Why is it unreasonable to believe that God is still doing the same as in
Acts ?
>
> > So, what is the modern phenomena about ?
> > What do you think of people that do speak in tongues ?
>
> I can speak in tongues, and occasionally do. I think it is a useful
> physiological device whereby we can express our innermost selves to
> God with more honesty and more passion using words of which we are not
> burdened with intellectually understanding. That is what I am doing,
> and, listening to other people do it, I am certain that they are doing
> the same thing.
Excellent ! More "reasons" to believe that the phenomena is unchanged !
1 Cor. 14:2, 4, 14-18; Romans 8:26
>
> I think first century tongues was speaking in a different (and human)
> language as one of many signs of the inauguration of the new kingdom.
Healing, prophecy and other signs were seen in the OT, but not tongues.
God gave a sign to individuals entering other covenants (Gen.9:12-15,
17:11), why shouldn't he give the same sign of entering the New Covenant
to people today ?
>
> True, although I think radical love is more difficult to fake than
> tongues. My point is that love is more fundamental than being able to
> pray in a particular way.
I agree, but this moves the discussion onto why people have the Spirit /
what are they going to do with what they have received. The Corinthians
were told off for failing to love one another, in meetings they were
feeding
and drinking unto themselves and they have to be told not to all speak
in
tongues in meetings, as this doesn't edify the rest of the church . .
which is what meetings are meant to be for.
I'm not sure what you mean by "radical love", but the bible says:-
1Co:14:1: Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather
that ye may prophesy.
I would certainly include this and steer clear of any group that doesn't
use the gifts.
- Nick
EasyGeeza
>
> A couple of reasons for rejection:
>
> o You are implying that there were *no* Christians between the 2nd
> century and the 20th century.
You say I am.
What are you relying upon in order to make this statement ?
>
> o You are implying that I wasn't a Christian until 5 years after I
> know that I met the Lord and received His Spirit.
How do you know ?
>
> > > There's no reason to even believe that the modern phenomena is the
> > > same thing that happened in the first century.
> >
> > "no reason", hmmm
>
> The only reason you have is just to assume a prior that it is...
Why is it unreasonable to believe that God is still doing the same as in
Acts ?
>
> > So, what is the modern phenomena about ?
> > What do you think of people that do speak in tongues ?
>
> I can speak in tongues, and occasionally do. I think it is a useful
> physiological device whereby we can express our innermost selves to
> God with more honesty and more passion using words of which we are not
> burdened with intellectually understanding. That is what I am doing,
> and, listening to other people do it, I am certain that they are doing
> the same thing.
Excellent ! More "reasons" to believe that the phenomena is unchanged !
1 Cor. 14:2, 4, 14-18; Romans 8:26
>
> I think first century tongues was speaking in a different (and human)
> language as one of many signs of the inauguration of the new kingdom.
Healing, prophecy and other signs were seen in the OT, but not tongues.
God gave a sign to individuals entering other covenants (Gen.9:12-15,
17:11), why shouldn't he give the same sign of entering the New Covenant
to people today ?
>
> True, although I think radical love is more difficult to fake than
> tongues. My point is that love is more fundamental than being able to
> pray in a particular way.
I agree, but this moves the discussion onto why people have the Spirit /
Gareth McCaughan
[I said:]
I do not judge any such thing. It is not my place to do so.
(My *opinion* is that the Spirit is in David's heart, and
also in the hearts of most people who utter those words
for any reason.)
I know that you believe we have to have an infallible means
of judging others. I think it unlikely that the same God
who taught, in Jesus, that it is wrong to judge others,
would also provide an infallible means of doing so.
It may well be that some people, on particular occasions,
need to make such judgements. (For instance, when it's being
decided who should lead a particular congregation.) On
such occasions, I'm sure God can provide, though it looks
to me as if he sometimes leaves it up to us.
Paul Dean
> Paul Dean wrote:
>
> >
> > A couple of reasons for rejection:
> >
> > o You are implying that there were *no* Christians between the 2nd
> > century and the 20th century.
>
> You say I am.
> What are you relying upon in order to make this statement ?
If you claim that when someone receives the Spirit he or she always
speaks in tongues, then you claim that they who do not speak in
tongues do not have the Spirit, then you claim that they are not
Christians at all.
> > o You are implying that I wasn't a Christian until 5 years after I
> > know that I met the Lord and received His Spirit.
>
> How do you know ?
I met Jesus, and he turned me inside out. I went from hating to
loving in an instant - only the healing touch of the Spirit of God can
do that. I started to do the works of God(but no miracles), and it is
only by the Spirit of God that one can do that.
> > > > There's no reason to even believe that the modern phenomena is the
> > > > same thing that happened in the first century.
> > >
> > > "no reason", hmmm
> >
> > The only reason you have is just to assume a prior that it is...
>
> Why is it unreasonable to believe that God is still doing the same as in
> Acts ?
Again, you are relying upon it being the default position - its not
being unreasonable is not a reason for it being true.
> > > So, what is the modern phenomena about ?
> > > What do you think of people that do speak in tongues ?
> >
> > I can speak in tongues, and occasionally do. I think it is a useful
> > physiological device whereby we can express our innermost selves to
> > God with more honesty and more passion using words of which we are not
> > burdened with intellectually understanding. That is what I am doing,
> > and, listening to other people do it, I am certain that they are doing
> > the same thing.
>
> Excellent ! More "reasons" to believe that the phenomena is unchanged !
> 1 Cor. 14:2, 4, 14-18; Romans 8:26
I don't think the second reference is about tongues at all.
The first reference, well, Ok. Modern tongues has two similarities
with 1st century tongues - 1) It sounds like babbling 2) It is
self-edifying.
It only needs one difference, though, to indicate that they're aren't
the same. 1) It's not a foreign language i.e. it's no longer seen as
a miraculous sign to others.
> > I think first century tongues was speaking in a different (and human)
> > language as one of many signs of the inauguration of the new kingdom.
>
> Healing, prophecy and other signs were seen in the OT, but not tongues.
1 Samuel 1:13 seems to be like the modern phenomena. Eli thought
Hanna was drunk. It's not miraculous, it's a physiological device.
The sign of speaking in tongues that was given at Pentecost was a sign
to those around by way of being able to speak in a foreign language.
It still happens to missionaries, apparently, but I don't think it's
the same as what *we* do.
> God gave a sign to individuals entering other covenants (Gen.9:12-15,
> 17:11), why shouldn't he give the same sign of entering the New Covenant
> to people today?
There's no reason why He shouldn't. There's no reason why He should.
Today, he seems to give the sign of changed and healed lives.
> > True, although I think radical love is more difficult to fake than
> > tongues. My point is that love is more fundamental than being able to
> > pray in a particular way.
>
> I agree, but this moves the discussion onto why people have the
> Spirit / what are they going to do with what they have received.
> The Corinthians were told off for failing to love one another, in
> meetings they were feeding and drinking unto themselves and they
> have to be told not to all speak in tongues in meetings, as this
> doesn't edify the rest of the church . . which is what meetings are
> meant to be for.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "radical love", but the bible says:-
> 1Co:14:1: Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but
> rather that ye may prophesy.
>
> I would certainly include this and steer clear of any group that doesn't
> use the gifts.
Sensible advice. I would agree with it. I wouldn't, however, require
a group to have *all* gifts. And I wouldn't include speaking in
tongues as an essential gift.
--
Paul
http://www.redeemed.org.uk/
EasyGeeza
>
> Nick Ashton wrote:
>
> [I said:]
> >> I never said that it does. I said that if David's heart cries
> >> "Abba, Father" then that shows God's spirit to be at work in
> >> his heart. I did not say that everyone who utters the words
> >> "Abba, Father" has God's spirit at work in them.
> >
> > So what makes David's heart diffreent from these other people's ?
> > i.e. how do you judge that it is the Spirit and God in David's heart
> > and not in others ?
>
> I do not judge any such thing. It is not my place to do so.
But you said:-
"that shows God's spirit to be at work in his heart"
> (My *opinion* is that the Spirit is in David's heart, and
> also in the hearts of most people who utter those words
> for any reason.)
- Nick
EasyGeeza
> If you claim that when someone receives the Spirit he or she always
> speaks in tongues, then you claim that they who do not speak in
> tongues do not have the Spirit, then you claim that they are not
> Christians at all.
You are claiming that *no-one* spoke in tongues between the 2nd and
20th centuries - why ?
>
> > > o You are implying that I wasn't a Christian until 5 years after I
> > > know that I met the Lord and received His Spirit.
> >
> > How do you know ?
>
> I met Jesus, and he turned me inside out. I went from hating to
> loving in an instant - only the healing touch of the Spirit of God can
> do that. I started to do the works of God(but no miracles), and it is
> only by the Spirit of God that one can do that.
The Samarians were turned around, and there were miracles, obviously the
work of the Spirit yet they had not yet *received* the Spirit - see Acts
8:5-16. Similarly with various other people in the gospels and Acts, so
why assume that just because you see God at work that you therefore have
received the Spirit ?
>
> > > > > There's no reason to even believe that the modern phenomena is the
> > > > > same thing that happened in the first century.
> > > >
> > > > "no reason", hmmm
> > >
> > > The only reason you have is just to assume a prior that it is...
> >
> > Why is it unreasonable to believe that God is still doing the same as in
> > Acts ?
>
> Again, you are relying upon it being the default position - its not
> being unreasonable is not a reason for it being true.
No, I'm trying to reason with you that your starement:-
"There's no reason to even believe that the modern phenomena is the
same thing that happened in the first century."
is unreasonable.
Why wouldn't God continue the same way as he began ?
Does the bible give a reason ?
I'm not aware of one.
>
> > > > So, what is the modern phenomena about ?
> > > > What do you think of people that do speak in tongues ?
> > >
> > > I can speak in tongues, and occasionally do. I think it is a useful
> > > physiological device whereby we can express our innermost selves to
> > > God with more honesty and more passion using words of which we are not
> > > burdened with intellectually understanding. That is what I am doing,
> > > and, listening to other people do it, I am certain that they are doing
> > > the same thing.
> >
> > Excellent ! More "reasons" to believe that the phenomena is unchanged !
> > 1 Cor. 14:2, 4, 14-18; Romans 8:26
>
> I don't think the second reference is about tongues at all.
>
> The first reference, well, Ok. Modern tongues has two similarities
> with 1st century tongues - 1) It sounds like babbling 2) It is
> self-edifying.
>
> It only needs one difference, though, to indicate that they're aren't
> the same. 1) It's not a foreign language i.e. it's no longer seen as
> a miraculous sign to others.
Peter was a fisherman, not multi-lingual, what language did he recognise
in Acts 10:44-46 ? (Similarly with Paul in Acts 19)
Similarly with the corinthians - what foreign language did they speak ?
And if it was recognised, *why* was a Spiritual gift of interpretation
required ? I was able to interpret French before I believed in God, so
knowing another language is not the gift of interpretation.
Also, even if tongues was *only* known languages, your statement that
tongues today is "not a foreign language" is wrong, people who
speak a foreign language have recognised real language being spoken
in a gift of tongues in a meeting.
>
> 1 Samuel 1:13 seems to be like the modern phenomena. Eli thought
> Hanna was drunk. It's not miraculous, it's a physiological device.
It is clear from the passage that Hannah was speaking her own language,
not some miraculous new one:-
1Sa:1:10: And she was in bitterness of soul, and prayed unto the LORD,
and wept sore.
1Sa:1:11: And she vowed a vow, and said, O LORD of hosts, if thou wilt
indeed look on the affliction of thine handmaid, and remember me, and
not forget thine handmaid, but wilt give unto thine handmaid a man
child, then I will give him unto the LORD all the days of his life, and
there shall no razor come upon his head.
1Sa:1:12: And it came to pass, as she continued praying before the LORD,
that Eli marked her mouth.
The only similarity between this and Pentecost is that it
seemed as drunken behaviour to people who didn't know what was going on.
> The sign of speaking in tongues that was given at Pentecost was a sign
> to those around by way of being able to speak in a foreign language.
> It still happens to missionaries, apparently, but I don't think it's
> the same as what *we* do.
Why not ?
The hearers then were left in doubt and confusion, just as if we were to
speak in tongues in front of people.
Ac:2:12: And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to
another, What meaneth this?
>
> > God gave a sign to individuals entering other covenants (Gen.9:12-15,
> > 17:11), why shouldn't he give the same sign of entering the New Covenant
> > to people today?
>
> There's no reason why He shouldn't. There's no reason why He should.
Gal.3:15 and Jude 3 give good reason:-
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.
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.
- Nick
Gareth McCaughan
[I said:]
>>>> I never said that it does. I said that if David's heart cries
>>>> "Abba, Father" then that shows God's spirit to be at work in
>>>> his heart. I did not say that everyone who utters the words
>>>> "Abba, Father" has God's spirit at work in them.
>>>
>>> So what makes David's heart diffreent from these other people's ?
>>> i.e. how do you judge that it is the Spirit and God in David's heart
>>> and not in others ?
>>
>> I do not judge any such thing. It is not my place to do so.
>
> But you said:-
> "that shows God's spirit to be at work in his heart"
Read the whole sentence, please.
| I said that if David's heart cries "Abba, Father" then
| that shows God's spirit to be at work in his heart.
Or, if that isn't clear enough,
| I said that IF DAVID'S HEART CRIES "ABBA, FATHER" then
| that shows God's spirit to be at work in his heart.
I have no way of knowing for sure what David's heart does
and doesn't so.
Gareth McCaughan
> I have no way of knowing for sure what David's heart does
> and doesn't so.
Oops. "does and doesn't do", in case it wasn't clear.
Paul Dean
> Paul Dean wrote:
>
> > If you claim that when someone receives the Spirit he or she always
> > speaks in tongues, then you claim that they who do not speak in
> > tongues do not have the Spirit, then you claim that they are not
> > Christians at all.
>
> You are claiming that *no-one* spoke in tongues between the 2nd and
> 20th centuries - why ?
Because they didn't. Unless you want to point to some obscure
cases(which I'm not aware of) and want to say that the Church
consisted of half a dozen people in the whole world.
> > > > o You are implying that I wasn't a Christian until 5 years after I
> > > > know that I met the Lord and received His Spirit.
> > >
> > > How do you know ?
> >
> > I met Jesus, and he turned me inside out. I went from hating to
> > loving in an instant - only the healing touch of the Spirit of God can
> > do that. I started to do the works of God(but no miracles), and it is
> > only by the Spirit of God that one can do that.
>
> The Samarians were turned around, and there were miracles, obviously the
> work of the Spirit
Not at all. Such "miracles" by local sorcerers were commonplace.
When Simon(the sorcerer) saw real miracles he "followed Philip
everywhere, *astonished* by them". He doesn't sound like someone who
had been doing genuine miracles before Philip came along.
> yet they had not yet *received* the Spirit - see Acts 8:5-16.
At this point they became Christians, not before.
> Similarly with various other people in the gospels and Acts, so why
> assume that just because you see God at work that you therefore have
> received the Spirit ?
"It is only by the Spirit of God that one can say, 'Jesus is Lord'."
If this was continually present in me, how is it reasonable to say
that "God was working" but not that I had "received the Spirit"? What
does "receiving the Spirit" mean apart from a continual access to the
Spirit of God which lives in you and works in you?
In Galatians, Paul writes, "Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep
in step with the Spirit". He goes on to list some fruit of that
keeping in step. If someone has all those fruit in increasing
measure, I can only fairly conclude that he is living by the Spirit.
"If anyone does not have the Spirit of God, he does not belong to
Christ." I know that I belonged to Christ because he exercised
dominion over me. He would say "do this" and I would do it. He would
say, "go there" and I would go there. I had conciously given myself
to Christ as his redeemed property. Since there's no doubt that I
"belonged" to Him, it follows from the quoted verse that I had the
Spirit of God.
It is crazy to say that "If anyone does not speak in tongues, he does
not belong to Christ." You may couch it in more friendly language,
but I'm afraid that is the implication.
> > > > > > There's no reason to even believe that the modern phenomena is the
> > > > > > same thing that happened in the first century.
> > > > >
> > > > > "no reason", hmmm
> > > >
> > > > The only reason you have is just to assume a prior that it is...
> > >
> > > Why is it unreasonable to believe that God is still doing the same as in
> > > Acts ?
> >
> > Again, you are relying upon it being the default position - its not
> > being unreasonable is not a reason for it being true.
>
> No, I'm trying to reason with you that your starement:-
> "There's no reason to even believe that the modern phenomena is the
> same thing that happened in the first century."
> is unreasonable.
>
> Why wouldn't God continue the same way as he began ?
> Does the bible give a reason ?
> I'm not aware of one.
History certainly does -- God didn't continue it! You have to
conclude that 99.99 percent of those undeniably Godly and
Christ-loving people through history were never Christians. This is a
very extraordinary claim and needs extraordinary evidence.
> > > > > So, what is the modern phenomena about ?
> > > > > What do you think of people that do speak in tongues ?
> > > >
> > > > I can speak in tongues, and occasionally do. I think it is a useful
> > > > physiological device whereby we can express our innermost selves to
> > > > God with more honesty and more passion using words of which we are not
> > > > burdened with intellectually understanding. That is what I am doing,
> > > > and, listening to other people do it, I am certain that they are doing
> > > > the same thing.
> > >
> > > Excellent ! More "reasons" to believe that the phenomena is unchanged !
> > > 1 Cor. 14:2, 4, 14-18; Romans 8:26
> >
> > I don't think the second reference is about tongues at all.
> >
> > The first reference, well, Ok. Modern tongues has two similarities
> > with 1st century tongues - 1) It sounds like babbling 2) It is
> > self-edifying.
> >
> > It only needs one difference, though, to indicate that they're aren't
> > the same. 1) It's not a foreign language i.e. it's no longer seen as
> > a miraculous sign to others.
>
> Peter was a fisherman, not multi-lingual, what language did he recognise
> in Acts 10:44-46 ? (Similarly with Paul in Acts 19)
It doesn't say he recognised any other language, the people he was
with did. And notice - the evidence they had that the gentiles had
recieved the Spirit was "speaking in tongues and praising God". Why
do you put more emphasis on the tongues than the praise?
> Similarly with the corinthians - what foreign language did they speak?
> And if it was recognised, *why* was a Spiritual gift of interpretation
> required ? I was able to interpret French before I believed in God, so
> knowing another language is not the gift of interpretation.
The miraculous knowledge of another language?
> Also, even if tongues was *only* known languages, your statement that
> tongues today is "not a foreign language" is wrong, people who
> speak a foreign language have recognised real language being spoken
> in a gift of tongues in a meeting.
I don't claim it never happens; I'm sure it does.
But I believe I can recognise the structure and form of a language
I've never heard before, and I'm convinced that modern tongues is not
a language with vocabulary and grammar.
> > The sign of speaking in tongues that was given at Pentecost was a sign
> > to those around by way of being able to speak in a foreign language.
> > It still happens to missionaries, apparently, but I don't think it's
> > the same as what *we* do.
>
> Why not ?
> The hearers then were left in doubt and confusion, just as if we were to
> speak in tongues in front of people.
>
> Ac:2:12: And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to
> another, What meaneth this?
No, nowadays, unbelievers encountering tongues will merely look for
the nearest exit and think that they had stumbled upon a madhouse.
They wouldn't be amazed, they wouldn't doubt themselves, and they
wouldn't stop to think, "what meaneth this?"
> > > God gave a sign to individuals entering other covenants (Gen.9:12-15,
> > > 17:11), why shouldn't he give the same sign of entering the New Covenant
> > > to people today?
> >
> > There's no reason why He shouldn't. There's no reason why He should.
>
> Gal.3:15 and Jude 3 give good reason:-
> 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.
Nothing about "continuation of signs" in there.
> 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.
Or in there.
It's like saying, "Why wouldn't God continue to use burning bushes to
confirm His covenant with each person he makes it with?" Unless you
go to a church with hang-up about burning bushes, the answer is clear.
--
Paul
http://www.redeemed.org.uk/
EasyGeeza
>
> Or, if that isn't clear enough,
>
> | I said that IF DAVID'S HEART CRIES "ABBA, FATHER" then
> | that shows God's spirit to be at work in his heart.
>
> I have no way of knowing for sure what David's heart does
> and doesn't so.
>
Fair enough, though the apostles obviously had a way of knowing !
EasyGeeza
surprising that few people wanted to write, or even speak about having
received the Spirit. The following article collates some of the records
we have of tongue-speaking in this period.
(I believe that the term "gift of tongues" refers specifically to
tongues use in meetings, the author doesn't seem to make this
distinction,
but anyway . . . )
SPEAKING IN TONGUES THROUGHOUT HISTORY
(author unknown to this republisher)
What is presented here is a history of tongues as it was
recorded by numerous men throughout Church history. According to
Philip Schaff, a well known writer of Church History, tongues
was not confined to the first century.
"The speaking with tongues, however, was not confined to
the day of Pentecost. Together with the other extraordinary
spiritual gifts which distinguished this age above the
succeeding periods of more quiet and natural development, this
gift also though to be sure in a modified form, perpetuated
itself in the apostolic Church. We find traces of it still in
the second and third centuries."(1)
TONGUES IN THE SECOND, AND THIRD
AND FOURTH CENTURIES
Among the Church fathers that lived following the death
of John the Revelator in 98 A.D., Montanus of Phrygia stands as a
leader in the support of tongues. Eusebius, a fourth century
Church historian writes that the followers of Montanus would be
"carried away in spirit, and wrought up into a certain kind of
frenzy and irregular ecstasy, raving, and speaking, and uttering
strange things."(2)
Because of his teachings, and the practices of his
followers, they were forced to withdraw from the accepted church of
the early second century and were ultimately labeled as
heresy.
Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp who was in turn a pupil
of the Apostle John, wrote in his book "Against Heresies"
"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 language and bring to
light for the general benefit the hidden things of
men and declare the mysteries of God, whom also the
apostles term spiritual "(3)
Tertullian, who lived about the same time as Irenaeus in
160-220 A.D, writes a passage in his book "Against
Marcion" which challenges Marcion to produce anything among his
followers such as was common among Tertullian's.
"Let him exhibit prophets such as have spoken, not by
human sense but with the Spirit of God, such as have predicted
things to come, and have made manifest the secrets of the heart;
let him produce a psalm, a vision a prayer, only let it be by
the Spirit in an ecstasy, that is, in a rapture, whenever an
interpretation of tongues has occurred to him "(4)
A few years later in the third century, a certain
Pachomius was able to "after seasons of special prayer, spoke the
Greek and Latin languages, which he had never learned, under the
power of the Spirit."(5)
Saint Augustine, who lived in the fourth century (354-430)
also wrote: "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.(6)
TONGUES IN THE DARK AGES
The introduction of the fifth century marks the beginning of
the Dark Ages. It is here that the Catholic Church rules with an
iron hand and people were killed for not following its
teachings.
The absence of writings other than those of Roman Catholic is not
surprising. It is the authors opinion that the church was in hiding
concerning this time, for I feel that God has always had a Church.
Nothing could dare be published or written concerning tongues for
fear of it costing their lives. Alexander Mackie in his book, "The
Gift of Tongues: puts in this way:
"From patristic times until the power of Reformation had
made itself distinctly felt the gift of tongues is an almost
forgotten phenomenon. The attention which the Reformation drew to
the Scripture is the reason for the reappearance of the gift.
Men do not usually have the gift of tongues unless they know
there is a gift of tongues."(7)
The first time that tongues appear in the Dark Ages is
in the Life of Saint Hildengard, who lived in the twelfth
century. She was a German Abbess who was raised in a Catholic
cloister but was not educated because she was sickly.
Nevertheless, it was recorded that she was able to "interpret Latin
scriptures, and speak and interpret an entirely unknown language." Her
first experience with this gift is said to have came as a part
of a "strange and powerfully moving religious experience, and
following a long series of visions which she had not discussed
with anyone." This also corresponds to the Encyclopedia
Britannica which states that tongues or "Glossolalia" was
present "among the mendicant friars of the thirteenth century."
One of these friars was a young Spaniard by the name of
Saint Vincent Ferrer, a native of Valencia, who supposedly spoke
Limousin the local dialect. The Biographers of Ferrer tell of
his ministry reaching and converting people all over Western
Europe, many in isolated areas. He was reported to have been
understood in the Alpine regions and other parts of Switzerland,
in Brittany and Fanders, in the Savoy and Lyons, by people who know
only the local tongue. While in Genoa he spoke to a group of men and
women of mixed linguistic backgrounds, all of whom were said to
have heard him in their own language.(9) The Catholic Encyclopedia
notes that many biographers of Saint Vincent have held that he
was endowed with the Gift of tongues. This is perhaps the
closest parallel of Acts the second chapter that we find recorded
in early Church History.
In the first half of the sixteenth century we find the
same report about the two Catholic saints, Saint Francis Xavier
and Saint Louis Bertrand. Both men were reported to have spoken
in foreign language they did not know in the course of their
missionary work. The bull by which Berland was canonized for his
success in missionary "asserts that to facilitate the work of
converting the natives, the apostle was miraculously endowed with the
gift of tongues."(10)
TONGUES FROM THE REFORMATION TO
THE TWENTIETH CENTURY
With the birth of Reformation, the Catholic Church no longer asserts
iron rule among the Church world. The instances of tongues becomes
more and more frequent, beginning with Matin Luther. In a German work,
Sourer's History of the Christian Church" it is stated that, Dr.
Martin Luther was a prophet, evangelist, speaker in tongues, and
interpreter, in one person, endowed with all the gifts of the Holy
Spirit."(11)
"Soon following Luther came the French sect known as the Jansenists.
This group arose in the Roman Catholic Church after the Council of
Trent and was subjected to persecution following the issuance in 1705
of a bill condemning them. After persecution began, speaking in
tongues was reported among this group."(12)
Another group in France that exercised the use of tongues were known
as the Cevennes. Among them in a revival of religious enthusiasm
occurred similar to that of the Jansenists. Newman in "A Manual of
Church History" tells us that:
Respecting the physical manifestations, there is little
discrepancy between the accounts of friend and foe. The persons
affected were men and women, the old and the young, Very many
were children, boys and girls of nine or ten years of age. They
were sprung from the people for the most part unable to read or
write, and speaking in everyday life the patios of the province
with which alone they were conversant. Such persons would
suddenly fall backward, and, while extended at full length on
the ground, undergo strange and apparently involuntary
contortions; their chests would seem to heave, their stomachs
inflate. On coming gradually out of this condition, they
appeared instantly to regain the power of speech.... From the
mouths of those that were little more than babes came texts of
Scripture, and discourses in good and intelligible French such
as they never used in their conscious hours.(13)
Some of the French prophets emigrated to England and
made converts there, with tongues being a part of the British
revival also.
In this same period of time the Encyclopedia Britannica
tells of tongues "among the converts of Wesley and
Whitefield." John Wesley once wrote a protest against a Dr.
Middleton who wrote "after the Apostolic time, there is not, in all
history, one instance...of any person who had even exercised that
gift (tongues)." Wesley replied, "Sir, your memory fails you
again, it has been heard more than once no further off than the
valleys of Dauphiny."(14)
The atmosphere of the revivals that followed the
Wesleyan movement was one of informality, spiritual fervor, and
religious enthusiasm. Crying out with groans and sobs in prayer,
shouting and uttering of "unintelligible sounds" were common of
this early period."(15)
Another movement that displayed Pentecostal characteristics
developed in England during the seventeenth century. They were
called the Society of Friends or Quakers. W.C. Braithwaite, in
"The Message and Mission of Quakerism," quotes from
Burrough's preface to Great Mystery:
"While waiting upon the Lord in silence, as often we did
for many hours together, we received often the pouring down of
the Spirit upon us, and our hearts were glad and our tongues
loosed and our mouth opened, and we spake with new tongues as
the Lord gave us utterance, and as His Spirit led us, which was
poured down upon us, on sons and daughters, and the glory of the
Father was revealed. And then began we to sing praise to the
Lord God Almighty and to the Lamb forever "(16)
The Quakers were followed in the eighteenth century by a
group that surpassed them in religious emotionalism. These were
called the Shakers. The roots of the group extend back to both
Quakers and the Cevennes, the early leaders having been
Quakers who accepted the teaching of the Cevennes when they
emigrated to England. Their conduct of worship was much like
Pentecostlism in nature:
Some who attended confessed their sins aloud, crying for
mercy; some went into a trance-like state in which they saw
visions and received prophecies of Christ's imminent second coming.
Others shouted and danced for joy because they believed that the day
was at hand for wars to cease and God's kingdom on earth to
begin."(17)
Along with other spiritual gifts, speaking in tongues
was prominent among the Shakers.
Of all the groups mentioned during the Reformation, none
has received as much notice as the Irvingites, a sect
which developed in Great Britian about 1825. Edward Irving, a popular
Presberterian minister in London played an important
role in the movement. When several demonstrations of religious
enthusiasm occurred in his services, he encouraged them, believing
they were of divine origin.
"The Gift of Tongues" was soon to follow and became a
part of his services. A strong faction formed against Irving and
his followers and ultimately they were turned away from the
Presbertarian Church, The result was the formation of the Catholic
Apostolic Church, often called "Irvingites" because of the
leadership of Edward Irving. This body wrote a "tongues" tenet in its
theology."
Coming over to America, we find another religious sect
called the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints,
commonly known as the Mormon Church, founded by Joseph Smith in 1830.
The seventh article of faith of the Latter-Day Saints states that
they "believe" in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions,
healing, interpretation of tongues, etc." Herber Grant, the Seventh
President of the Church, commented on this article of faith:
Now, we have had many men who have had the gift of
tongues, out in the world, preach this gospel in a language of
which they had no knowledge....
Unless the gift of tongues and the interpretation
thereof are enjoyed by the Saints in our day, then we are
lacking one of the evidences of the true faith.(19)
Back in England, the report of tongues began to appear
in the wake of the preaching campaigns of Dwight L. Moody. Dr. R.
Boyd, who was a very close friend of the famous evangelist writes
concerning one instance:
When I got to the rooms of the Young Men's Christian
Association in Victoria Hall, London, I found the
meeting on fire: The young men were speaking in
tongues, prophesying. What on earth did it mean?
Only that Moody had been addressing them that afternoon:"(20)
As the nineteenth century come to a close, space limits
me from listing all the instances of tongues that took
place. In 1875 R.B. Swan writes that he and others spoke in
tongues. 1879 - W.J. Walthall also receives the baptism of the Holy
Spirit, speaking in tongues. In 1880 in Kara Kara, Armenia a strong
Pentecostal Movement breaks out with speaking in tongues.
The same year tongues is reported in Switzerland, and on and on. This
also includes the revival of Topeka Kansas in the 1900's.
All of them are a part of the vast spreading movement of the spirit of
God as these last days grow to a close. No one can deny that there is
definite historical proof to the presence of tongues in the
Church throughout the centuries. God has always had a people
called out for his namesake. His word has always been a part of
the hearts of men, and so it continues today.
FOOTNOTES
1 Philip Schaff, History of the Apostolic Church, New York: Charles
Scribner's, 1853, pp. 197-198.
2 Klaude Kendrick, The Promise Fulfilled, Springfield, Missouri Gospel
Publishing House, 1961, pg. 19.
3 Irenaeus, The Anti-Nicene Fathers, Ten Volume, New York: Charles
Scribner's 1885, Book III pg. 531.
4 Tertullian, The Anti Nicene Fathers, Ten Volume, New York: Charles
Scribner's 1885, Book III pp. 445-447.
5 Carl Brumback, What Meaneth This, Gospel Publishing House,
Springfield, Missouri, 1947 pg. 91.
6 John Sherril, They Speak with Other Tongues, Revell Company:
Westwood, New Jersey, 1964 pg. 76.
7 Alexander Mackie, The Gift of Tongues, New York: Doubleday and
Company 1950.
8 Encyclopedia Britannica 24 Volume, Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannia
Inc. 1951, XXII, pg. 283.
9 The Catholic Encyclopedia, 15 Volume, New York: Robert Appleton Co.
1912 XV, pg. 438.
10 Ibid, pg. 439.
11 Carl Brumback, What Meaneth This? Springfield Missouri: Gospel
Publishing House, 1961, pg. 20.
12 Klaude Kendrick, The Promise Fulfilled, Springfield Missouri:
Gospel Publishing House, 1961, pg. 20.
13 Albert Henry Newman, A Manuel of Church History, 2 Volume
Philadelphil: American Baptists Publication Society, 1903 II pg. 478.
14 Carl Brumback, What Meaneth This?, Springfield, Missouri: Gospel
Publishing House, 1947, pg. 92.
15 Klaude Kendrick, The Promise Fulfilled, Springfield Missouri:
Gospel Publishing House, 1961, pg. 23.
16 Carl Brumback, What Meaneth This?, Spingfield, Missouri: Gospel
Publishing House, 1947, pg. 93.
17 Marguerite Melcher, The Shaker Adventure, Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1941, pg. 5.
18 Klaude Kendrick, The Promise Fulfilled, Springfield, Missouri:
Gospel Publishing House, 1947, pg. 93.
19 Ibid, pg. 24.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Brumback, Carl, What Meaneth This?, Gospel Publishing House.
Catholic Encyclopedia, The, 15 Volumes, Robert Appleton, Co.
Encyclopedia Britannica, 24 Volumes, Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc.
Irenaeus, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 10 Volumnes, Charles Scribner's.
Kelsey, Morton, Tongue Speaking, Doubleday and Company.
Mackie, Alexander, The Gift of Tongues, Doubleday and Company.
Melcher, Marguerite, The Shaker Adventure, Princeton University Press.
Newman, Albert Henry, A Manual of Church History, 2 Volumnes, America
Baptists Publication Society.
Schaff, Philip, History of the Apostolic Church, Charles Scribner's.
Sherril, John, They Speak with other Tongues, Revell Co.
Tertullian, The Anti-Nicene Fathers, 10 Volumnes, Charles Scribner's
(The above material was a term paper done for Stockton Bible College.)
EasyGeeza
>
> Because they didn't. Unless you want to point to some obscure
> cases(which I'm not aware of) and want to say that the Church
> consisted of half a dozen people in the whole world.
I wouldn't say that none did just because I had seen no written records
of it, that would be presumptuous, and certainly not worthy of basing
my doctrine on.
John Wesley once wrote a protest against a Dr. Middleton who wrote
"after the Apostolic time, there is not, in all history, one instance
....of any person who had even exercised that gift (tongues)." Wesley
replied, "Sir, your memory fails you again, it has been heard more
than once no further off than the valleys of Dauphiny."
(Carl Brumback, What Meaneth This?, Springfield, Missouri: Gospel
Publishing House, 1947, pg. 92.)
Wesley also 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 love 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 believe Revelation 11 details this period.
The "rod" being the measure of the new birth (like Aaron's rod that
budded)
that distinguishes the true church from the Gentile or Pagan church that
surrounds it. The reference to no "rain" refers to no holy spirit
revival
as the Catholic inquisition killed all dissenters (not surprising then
that few people wanted to write, or even speak about having received the
Spirit) (v3, 6). In 1514 at the 5th Lateran Council the Papacy claimed
that all dissent had ceased (v9), 3½ yrs later Luther raised the 95
challenges to Papal dogma.
Because of the Reformation, Henry VIII had the courage and excuse to
take
England away from Rome's dominion (v13). The 7000 refer to the hidden
faithful (v19, Romans 11:4).
> Not at all. Such "miracles" by local sorcerers were commonplace.
> When Simon(the sorcerer) saw real miracles he "followed Philip
> everywhere, *astonished* by them". He doesn't sound like someone who
> had been doing genuine miracles before Philip came along.
Please read the passage Paul, I am referring to the miracles that
followed Philip's preaching
>
> > yet they had not yet *received* the Spirit - see Acts 8:5-16.
>
> At this point they became Christians, not before.
So you agree that although their lives changed in various respects,
they stopped following Simon, believed Philip's message concerning
Christ
and were baptised, they were not yet Christians ?
>
> "It is only by the Spirit of God that one can say, 'Jesus is Lord'."
> If this was continually present in me, how is it reasonable to say
> that "God was working" but not that I had "received the Spirit"? What
> does "receiving the Spirit" mean apart from a continual access to the
> Spirit of God which lives in you and works in you?
I often have people tell me that they must have received the Spirit
because they can say "Jesus is Lord" (1 Cor. 12v3)
Well, I accept that The Holy Spirit gives all revelation about
Christ, but just because a person quotes truths revealed to others
(like the 7 sons of Sceva - Acts 19v13) does NOT prove that THEY
have received the Spirit !
But then Jesus did warn that MANY will come to Him, calling
Him Lord, Lord etc . . .
Here is a thought-provoker:-
"And you", said Jesus, "Who do you say I am?"
Simon Peter answered "You are the Messiah, the son of the living God"
Then Jesus said "Simon, son of Jonah, you are favoured indeed! You did
not learn that from mortal man; my heavenly father revealed it to you"
Jesus "And you, who do you say I am?"
Modern church-goer:- "You are the son of the living God"
Jesus "Right. But how unfortunate you are that you learned this from
mortal man. It has not yet been revealed to you by my father"
Church-goer:- "True Lord, I have been cheated. Somebody gave me the
answers before your father could speak. I marvel at your wisdom that
you said nothing to Simon yourself, but waited for your father to
speak first".
>
> In Galatians, Paul writes, "Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep
> in step with the Spirit". He goes on to list some fruit of that
> keeping in step. If someone has all those fruit in increasing
> measure, I can only fairly conclude that he is living by the Spirit.
There is also human love, joy etc, people often confuse the 2.
> >
> > Peter was a fisherman, not multi-lingual, what language did he recognise
> > in Acts 10:44-46 ? (Similarly with Paul in Acts 19)
>
> It doesn't say he recognised any other language, the people he was
> with did. And notice - the evidence they had that the gentiles had
> recieved the Spirit was "speaking in tongues and praising God". Why
> do you put more emphasis on the tongues than the praise?
Anyone can praise God, only those that have received the Spirit can
speak
in tongues.
>
> > Similarly with the corinthians - what foreign language did they speak?
> > And if it was recognised, *why* was a Spiritual gift of interpretation
> > required ? I was able to interpret French before I believed in God, so
> > knowing another language is not the gift of interpretation.
>
> The miraculous knowledge of another language?
You are just clutching at straws Paul, the person using a gift of
interpretation does not understand the gift of tongue, they just give
the
interpretation.
>
> > Also, even if tongues was *only* known languages, your statement that
> > tongues today is "not a foreign language" is wrong, people who
> > speak a foreign language have recognised real language being spoken
> > in a gift of tongues in a meeting.
>
> I don't claim it never happens; I'm sure it does.
Then why say that tongues today is "not a foreign language" ?
>
> But I believe I can recognise the structure and form of a language
> I've never heard before, and I'm convinced that modern tongues is not
> a language with vocabulary and grammar.
I have heard a few tongues that sound repetitive, especially with newer
people, but I would not be so bold as to say it is not a real language.
>
> No, nowadays, unbelievers encountering tongues will merely look for
> the nearest exit and think that they had stumbled upon a madhouse.
> They wouldn't be amazed, they wouldn't doubt themselves, and they
> wouldn't stop to think, "what meaneth this?"
Again, a very presumptuous statement, I have seen numerous visitors to
meetings where tongues was used in an orderly way (one person at a time
with interpretation, preceeded by an introduction as to what is about to
happen and why). None immediately left, most were impressed.
I was once at a meeting where many were speaking in tongues at once,
*then* visitors left.
>
> > > > God gave a sign to individuals entering other covenants (Gen.9:12-15,
> > > > 17:11), why shouldn't he give the same sign of entering the New Covenant
> > > > to people today?
> > >
> > > There's no reason why He shouldn't. There's no reason why He should.
> >
> > Gal.3:15 and Jude 3 give good reason:-
> > 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.
>
> Nothing about "continuation of signs" in there.
You miss the point, the New Covenant began with signs, who can change it
?
>
> > 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.
>
> Or in there.
Again, when was the faith delivered to the saints ?
Was it delivered with or without signs ?
>
> It's like saying, "Why wouldn't God continue to use burning bushes to
> confirm His covenant with each person he makes it with?"
No it isn't, the burning bush was not given as the sign of entering the
covenant, circumcision was, we should rightly divide the word.
- Nick
Paul Dean
> SPEAKING IN TONGUES THROUGHOUT HISTORY
>
> (author unknown to this republisher)
>
> What is presented here is a history of tongues as it was
> recorded by numerous men throughout Church history. According to
> Philip Schaff, a well known writer of Church History, tongues
> was not confined to the first century.
>
> "The speaking with tongues, however, was not confined to
> the day of Pentecost. Together with the other extraordinary
> spiritual gifts which distinguished this age above the
> succeeding periods of more quiet and natural development, this
> gift also though to be sure in a modified form, perpetuated
> itself in the apostolic Church. We find traces of it still in
> the second and third centuries."(1)
It's funny you should pick my favourite church historian! In the same
book he also wrote, "The Corinthians evidently overrated the
glossolalia, as a showy display of divine power; but it was more
ornamental than useful, and vanished away with the bridal season of
the church."
> TONGUES IN THE SECOND, AND THIRD
> AND FOURTH CENTURIES
[Montanus]
Yes, Montanus is interesting. His movement seems to have been very
similar to the modern charismatic movement. He and all his followers
were declared heretics simply because, at that time, the church was
trying to sustain uniformity of worship. I think that was
unfortunate, but it shows how rare that sort of activity was during
the period.
For it to help your case, you will have to claim that the Montanists
were the only true Christians of that time. Funny that the Church
died out so quickly!
> Tertullian, who lived about the same time as Irenaeus in
> 160-220 A.D, writes a passage in his book "Against
> Marcion" which challenges Marcion to produce anything among his
> followers such as was common among Tertullian's.
That would be when Tertullian was a Montanist, then? You know, of
course, that he later renounced all that.
> A few years later in the third century, a certain
> Pachomius was able to "after seasons of special prayer, spoke the
> Greek and Latin languages, which he had never learned, under the
> power of the Spirit."(5)
There's also a guy who, it is claimed, could speak the languages of
horses and devils, and is held up as a high example of speaking in
tongues in the middle ages. It doesn't convince me.
> Saint Augustine, who lived in the fourth century (354-430)
> also wrote: "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.(6)
Well now! I do find that interesting. The reference at the end isn't
to Augustines work, but to some other that I do not have. I'd really
be interested in the reference for the original quote.
I've just done some searches for it in my copy, and I can't find them.
It's important, you see, because this is the only example where
tongues is given importance - that someone says, "it is expected".
Are there any Augustine experts here who might shed some light upon
it?
> TONGUES IN THE DARK AGES
>
> The introduction of the fifth century marks the beginning of
> the Dark Ages. It is here that the Catholic Church rules with an
> iron hand and people were killed for not following its
> teachings.
>
> The absence of writings other than those of Roman Catholic is not
> surprising.
Mystical writings did and do exist. Some were destroyed when the
author was declared heretical, but many survived. I've never read in
them anything about tongues.
Again, what you are implying is that the sum total number of
Christians was tiny - only a handful. I find this unacceptable and
even insulting to the Holy Spirit, whose work it is to maintain the
Church.
> It is the authors opinion that the church was in hiding concerning
> this time, for I feel that God has always had a Church.
How generous! But notice that the writer isn't sure about it... he
only feels it - it might be, from his point of view, that the Church
didn't exist for long centuries. Unacceptable - it goes against all
the other evidence.
> "From patristic times until the power of Reformation had
> made itself distinctly felt the gift of tongues is an almost
> forgotten phenomenon. The attention which the Reformation drew to
> the Scripture is the reason for the reappearance of the gift.
> Men do not usually have the gift of tongues unless they know
> there is a gift of tongues."(7)
And yet it was *very* uncommon even in the reformation and the
centuries that follow. Yes there are isolated cases, but so what?
[snip isolated cases]
I'm not claiming that the gift of tongues has ceased and will never
happen! I'm claiming 1) that it is not necessary to be able to speak
in tongues to be saved and 2) the gift of tongues was absent from the
vast majority of Christians for well over a thousand years.
> TONGUES FROM THE REFORMATION TO
> THE TWENTIETH CENTURY
>
> With the birth of Reformation, the Catholic Church no longer asserts
> iron rule among the Church world. The instances of tongues becomes
> more and more frequent, beginning with Matin Luther. In a German work,
> Sourer's History of the Christian Church" it is stated that, Dr.
> Martin Luther was a prophet, evangelist, speaker in tongues, and
> interpreter, in one person, endowed with all the gifts of the Holy
> Spirit."(11)
Hmm, as with the Augustine quote, I need a reference for this. For
Sourer to claim this, he must have a quote from Luther or something of
that nature. Both the Luther and Augustine claims go against what I
know of them, so I really do need references.
> "Soon following Luther came the French sect known as the Jansenists.
> This group arose in the Roman Catholic Church after the Council of
> Trent and was subjected to persecution following the issuance in 1705
> of a bill condemning them. After persecution began, speaking in
> tongues was reported among this group."(12)
>
> Another group in France that exercised the use of tongues were known
> as the Cevennes. Among them in a revival of religious enthusiasm
> occurred similar to that of the Jansenists. Newman in "A Manual of
> Church History" tells us that:
Again, I don't say that tongues have stopped or they never occured at
all. But think of the implications of saying that no-one has the
Spirit unless they speak in tongues --- then these groups, the
Jansenists and Cevennes, were little pockets of Christianity in a sea
of non-Christian hypocrites. I find it intolerable to think that's
the way Christianity is - it rises in a little group for a short while
and then dies off.
The true Church doesn't die off like that. Fashions and heresies die
off.
> In this same period of time the Encyclopedia Britannica
> tells of tongues "among the converts of Wesley and
> Whitefield." John Wesley once wrote a protest against a Dr.
> Middleton who wrote "after the Apostolic time, there is not, in all
> history, one instance...of any person who had even exercised that
> gift (tongues)." Wesley replied, "Sir, your memory fails you
> again, it has been heard more than once no further off than the
> valleys of Dauphiny."(14)
Clearly Wesley is speaking against the idea that gifts of the Spirit
have long since ceased to be given and won't be given again. I'm not
saying tha. Wesley didn't speak in tongues, did he? Do you think he
wasn't a Christian?
[Quakers and Shakers]
Again, little pockets of true Christians in a sea of hypocrites which
inclued Luther(I don't believe he spoke in tongues), Owen, Bunyan,
Wesley, Whitefield, etc. Is that how you see the history of the
Christian church?
[snip]
The article seems to be trying to refute the idea that speaking in
tongues never happens any more. Fair enough, (although I think the
article contained errors and was biased). But as to the question in
hand, "Is it necessary to speak in tongues to be a Christian?" I
don't think it does your cause much good.
--
Paul
http://www.redeemed.org.uk/
Paul Dean
[wesley snipped - responded to in other post]
> > Not at all. Such "miracles" by local sorcerers were commonplace.
> > When Simon(the sorcerer) saw real miracles he "followed Philip
> > everywhere, *astonished* by them". He doesn't sound like someone who
> > had been doing genuine miracles before Philip came along.
>
> Please read the passage Paul, I am referring to the miracles that
> followed Philip's preaching
It clearly says that Philip was doing the miracles.
> > > yet they had not yet *received* the Spirit - see Acts 8:5-16.
> >
> > At this point they became Christians, not before.
>
> So you agree that although their lives changed in various respects,
> they stopped following Simon, believed Philip's message concerning
> Christ and were baptised, they were not yet Christians ?
I don't see any mention of their lives having changed. How long would
it take to get from Jerusalem to Samaria? Only a few days, I suspect.
> > "It is only by the Spirit of God that one can say, 'Jesus is Lord'."
> > If this was continually present in me, how is it reasonable to say
> > that "God was working" but not that I had "received the Spirit"? What
> > does "receiving the Spirit" mean apart from a continual access to the
> > Spirit of God which lives in you and works in you?
>
> I often have people tell me that they must have received the Spirit
> because they can say "Jesus is Lord" (1 Cor. 12v3)
> Well, I accept that The Holy Spirit gives all revelation about
> Christ, but just because a person quotes truths revealed to others
> (like the 7 sons of Sceva - Acts 19v13) does NOT prove that THEY
> have received the Spirit !
And *WHY* do you want proof? This is at the heart of the issue - your
congregation (btw, is that the one with the crazy web-site, or was
that someone else?) seems to insist on proclaiming whether or not
other particular people are saved.
Why does it want this control over people? Shouldn't we be trying to
build up *everybody*?
> Here is a thought-provoker:-
>
> "And you", said Jesus, "Who do you say I am?"
> Simon Peter answered "You are the Messiah, the son of the living God"
> Then Jesus said "Simon, son of Jonah, you are favoured indeed! You did
> not learn that from mortal man; my heavenly father revealed it to you"
>
> Jesus "And you, who do you say I am?"
> Modern church-goer:- "You are the son of the living God"
> Jesus "Right. But how unfortunate you are that you learned this from
> mortal man. It has not yet been revealed to you by my father"
> Church-goer:- "True Lord, I have been cheated. Somebody gave me the
> answers before your father could speak. I marvel at your wisdom that
> you said nothing to Simon yourself, but waited for your father to
> speak first".
er, sorry, no new thoughts since last time you posted it.
> > In Galatians, Paul writes, "Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep
> > in step with the Spirit". He goes on to list some fruit of that
> > keeping in step. If someone has all those fruit in increasing
> > measure, I can only fairly conclude that he is living by the Spirit.
>
> There is also human love, joy etc, people often confuse the 2.
Absolutely. I am certain that there is no reliable way to tell
whether someone else is a Christian. It's a matter between them and
God.
> > > Peter was a fisherman, not multi-lingual, what language did he recognise
> > > in Acts 10:44-46 ? (Similarly with Paul in Acts 19)
> >
> > It doesn't say he recognised any other language, the people he was
> > with did. And notice - the evidence they had that the gentiles had
> > recieved the Spirit was "speaking in tongues and praising God". Why
> > do you put more emphasis on the tongues than the praise?
>
> Anyone can praise God, only those that have received the Spirit can
> speak in tongues.
Yes, but the issue is the converse - "only those who speak in tongues
have received the Spirit".
> > > Similarly with the corinthians - what foreign language did they speak?
> > > And if it was recognised, *why* was a Spiritual gift of interpretation
> > > required ? I was able to interpret French before I believed in God, so
> > > knowing another language is not the gift of interpretation.
> >
> > The miraculous knowledge of another language?
>
> You are just clutching at straws Paul, the person using a gift of
> interpretation does not understand the gift of tongue, they just
> give the interpretation.
Well, I'm clutching at the same straw that Philip Schaff, one of the
main sources for your other post, clutched at. Schaff thought there
were two sorts of tongues - linguistic and ecstatic. Pentecost was
linguistic, most modern is ecstatic. There is some dispute about
which one Corinth had.
> > > Also, even if tongues was *only* known languages, your statement that
> > > tongues today is "not a foreign language" is wrong, people who
> > > speak a foreign language have recognised real language being spoken
> > > in a gift of tongues in a meeting.
> >
> > I don't claim it never happens; I'm sure it does.
>
> Then why say that tongues today is "not a foreign language" ?
see above.
> > But I believe I can recognise the structure and form of a language
> > I've never heard before, and I'm convinced that modern tongues is not
> > a language with vocabulary and grammar.
>
> I have heard a few tongues that sound repetitive, especially with newer
> people, but I would not be so bold as to say it is not a real language.
So newbies are given a simple language, with only 3 or 4 words? And
then a few weeks later they're given a language with 20 words? Sorry,
if I'm being sarcastic, I don't want to be antagonistic. How about a
smile :)
> > No, nowadays, unbelievers encountering tongues will merely look for
> > the nearest exit and think that they had stumbled upon a madhouse.
> > They wouldn't be amazed, they wouldn't doubt themselves, and they
> > wouldn't stop to think, "what meaneth this?"
>
> Again, a very presumptuous statement, I have seen numerous visitors to
> meetings where tongues was used in an orderly way (one person at a time
> with interpretation, preceeded by an introduction as to what is about to
> happen and why). None immediately left, most were impressed.
> I was once at a meeting where many were speaking in tongues at once,
> *then* visitors left.
Sorry, I've only seen the rowdy meetings.
> > > > > God gave a sign to individuals entering other covenants (Gen.9:12-15,
> > > > > 17:11), why shouldn't he give the same sign of entering the New Covenant
> > > > > to people today?
> > > >
> > > > There's no reason why He shouldn't. There's no reason why He should.
> > >
> > > Gal.3:15 and Jude 3 give good reason:-
> > > 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.
> >
> > Nothing about "continuation of signs" in there.
>
> You miss the point, the New Covenant began with signs, who can
> change it?
The covenant doesn't begin again with each new convert, it began once,
with Jesus on the cross.
> > It's like saying, "Why wouldn't God continue to use burning bushes to
> > confirm His covenant with each person he makes it with?"
>
> No it isn't, the burning bush was not given as the sign of entering the
> covenant, circumcision was, we should rightly divide the word.
Paul said, "Circumcise your hearts" not "circumcise your tongues".
--
Paul
http://www.redeemed.org.uk/
Nick Ashton
>
> It's funny you should pick my favourite church historian! In the same
> book he also wrote, "The Corinthians evidently overrated the
> glossolalia, as a showy display of divine power; but it was more
> ornamental than useful, and vanished away with the bridal season of
> the church."
In this part of the book he is expressing personal opinion rather
that hostorical / scriptural fact. Does the bible detail the "bridal
season" of the church, or is it a man-made concept to explain the
difference between what the bibl;e actuallt says and what is seen in
what they call "the church" ?
>
> > TONGUES IN THE SECOND, AND THIRD
> > AND FOURTH CENTURIES
>
> [Montanus]
>
> Yes, Montanus is interesting. His movement seems to have been very
> similar to the modern charismatic movement. He and all his followers
> were declared heretics simply because, at that time, the church was
> trying to sustain uniformity of worship. I think that was
> unfortunate, but it shows how rare that sort of activity was during
> the period.
>
> For it to help your case, you will have to claim that the Montanists
> were the only true Christians of that time. Funny that the Church
> died out so quickly!
Why do you find it funny (i.e. unusual) ?
Phariseeism and established state religion rarely dies out because
there is no real commitment to stand out from others, i.e. nothing
to fall away from !
Where there is persecution and individual revelation is required,
it is much more likely to die out.
>
> > Tertullian, who lived about the same time as Irenaeus in
> > 160-220 A.D, writes a passage in his book "Against
> > Marcion" which challenges Marcion to produce anything among his
> > followers such as was common among Tertullian's.
>
> That would be when Tertullian was a Montanist, then? You know, of
> course, that he later renounced all that.
>
>
> There's also a guy who, it is claimed, could speak the languages of
> horses and devils, and is held up as a high example of speaking in
> tongues in the middle ages. It doesn't convince me.
Neigh, me neither.
>
> > Saint Augustine, who lived in the fourth century (354-430)
> > also wrote: "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.(6)
>
> Well now! I do find that interesting. The reference at the end isn't
> to Augustines work, but to some other that I do not have. I'd really
> be interested in the reference for the original quote.
>
> I've just done some searches for it in my copy, and I can't find them.
> It's important, you see, because this is the only example where
> tongues is given importance - that someone says, "it is expected".
> Are there any Augustine experts here who might shed some light upon
> it?
The other examples refute the assertion that there was no tongues
between
the 2nd and 20th centuries.
>
> > TONGUES IN THE DARK AGES
> >
> > The introduction of the fifth century marks the beginning of
> > the Dark Ages. It is here that the Catholic Church rules with an
> > iron hand and people were killed for not following its
> > teachings.
> >
> > The absence of writings other than those of Roman Catholic is not
> > surprising.
>
> Mystical writings did and do exist. Some were destroyed when the
> author was declared heretical, but many survived. I've never read in
> them anything about tongues.
>
> Again, what you are implying is that the sum total number of
> Christians was tiny - only a handful. I find this unacceptable and
> even insulting to the Holy Spirit, whose work it is to maintain the
> Church.
The Lord spoke of former and latter rain, I believe God knew there
would be a dry period in between.
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.
>
> > It is the authors opinion that the church was in hiding concerning
> > this time, for I feel that God has always had a Church.
>
> How generous! But notice that the writer isn't sure about it... he
> only feels it - it might be, from his point of view, that the Church
> didn't exist for long centuries. Unacceptable - it goes against all
> the other evidence.
No, he says it was "in hiding", that's not the same as "didn't exist",
is it ?
>
> > "From patristic times until the power of Reformation had
> > made itself distinctly felt the gift of tongues is an almost
> > forgotten phenomenon. The attention which the Reformation drew to
> > the Scripture is the reason for the reappearance of the gift.
> > Men do not usually have the gift of tongues unless they know
> > there is a gift of tongues."(7)
>
> And yet it was *very* uncommon even in the reformation and the
> centuries that follow. Yes there are isolated cases, but so what?
You admit that, even with what little record we have from the period,
we can see that tongues continued ?
Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the
earth?
Luke 18:8
Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except
there come a falling away first,
2Th:2:3:
There will be a falling away from the original faith.
>
> [snip isolated cases]
>
> I'm not claiming that the gift of tongues has ceased and will never
> happen! I'm claiming 1) that it is not necessary to be able to speak
> in tongues to be saved and 2) the gift of tongues was absent from the
> vast majority of Christians for well over a thousand years.
I wouldn't base my claim as to what is truth on what numbers of
people will / have accepted.
> Clearly Wesley is speaking against the idea that gifts of the Spirit
> have long since ceased to be given and won't be given again. I'm not
> saying tha. Wesley didn't speak in tongues, did he? Do you think he
> wasn't a Christian?
He would hardly say the following if he wasn't:-
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 love 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"
>
> [Quakers and Shakers]
>
> Again, little pockets of true Christians in a sea of hypocrites which
> inclued Luther(I don't believe he spoke in tongues), Owen, Bunyan,
> Wesley, Whitefield, etc. Is that how you see the history of the
> Christian church?
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."
Whether or not man's historical records reliably record what was
happening does not affect the word of God, Jesus is returning for those
who are faithful to God's record, and in the meantime, Goid is proving
himself faithful to it whenever and wherever people believe it.
- Nick
Paul Dean
> Paul Dean wrote:
>
> >
> > It's funny you should pick my favourite church historian! In the same
> > book he also wrote, "The Corinthians evidently overrated the
> > glossolalia, as a showy display of divine power; but it was more
> > ornamental than useful, and vanished away with the bridal season of
> > the church."
>
> In this part of the book he is expressing personal opinion rather
> that hostorical / scriptural fact. Does the bible detail the "bridal
> season" of the church, or is it a man-made concept to explain the
> difference between what the bibl;e actuallt says and what is seen in
> what they call "the church"?
You haven't read Schaff's "Creeds of Christendom" have you? Virtually
all of his writing is devotional in character. Although he was a very
thorough scholar, you can't separate Schaff from his beliefs.
[snip]
> > For it to help your case, you will have to claim that the
> > Montanists were the only true Christians of that time. Funny that
> > the Church died out so quickly!
>
> Why do you find it funny (i.e. unusual) ?
> Phariseeism and established state religion rarely dies out because
> there is no real commitment to stand out from others, i.e. nothing
> to fall away from !
> Where there is persecution and individual revelation is required,
> it is much more likely to die out.
"The gates of hell shall not prevail against it." If you think that
the Christian Church was virtually extinct for several centuries, then
it's beyond me where to begin discussing it with you. The Holy
Spirit who is God, in that case, would seem to be not very good at
giving gifts...
> Neigh, me neither.
aha, I just snipped that and then realised the joke! lol.
> The other examples refute the assertion that there was no tongues
> between the 2nd and 20th centuries.
If I said "There was no tongues between 2nd and 20th centuries" I
apologise unreservedly for my exageration. I know that there have
been isolated cases.
> The Lord spoke of former and latter rain, I believe God knew there
> would be a dry period in between.
>
> 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.
IMO the dry period was the few hundred years between the last of the
prophets and Jesus. The latter rain came at Pentecost.
> > > It is the authors opinion that the church was in hiding concerning
> > > this time, for I feel that God has always had a Church.
> >
> > How generous! But notice that the writer isn't sure about it... he
> > only feels it - it might be, from his point of view, that the Church
> > didn't exist for long centuries. Unacceptable - it goes against all
> > the other evidence.
>
> No, he says it was "in hiding", that's not the same as "didn't exist",
> is it ?
Please read what I said carefully.
> > I'm not claiming that the gift of tongues has ceased and will never
> > happen! I'm claiming 1) that it is not necessary to be able to speak
> > in tongues to be saved and 2) the gift of tongues was absent from the
> > vast majority of Christians for well over a thousand years.
>
> I wouldn't base my claim as to what is truth on what numbers of
> people will / have accepted.
Of course not, but it has some bearing. If 99.99999% of people who
have called themselves Christians and have demonstrably given up their
lives for him can be shown to believe something contrary to what I
believe, I would be mad to ignore that. Worse, if I one of my
doctrines implied that all those 99.9999% of people who had given up
their lives for him were not Christians at all, then surely I should
think very carefully about that? We're agreed that there are other
signs of being a Christian than tongues - and thousands, millions of
people have showed those signs. Your doctrine makes them unsaved and
hypocritical. Extraordinary claims like that need extraordinary
evidence, which in this case simply doesn't exist.
> > Clearly Wesley is speaking against the idea that gifts of the Spirit
> > have long since ceased to be given and won't be given again. I'm not
> > saying tha. Wesley didn't speak in tongues, did he? Do you think he
> > wasn't a Christian?
>
> He would hardly say the following if he wasn't:-
[snip quote] That's the third time you've cut and pasted that page.
And for the third time I'll say, Wesley was responding, rightly, to
the idea of his time that all the extraordinary spiritual gifts had
been rescinded. Wesley was saying, "No they haven't - you're limiting
God by saying that". He wasn't saying, "You have to have them, or
else".
> > [Quakers and Shakers]
> >
> > Again, little pockets of true Christians in a sea of hypocrites which
> > inclued Luther(I don't believe he spoke in tongues), Owen, Bunyan,
> > Wesley, Whitefield, etc. Is that how you see the history of the
> > Christian church?
>
> 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."
I think more will contend that Luther didn't speak in tongues. He
spoke a lot of languages, which might have confused Souer (Ph.D.) but
I've just done a quick search on the web and it appears that Souer is
the only source for this rumour[1] and that there are many people
trying to refute it.
[1] also the cut and pasted article you posted seems to be widespread
on the web. I could just have cut and pasted one of the refutations I
found :)
--
Paul
http://www.redeemed.org.uk/
Nick Ashton
>
> You haven't read Schaff's "Creeds of Christendom" have you? Virtually
> all of his writing is devotional in character. Although he was a very
> thorough scholar, you can't separate Schaff from his beliefs.
I'm just separating the facts he reports from interpretation and
other views he adds to them. What is the "bridal season" of the church
?
>
> [snip]
> > > For it to help your case, you will have to claim that the
> > > Montanists were the only true Christians of that time. Funny that
> > > the Church died out so quickly!
> >
> > Why do you find it funny (i.e. unusual) ?
> > Phariseeism and established state religion rarely dies out because
> > there is no real commitment to stand out from others, i.e. nothing
> > to fall away from !
> > Where there is persecution and individual revelation is required,
> > it is much more likely to die out.
>
> "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it." If you think that
> the Christian Church was virtually extinct for several centuries, then
> it's beyond me where to begin discussing it with you. The Holy
> Spirit who is God, in that case, would seem to be not very good at
> giving gifts...
The gates of Hell certainly tried to prevail against it, Satan being a
murderer, nowadays in the west the attack is more subtle, satan
masquerading
as angel of light stuff. Those martyrs under the altar in revelation
would
seem to have been killed, but they shall prevail, the church has not
been
extinguished.
>
> > The Lord spoke of former and latter rain, I believe God knew there
> > would be a dry period in between.
> >
> > 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.
>
> IMO the dry period was the few hundred years between the last of the
> prophets and Jesus. The latter rain came at Pentecost.
Jas:5:7: Be patient therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the Lord.
Behold, the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth, and
hath long patience for it, until he receive the early and latter rain.
The great outpourings of the Spirit are just like that witnessed in the
early church,
seems to fit the description well to me.
>
> Of course not, but it has some bearing. If 99.99999% of people who
> have called themselves Christians and have demonstrably given up their
> lives for him can be shown to believe something contrary to what I
> believe, I would be mad to ignore that.
Of course "many" will come to The lord saying what they did for Him,
but rather than give Him their lives, he wants all to receive His Life
by receiving the Spirit, there is a big difference.
There are over 30,000 members in the fellowship I'm in, more have
passed through over the years and of course there are many more
in other groups.
Worse, if I one of my
> doctrines implied that all those 99.9999% of people who had given up
> their lives for him were not Christians at all, then surely I should
> think very carefully about that? We're agreed that there are other
> signs of being a Christian than tongues - and thousands, millions of
> people have showed those signs. Your doctrine makes them unsaved and
> hypocritical. Extraordinary claims like that need extraordinary
> evidence, which in this case simply doesn't exist.
Jesus HEALED 10 lepers, only 1 returned, many people have had genuine
encounters with God, they believe in God and are told by ministers
of religion that they are therefore Christian, *their* doctrine makes
them unsaved, mine says, OK you believe in God, believe this from
God's word !
I was one of those people.
- Nick
Nick Ashton
>
> It clearly says that Philip was doing the miracles.
Well of course God ddid the miracles, the point is that despite these
evidences of faith, they knew the Samarians had not received the Spirit,
yet you are sure you received the Spirit without any sign / miracle.
>
> > > > yet they had not yet *received* the Spirit - see Acts 8:5-16.
> > >
> > > At this point they became Christians, not before.
> >
> > So you agree that although their lives changed in various respects,
> > they stopped following Simon, believed Philip's message concerning
> > Christ and were baptised, they were not yet Christians ?
>
> I don't see any mention of their lives having changed. How long would
> it take to get from Jerusalem to Samaria? Only a few days, I suspect.
But you say you had an INSTANT change from hate to love when you met The
Lord, a few days is longer than an instant.
>
> > > "It is only by the Spirit of God that one can say, 'Jesus is Lord'." . . .
>
> And *WHY* do you want proof? This is at the heart of the issue - your
> congregation (btw, is that the one with the crazy web-site, or was
> that someone else?) seems to insist on proclaiming whether or not
> other particular people are saved.
You are claiming the ability to say "Jesus is Lord" is proof, I am
questioning your use of that scripture and pointing out that the
apostles
had a way of knowing that people had just received the Spirit and they
didn't require people to say "Jesus is Lord" beforehand.
Ours isn't a crazy website.
>
> Why does it want this control over people? Shouldn't we be trying to
> build up *everybody*?
I am by affirming God's promise of the Holy Spirit which comes with
the new prayer language which is for BUILDING up people, you are
undermining
the GOOD thing that God wants to do for all.
>
> Absolutely. I am certain that there is no reliable way to tell
> whether someone else is a Christian. It's a matter between them and
> God.
Then the apostles were out of order, they decided that people had just
received the Spirit, or that they had not.
>
> Well, I'm clutching at the same straw that Philip Schaff, one of the
> main sources for your other post, clutched at. Schaff thought there
> were two sorts of tongues - linguistic and ecstatic. Pentecost was
> linguistic, most modern is ecstatic. There is some dispute about
> which one Corinth had.
I only used Schaff for historical record not personal opinion,
there is a difference.
Please tell me what are these disputers basing their argument on ?
Acts 2:12-14 shows that the people were left in doubt and confusion
because they were not being spoken *to*, that's why the apostles stood
up,
stopped speaking in tongues and Pater spoke *to* the crowd in the common
learned language. This entirely matches what is said to the Corinthians
about the purpose of tongues, the only reason real language was
recognised
in Acts 2 was that the crowd all spoke at least 2 languages. The same
can
and has happened in regular church meetings where the gift of tongues is
used and bi-lingual people are present, but tongues is not, and never
was
for preaching the gospel to people.
>
> Sorry, I've only seen the rowdy meetings.
You mean you have never actually been to a meeting that does as 1 Cor.
14 says ?
I have interesting news for you, such a meeting happens near you every
sunday
morning 11am (I understand you are near Northolt ?).
They are at Stanburn School, Abercorn Road, Stanmore.
There are also wednesday evening meetings in Rayners Lane, Thursday in
Richmond.
You are warmly invited, any open-minded person is welcome and any
questions
can be answered afterwards.
> > > Nothing about "continuation of signs" in there.
> >
> > You miss the point, the New Covenant began with signs, who can
> > change it?
>
> The covenant doesn't begin again with each new convert, it began once,
> with Jesus on the cross.
No, Jesus had to return to the Father for the Spirit to be given.
Ezek.11:19, Heb.8:8-11
>
> > > It's like saying, "Why wouldn't God continue to use burning bushes to
> > > confirm His covenant with each person he makes it with?"
> >
> > No it isn't, the burning bush was not given as the sign of entering the
> > covenant, circumcision was, we should rightly divide the word.
>
> Paul said, "Circumcise your hearts" not "circumcise your tongues".
God circumcises the heart, when we receive the Spirit, it is interesting
that
a new tongue was seen as the sign of this because:-
1)"from the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks"
2) No *man* can tame the tongue - the new tamed tongue indicates that
the
speaker has entered the realm where all things are possible.
- Nick
Paul Dean
> Of course "many" will come to The lord saying what they did for Him,
> but rather than give Him their lives, he wants all to receive His Life
> by receiving the Spirit, there is a big difference.
>
> There are over 30,000 members in the fellowship I'm in, more have
> passed through over the years and of course there are many more
> in other groups.
You do believe that only people in your fellowship are saved, don't
you?
> > Worse, if I one of my
> > doctrines implied that all those 99.9999% of people who had given up
> > their lives for him were not Christians at all, then surely I should
> > think very carefully about that? We're agreed that there are other
> > signs of being a Christian than tongues - and thousands, millions of
> > people have showed those signs. Your doctrine makes them unsaved and
> > hypocritical. Extraordinary claims like that need extraordinary
> > evidence, which in this case simply doesn't exist.
>
> Jesus HEALED 10 lepers, only 1 returned, many people have had genuine
> encounters with God, they believe in God and are told by ministers
> of religion that they are therefore Christian, *their* doctrine makes
> them unsaved, mine says, OK you believe in God, believe this from
> God's word !
Well, I'm against that just as much as telling people they can't be
Christians unless they pray in tongues. If someone asked me how they
can know if they are a Christian or not, I'd first ask them *why* they
feel a need to know - God wants our trust and relationship, which
often means uncertainty about certain things.
But technically I think there is only really one way to know. Many on
that day will say, "But we spoke in tongues and did miracles in your
name." But the Lord will say, "Away from me, you evil-doers, I never
knew you." The way to know is through seeing a consistent, gradual
victory over sin. It is only by the Spirit of God that sin is
overcome. If someone doesn't have the Spirit, then he or she belongs
to sin and at most can merely exchange one sin for another.
--
Paul
http://www.redeemed.org.uk/
Gareth McCaughan
[I said:]
>> I have no way of knowing for sure what David's heart does
>> and doesn't so.
>
> Fair enough, though the apostles obviously had a way of knowing !
Maybe they did. However, most people are not apostles,
and even if the apostles were able to know such things
that doesn't mean that the way in which they knew was
applicable to everyone else.
Ken Down
<amet...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> The following article collates some of the records
> we have of tongue-speaking in this period.
You forgot to include the popular Victorian preacher Henry Irving who
preached that Christ would return in 1844 (I think it was, certainly
1840-something). When his hopes were disappointed he was guided by the gift
of tongues (manifested through a woman in his congregation if I recall the
story correctly) to set up God's last church on earth - the Catholic
Apostolic Church, otherwise known as the Irvingites.
Through these tongues he was ordered to ordain twelve apostles as leaders of
the church, but no provision was made to replace them when they grew old,
with the result that when the last of the apostles died, the church ceased
to exist.
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
Ken Down
<Pa...@redeemed.org.uk> wrote:
> Yes, Montanus is interesting.
His female friends would have agreed with you.
Paul Dean
> > It clearly says that Philip was doing the miracles.
>
> Well of course God ddid the miracles, the point is that despite
> these evidences of faith, they knew the Samarians had not received
> the Spirit,
Eh? You mean that someone doing a miracle near me means that I am
saved? I thought your claim was that the person saved will *do* the
miracles.
What happened when they received the Spirit? They "spoke in tongues
and praised God." So before hand they were not speaking in tongues
*or* praising God. People not praising God is a sure giveaway that
they don't have the Spirit.
> yet you are sure you received the Spirit without any sign/miracle.
I had been re-born and sanctified, without a shadow of a doubt.
> > I don't see any mention of their lives having changed. How long would
> > it take to get from Jerusalem to Samaria? Only a few days, I suspect.
>
> But you say you had an INSTANT change from hate to love when you met The
> Lord, a few days is longer than an instant.
But I'd been reading the bible for a week.
> > And *WHY* do you want proof? This is at the heart of the issue -
> > your congregation (btw, is that the one with the crazy web-site,
> > or was that someone else?) seems to insist on proclaiming whether
> > or not other particular people are saved.
>
> You are claiming the ability to say "Jesus is Lord" is proof, I am
> questioning your use of that scripture and pointing out that the
> apostles had a way of knowing that people had just received the
> Spirit and they didn't require people to say "Jesus is Lord"
> beforehand.
Er, hang on. It is you that needs proof about other people faith.
I'm really not interested, because I know that all evidences can be
faked, and because it wouldn't affect my behaviour towards people in
any case.
> > Why does it want this control over people? Shouldn't we be trying to
> > build up *everybody*?
>
> I am by affirming God's promise of the Holy Spirit which comes with
> the new prayer language which is for BUILDING up people, you are
> undermining the GOOD thing that God wants to do for all.
I am not against speaking in tongues. I am against saying that it is
a prerequisite to being saved.
> > Sorry, I've only seen the rowdy meetings.
>
> You mean you have never actually been to a meeting that does as 1
> Cor. 14 says ? I have interesting news for you, such a meeting
> happens near you every sunday morning 11am (I understand you are
> near Northolt ?). They are at Stanburn School, Abercorn Road,
> Stanmore. There are also wednesday evening meetings in Rayners
> Lane, Thursday in Richmond. You are warmly invited, any open-minded
> person is welcome and any questions can be answered afterwards.
I prefer to ask my questions beforehand, especially of exclusive
sects.[1]
[1] by "sect" I mean no offense and I don't mean "cult", we had the
discussion last time.
--
Paul
http://www.redeemed.org.uk/
Roland Watson
> Paul Dean wrote:
>
> >
> > IMO the dry period was the few hundred years between the last of the
> > prophets and Jesus. The latter rain came at Pentecost.
>
> Jas:5:7: Be patient therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the Lord.
> Behold, the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth, and
> hath long patience for it, until he receive the early and latter rain.
>
> The great outpourings of the Spirit are just like that witnessed in the
> early church,
> seems to fit the description well to me.
It seems the brethren of James 5:7 have been waiting a long time for the latter
rain ... unless James expected something to happen in their lifetimes.
Roland.
Paul Dean
> In article <m3n1dty...@redeemed.org.uk>, Paul Dean
> <Pa...@redeemed.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > Yes, Montanus is interesting.
>
> His female friends would have agreed with you.
I've read it before, but I think what you are implying is
unsubstantiated rumour, Ken.
--
Paul
http://www.redeemed.org.uk/
Richard Emblem
<digg...@argonet.co.uk> writes:
>You forgot to include the popular Victorian preacher Henry Irving who
>preached that Christ would return in 1844 (I think it was, certainly
>1840-something). When his hopes were disappointed he was guided by the gift
>of tongues (manifested through a woman in his congregation if I recall the
>story correctly) to set up God's last church on earth - the Catholic
>Apostolic Church, otherwise known as the Irvingites.
>
>Through these tongues he was ordered to ordain twelve apostles as leaders of
>the church, but no provision was made to replace them when they grew old,
>with the result that when the last of the apostles died, the church ceased
>to exist.
Though I think I am right in saying that one of its churches is still to be
seen near Shere in Surrey.
--
Richard Emblem
I'm not OK and you're not OK.
but God says: "that's OK"
_______________________
EasyGeeza
>
> You do believe that only people in your fellowship are saved, don't
> you?
No.
>
> But technically I think there is only really one way to know. Many on
> that day will say, "But we spoke in tongues and did miracles in your
> name." But the Lord will say, "Away from me, you evil-doers, I never
> knew you."
Now you are moving away from knowing you have become a Christian, to
whether you will be found faithful.
- Nick
Paul Wright
EasyGeeza <amet...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>Paul Wright wrote:
>> Paul spells out what he means by "gospel" in 1 Corinithians 15:
>>
>> 15:1 Now I want to make clear for you, brothers and sisters, the
>> gospel that I preached to you, that you received and on which you
>> stand, 15:2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold firmly to
>> the message I preached to you-unless you believed in vain. 15:3 For I
>> passed on to you as of first importance what I also received-that
>> Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, 15:4 and that
>> he was buried, and that he was raised4 on the third day according to
>> the scriptures, 15:5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the
>> twelve.
>>
>> So Paul says "hold on to the message (gospel) I preached to you".
>> What is that message: that Christ died for sins, was buried and rose
>> again. Paul sums it up again at the beginning of Romans: look at Rom
>> 1:1-4.
>
>Of course this is a very selective use of scripture
I don't think it is more selective than your own use in relating tongues
to the other signs of the covenants. In the passage above Paul reminds
them to hold fast to his message and then spells out for us what his
message is. We find no such spelling out for your view, no passage
which says "you can tell someone does not have the Spirit if they do not
speak in tongues" or "tongues are the coventental sign, as circumcision
was". If Paul spells out what he means by "gospel" so clearly here, why
ignore him?
(I don't think you're the only one who does this, by the way: the
evangelical church tends to use "gospel" to mean "a 3-step plan to to
make sure you're saved", which isn't quite the sense in which Paul uses
it).
>ignoring (1) the immediate context of the letter and (2) other
>statements in the NT by Paul and others.
>
>(1) 1Co:2:4: And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words
>of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
>1Co:2:5: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in
>the power of God.
>
>Paul wanted their faith to stand in the power of God so that they would
>actually *have* the power of the Spirit that raised Christ, rather than
>just believe the words that Christ was raised. And of course Paul
>begins the letter with the affirmation that they have received that
>Spirit (1:4-7) and the rest of the letter is only written to them
>because of this.
What is the "power of God" that Paul is talking about? It is the
"message of the cross" with which he preaches. When Paul says he didn't
use enticing words of man's wisdom, he doesn't mean he did not use
words, but rather, that the words he used were not those which the world
considers wise (so he didn't speak like a clever Greek philospher, even
though he knew some Greek philosophy (eg Acts 17:28)). He talks about
Jesus, crucified, which both Jews and Greeks do not find impressive, but
rather, foolish. This is what he says:
1:18 For the *message of the cross* is foolishness to those who are
perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the *power of God*.
and later, as you said:
>1Co:2:5: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in
>the power of God.
So, what is the power of God to which Paul refers? It is the message of
the cross (see also Romans 1:16).
In fact, Paul shows that his main aim is not to show miraculous signs:
1:22 For Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks ask for wisdom, but we
preach about a crucified Christ...
So, why are you demanding miraculous signs from Christians?
>I notice that you stop at v4, Paul goes on to say how The Lord appeared
>also to Him and then refers to the grace bestowed upon Him, have you
>considered what The Lord *said* when he appeared ?
>The Lord had a common message for the 12 and Paul namely to receive the
>Spirit ! (Acts 9:6, 17, 22:16, Acts 1:4-8)
>
>Any "gospel" that leaves this out is a tree without fruit !
>a words-only Gospel !
...
>The Romans, the Jews, the Greeks, and the Corinthians all received this
>power.
I don't disagree that people who hear the gospel will be receive the
Spirit if they respond, and that this is necesary for the Christian
life. What I took issue with was the way you seemed to make speaking in
tongues a part of the gospel.
>> The fact is that it is the gospel message that saves and that enables
>> people to receive life. The Spirit comes to live in Christians as a
>> result of that, but the teaching about the gift of the Spirit is not the
>> gospel in Paul's sense of the word, as you can see from the passages
>> above.
>
>I believe you have your fact wrong. The Spirit comes in people to make
>them Christians, they are not Christians before.
I don't see how what you've written relates to what I have written
above. My point is that the Spirit comes after the message (gospel) is
accepted, but the coming of the Spirit isn't what the message is about:
the message is about Jesus Christ crucified.
>> The Bible does not give an alternative because it does *not* teach a
>> sure fire way to tell that someone has received the Spirit. As it does
>> not teach this, it certainly does not teach how it occurs.
>
>When was there ever any doubt ?
We're not told there was doubt, but we're not told there was always the
sort of certainty you seem to want, either. We do see occasions where
the apostles go to a bunch of believers and we note that Luke doesn't
tell us that the first thing they do is check they're really believers
by getting them to speak in tongues.
>Jesus says " in the mouth of two or three witnesses *every word* may be
>established." (Matt.18:16)
>1- Acts 2 (jews)
>Ac:2:33: Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having
>received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed
>forth this, which ye now see and hear.
This does not show what happened at Pentecost is always the way that
people will judge whether presence of the Holy Spirit will be shown. Why
do you not also require that tongues of fire are seen reaching out to
all converts today? "See and hear", after all.
>2- Acts 10 (gentiles)
>Ac:10:44: While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on
>all them which heard the word. . . . .For they heard them speak with
>tongues,
>
>3- Acts 19 (greeks)
>Ac:19:6: And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came
>on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
This passage does not say that Paul judged that they had received the
Spirit because they spoke in tongues.
>> My point is that this sign only needed to occur to convinced the
>> Jewish believers of this.
>
>My point was that it happened again in Acts 19, which is *after* Acts
>10. The Apostles already knew that the Gentiles were accepted on equal
>terms, so it obviously wasn't just to show this.
That's true. But I don't claim that tongues only happens when it is
necessary to convince Jews that Gentiles can be saved, merely that it
can happen at some times and not others, but it needed especially to
happen for Cornelius and his household.
>In a Bible version I have, the translators mention
>> that Peter seems to be saying that the household of Cornelius received
>> "in the same manner as" the Jews did at Pentecost: that is, the argument
>> is not so much "look, we know they have received the Spirit because they
>> spoke in tongues" as "look, it happened to them exactly as it happened
>> to us: either the Gentiles must be able to receive the Holy Spirit, or
>> we were wrong to think we did."
>
>They only knew "it" happened (i.e. people received the Spirit)
>because they spoke in tongues, no-one ever suggests the possibility
>of another way, or that maybe thet received some time before.
No one suggests the possibility of another way because it wasn't needed:
they saw a Pentecost for the Gentiles, as was needed to show the Jews
that the Gentiles could be Christians. No one suggests that they might
have received before because they know that although Cornelius knows
about Jesus, he lacks something. It's possible from one reading of the
passage that they knew about Jesus' teaching and doing good works, but
that they did not realise who Jesus was (i.e. that in the section
beginning "we are witnesses", Peter is telling them new things, mainly
about the resurrection, which he saw but not everyone else did, as he
says).
>> >God confirmed previous covenants with a specific sign -
>> [snip]
>>
>> You keep mentioning the rainbow, circumcision and so on, and I keep
>> asking for the Scripture which compares tongues to these things. So you
>> quote the passages from Genesis (which don't mention tongues)
>
>Of course not ! why would you expect them to ?
>
>I keep giving you the comparison, all refer to people entering into
>covenant with God.
So, *you* give me the comparison of these covenental signs with tongues.
Where do I find this in the Bible? I don't.
>> >The apostles were able to say precicely when people received the Spirit
>> >- can you do the same ?
>>
>> No. That's precisely my point: I think that in general it is not
>> possible to do this with absolute certainty.
>
>I'll stick with the apostles.
But you are not an apostle. Even if they can always do this (rather than
just on the occasions where Luke mentions it), there's no guarantee that
you or I can do the same.
>> If a spirit within someone tells them that Jesus is the Christ, come in
>> the flesh, then that is in fact the Holy Spirit within them.
>
>The devils knew that Jesus was the Christ, did those possessed people
>have the Holy Spirit ?
No. As James says "even the demons believe". I'm not talking about
simple belief in a fact, I'm talking about the knowledge that makes a
difference to how we behave (which is James' point, of course).
>The Samarians in Acts 8 believed Philip who preached Christ, and were
>baptised, yet they had *not* yet received the Spirit . . .
>Why did they get baptised in the name of Jesus if they did not believe
>that Jesus was the Christ ?
>(Acts 8:12-16)
The study notes in one of my Bibles suggest that here we see another
racial line being crossed (the despised Samaritans, another group of
people who the Jews might not think could be Christians), so it needed
to be shown to the Jews, just as with Cornelius.
Of course, Luke gives us mostly straight history in Acts without always
explaining why he thinks things happen, so I could be wrong. But so
could you, of course, since Luke doesn't spell out your interpretation
either.
>> >Jesus said to John:-
>> >Joh:14:20: At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in
>> >me, and I in you.
>> >
>> >What day did they know ?
>> >
>> >How did they know ?
>> >
>> >Acts 2:4, 33 gives you the answer
>>
>> No it doesn't. You seem to suggest that the apostles knew Jesus was in
>> them because they spoke in tongues. That can't be right, because Jesus
>> doesn't tell them beforehand what sign to look for to know that he is
>> now in them. They knew because they were given the Spirit and the Spirit
>> himself gave them the assurance that Jesus was within them.
>
>What is this assurance that the Spirit gave Peter ?
>an inner voice ?
>a warm feeling ?
The real presence of God with them. God seems to have spoken to the
apostles in a very special way: the Scriptures are testament to this.
> . . .read for yourself and see what Peter says !
He doesn't tell us what he's feeling or how he now knows what he knows,
he talks about Jesus.
>In addition, Jesus spoke of signs to look for after he was raised from
>the dead (Mark 16:15-20), all of which were already encountered
>previously (see Luke 10:9, 19 for example), with the exception of
>"speaking in tongues", why do you think tongues was never encountered
>*before* Pentecost ?
I'm not too convinced about the bona fides of the ending of Mark. Do you
also pick up snakes, for example? Perhaps you should add that to your
test for real Christians.
>Jude warns of those who are subtle, they creep in among Christians, so
>they obviously profess faith, but Jude is able to say that they have
>not the Spirit - how ?
Because they don't live like it, from what he writes: they defile the
flesh and reject authority.
[how to pray in the Spirit]
>> By praying for the things for which the Spirit wants us to pray. Paul
>> says to "pray in the Spirit at all times with all kinds of prayers
>> and requests". How does one do that if it is always praying in
>> tongues, given that the person praying does not understand what they
>> are saying?
>
>You see a need, you do not understand how God is going to meet it,
>that's why you need God's help.
But the point is that God gives us this help, but not always by speaking
in tongues. Unless you consider the "groans to deep for words" to be
tongues: when I've heard speaking in tongues, they didn't groan. :-)
[on other religions using tongues as mentioned by the Britanica]
>It's always a report that someone else claimed they saw / heard, I've
>never met anyone who actually does it. Jesus and the apostles
>encountered plenty of false religion, yet they never mentioned that
>these people also have the miraculous ability to speak in tongues.
There are lots of reports in the Encyclopedia Britanica of things that
someone else saw/heard which I have not seen and which aren't mentioned
in the Bible: reports about Australia, electrons, the planet Pluto, and
so on. I shouldn't believe any of that either, if I was you.
>> >Does this language edify them ?
>>
>> As they weren't Christians, I don't expect the Christian concept of
>> being edified would mean much to them.
>
>1Co:14:4: He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself
So, you think that verse applies to people who aren't Christians who
speak in tongues?
>> >You say:-
>> >"I generally take people's word for it when they say they are a
>> >Christian"
>> >
>> >Did the apostles ever do this ?
>>
>> They do it all the time.
>
>
>(whisper) . . . is thst the *truth* Paul ?
>
>can you give me just one example ?
Certainly. When Paul encounters Lydia in Acts 16:14, Luke tells us the
Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul's message. He does not say that
they knew this because she spoke in tongues. Similarly, on those
occasions where Paul visits a group of believers, we don't see him
getting them all to speak in tongues to check them out before he accepts
that they are Christians.
>> I think Paul writes to people who he thinks have come to faith,
>> although I don't think he can be absolutely sure (unless God tells
>> him about specific people). Why does he think he's writing to
>> Christians? Paul tells the Ephesians he has "heard of your faith in
>> the Lord Jesus and your love for all the saints" not "I have heard
>> that you all speak in tongues". He writes the same in Philemon, and
>> similarly in Romans 1:8. He tells the Colossians "we heard about
>> your faith in Christ Jesus and the love that you have for all the
>> saints. 1:5 Your faith and love have arisen from the hope laid up for
>> you in heaven, which you have heard about in the message of truth,
>> the gospel..." (note again how faith comes from hearing the word of
>> the gospel).
>
>Faith is invisible, but is shown by the loving, showing that these
>people are *using* the Spirit they received.
Well, I agree. My point is that when you write:
>> >It is clear that the letters were written to people who were *known*
>> >to have received the Spirit at some time in the past,
then in the case of the Ephesians, Romans, Philemon, and Colossians, it
seems to be because of this love that Paul thinks these churches have
received the Spirit: he does not mentioned tongues.
--
----- Paul Wright ------| "A good programmer is someone who looks both ways
-paul....@pobox.com--| before crossing a one-way street." -- Doug Linder
http://pobox.com/~pw201 |
Paul Dean
> Paul Dean wrote:
>
> > You do believe that only people in your fellowship are saved, don't
> > you?
>
> No.
Glad to hear it!
> > But technically I think there is only really one way to know. Many on
> > that day will say, "But we spoke in tongues and did miracles in your
> > name." But the Lord will say, "Away from me, you evil-doers, I never
> > knew you."
>
> Now you are moving away from knowing you have become a Christian, to
> whether you will be found faithful.
?!? The Lord will say "Away from me, you evil-doers, I never knew
you" to genuine Christians?
Ah, are you talking about people who "lose their faith", who stop
being genuine Christians? I just want to see if I've grasped what
you're saying.
--
Paul
http://www.redeemed.org.uk/