alpha a good or bad thing

5 views
Skip to first unread message

lee

unread,
Oct 16, 2001, 10:17:38 PM10/16/01
to
any ideas?

Nick Ashton

unread,
Oct 17, 2001, 6:45:47 AM10/17/01
to
Good @ making u think, but may well leave you without clear answers,
just people's opinions.
God's alpha -
Ac:2:37: Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and
said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what
shall we do?
Ac:2:38: Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of
you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall
receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Ac:2:39: For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all
that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

. . . Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? (Acts 19:2)

Peter Ould

unread,
Oct 17, 2001, 8:38:33 AM10/17/01
to
"Nick Ashton" <amet...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:3BCD615B...@ntlworld.com...

>
> . . . Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? (Acts 19:2)

Yes, but I don't speak in tongues.

Sorry everybody.......

Peter


--
Posted from host213-120-112-208.in-addr.btopenworld.com [213.120.112.208]
via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Nick Ashton

unread,
Oct 17, 2001, 1:18:01 PM10/17/01
to
4 questions Peter,

In the NT they knew when they received the Spirit, did you ?


If so, how ?


How do you pray in the Spirit ?

If you understand what you say while praying in the Spirit, how do you
explain Paul's comment:-
1Co:14:16: Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that
occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks,
seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?

Colin Bell

unread,
Oct 17, 2001, 2:01:56 PM10/17/01
to
Peter Ould wrote:
>
> "Nick Ashton" <amet...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:3BCD615B...@ntlworld.com...
>
> >
> > . . . Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? (Acts 19:2)
>
> Yes, but I don't speak in tongues.
>
> Sorry everybody.......

It's all right - I think it's probably your turn to attempt to put Nick to
rights. Best of luck...

Colin

Tumbleweed

unread,
Oct 17, 2001, 11:07:29 AM10/17/01
to
I have received a couple of emails about what goes on in Alpha*, sent by the
person running the course. To me, it had the flavour of a brainwashing type
cult, discussing the weaknesses of people on the 'course', what would sway
them to Christianity, how to influence them, and so on. I should imagine
double glazing people work the same way.


--
Tumbleweed

*Thats how I got here, trying to track down the person who accidentally sent
them to me :-) Containing full details of the attendees including full
names, intimate personal problems such as alcoholism, and so on. When I
replied to them pointing out their mistake, they did not reply, but a few
months later sent me another in the same vein.

Remove 'spam' from email replies (but no email reply necessary to
newsgroups)

"lee" <lee...@nme.com> wrote in message
news:f665c158.01101...@posting.google.com...
> any ideas?

Peter Ould

unread,
Oct 17, 2001, 3:57:31 PM10/17/01
to
"Nick Ashton" <amet...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:3BCDBD49...@ntlworld.com...
> 4 questions Peter,

Sorry guys, but I'll bite.....

>
> In the NT they knew when they received the Spirit, did you ?
>

Oh yeah!!!!

>
> If so, how ?
>
Because the Spirit witnessed to my spirit.

And he told me so......

>
> How do you pray in the Spirit ?
>

The traditional thing is to start talking to God. Do you know of other ways?

>
> If you understand what you say while praying in the Spirit, how do you
> explain Paul's comment:-
> 1Co:14:16: Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that
> occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks,
> seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?
>
>

Well it's rather simple isn't it. The whole point Paul is making is "praying
in tongues is all very well, but it doesn't do a lot for those around you
does it?"

Have a read:

1 Cor. 14:13-17 (NLT)
So anyone who has the gift of speaking in tongues should pray also for
the gift of interpretation in order to tell people plainly what has been
said. [14] For if I pray in tongues, my spirit is praying, but I don't
understand what I am saying.
[15] Well then, what shall I do? I will do both. I will pray in the
spirit, and I will pray in words I understand. I will sing in the spirit,
and I will sing in words I understand. [16] For if you praise God only in
the spirit, how can those who don't understand you praise God along with
you? How can they join you in giving thanks when they don't understand what
you are saying? [17] You will be giving thanks very nicely, no doubt, but it
doesn't help the other people present.

See verse 16? Praying "in the spirit" (which in this case means tongues but
doesn't always does it? See how in verse 14 praying in tongues is defined as
a subset of praying in the spirit) is all very well, but nobody else
understands what you're saying. Far better to pray using an earthly language
so other people can be edified by what you pray:

1 Cor. 14:18-19
I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. [19] But in a
church meeting I would much rather speak five understandable words that will
help others than ten thousand words in an unknown language.

I rest my case (with thanks to the Apostle Paul).

Peter


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.286 / Virus Database: 152 - Release Date: 09/10/2001

Tony Comer

unread,
Oct 17, 2001, 4:59:04 PM10/17/01
to
lee <lee...@nme.com> wrote in message
news:f665c158.01101...@posting.google.com...
> any ideas?

Tell us why Alpha doesn't equal God-Lite!

Tony
--
Paciencia y barajar

Tim Whittingham

unread,
Oct 17, 2001, 5:01:48 PM10/17/01
to
"lee" <lee...@nme.com> wrote in message
news:f665c158.01101...@posting.google.com...
> any ideas?

Nobody can deny that a lot of people have come to the church through Alpha.
I think it's very bad in that it makes a particular and narrow definition of
what Christianity is. Mind you no definition would be wide enough for me. My
neighbour told me that doing the Alpha course had really convinced her that
she did not ever want to be a part of the church. She asked for bread and
was given a stone.

Tim W

Richard Emblem

unread,
Oct 18, 2001, 7:59:52 AM10/18/01
to
In article <f665c158.01101...@posting.google.com>, lee...@nme.com
(lee) writes:

>any ideas?

Good.
Welcome Lee, help yourself to some of our delicius virtual jelly babies.
--
Richard Emblem
How good and pleasant it is
when God's people live in unity.
(Psalm 133:1)
_______________________

Alan Zanker

unread,
Oct 18, 2001, 8:44:13 AM10/18/01
to
lee...@nme.com (lee) wrote:

>any ideas?

If alpha courses make people more considerate, compassionate, kind,
tolerant, unselfish, broadminded, more concerned for justice, peace,
the plight of the poor and oppressed and needy and to stand up for
human rights, and encourages them to act as mature, responsible
persons I'm all for them.

Unfortunately I've seen no evidence they do any of these things. I
wouldn't touch one with a bargepole.

Alan

Nick Ashton

unread,
Oct 18, 2001, 9:00:59 AM10/18/01
to
Peter Ould wrote:

> >
> Because the Spirit witnessed to my spirit.
>
> And he told me so......


What do you mean ?
What witness / testimony / evidence did He give to show he had just
indwelled you ?

And why did the apostles never believe in this other way? they judged
that people had just received the Spirit when they heard tongues without
ever enquiring after this other way first.


>
> Well it's rather simple isn't it. The whole point Paul is making is "praying
> in tongues is all very well, but it doesn't do a lot for those around you
> does it?"


The specific point of this, and other verses is that praying in the
Spirit
will not be understood, yet all Christians are told to do it - how do
they do it without praying in tongues Peter ?

>
> Have a read:
>
> 1 Cor. 14:13-17 (NLT)

NLT ? . . . I have now

>
> See verse 16? Praying "in the spirit" (which in this case means tongues but
> doesn't always does it? See how in verse 14 praying in tongues is defined as
> a subset of praying in the spirit)


What other way of praying in the spirit does the bible ever give ?

>
> 1 Cor. 14:18-19
> I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. [19] But in a
> church meeting I would much rather speak five understandable words that will
> help others than ten thousand words in an unknown language.
>
> I rest my case (with thanks to the Apostle Paul).


Paul obviously apreciated the private benefit of praying in tongues,
for him to go on about this to people who havn't got it would leave them
with a sour taste in the mouth !

. .or at least asking the question . . why has God sent this man to
tell us the benefit of an ability he has chosen not to give me !


Also, if as you think, God does not give all Christians the ability to
pray in tongues, we have Paul, who you thank, disagreeing with God ! . .

1Co:14:5: I would that ye all spake with tongues

Nick Ashton

unread,
Oct 18, 2001, 9:03:07 AM10/18/01
to
Tim Whittingham wrote:
> My
> neighbour told me that doing the Alpha course had really convinced her that
> she did not ever want to be a part of the church. She asked for bread and
> was given a stone.
>

Interesting . . what bread was she looking for and what was the stone ?

Tim Whittingham

unread,
Oct 18, 2001, 9:59:47 AM10/18/01
to
"Nick Ashton" <amet...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:3BCED30B...@ntlworld.com...

I don't know exactly what she was looking for. I think she was unimpressed
by the simplistic theology and offended by some of the rigid morality she
heard.

Tim W

phil99

unread,
Oct 18, 2001, 8:48:21 AM10/18/01
to
"lee" <lee...@nme.com> wrote in message
news:f665c158.01101...@posting.google.com...
> any ideas?

Perhaps it depends what you're looking for. If you want to feel good with
God, it seems to work for lots of people. If you like long sales pitches,
you'll love it. But don't look to alpha for any content on social
responsibility, or environmental stewardship, cos it isn't there.

I think this is a big weakness and it's why I'll vote against hosting alpha
at my church when we have our next PCC.

Phil

Tony Gillam

unread,
Oct 18, 2001, 11:38:08 AM10/18/01
to
"Nick Ashton" <amet...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:3BCED28B...@ntlworld.com...

> Paul obviously apreciated the private benefit of praying in tongues,
> for him to go on about this to people who havn't got it would leave
them
> with a sour taste in the mouth !
>
> . .or at least asking the question . . why has God sent this man
to
> tell us the benefit of an ability he has chosen not to give me !
>
>
> Also, if as you think, God does not give all Christians the ability
to
> pray in tongues, we have Paul, who you thank, disagreeing with God !
. .
>
> 1Co:14:5: I would that ye all spake with tongues

The whole passage, and this verse in particular implies that it is not
the universal Christian experience that you claim. Paul is making the
point that whilst it is good, it's no big deal if you don't.

--
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

Peter Ould

unread,
Oct 18, 2001, 2:16:14 PM10/18/01
to
"Nick Ashton" <amet...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:3BCED28B...@ntlworld.com...

> Peter Ould wrote:
>
> > >
> > Because the Spirit witnessed to my spirit.
> >
> > And he told me so......
>
>
> What do you mean ?
> What witness / testimony / evidence did He give to show he had just
> indwelled you ?
>

His Spirit witnessed to my spirit. I know that I'm a Christian.

Romans 8:14-17
For all who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God.
[15] So you should not be like cowering, fearful slaves. You should
behave instead like God's very own children, adopted into his family-calling
him "Father, dear Father." [16] For his Holy Spirit speaks to us deep in our
hearts and tells us that we are God's children. [17] And since we are his
children, we will share his treasures-for everything God gives to his Son,
Christ, is ours, too. But if we are to share his glory, we must also share
his suffering.

The Spirit spoke deep in my heart and told me so!!!!!

> And why did the apostles never believe in this other way? they judged
> that people had just received the Spirit when they heard tongues without
> ever enquiring after this other way first.
>

OK, let's have a Scripture reference please.


>
> >
> > Well it's rather simple isn't it. The whole point Paul is making is
"praying
> > in tongues is all very well, but it doesn't do a lot for those around
you
> > does it?"
>
>
> The specific point of this, and other verses is that praying in the
> Spirit
> will not be understood, yet all Christians are told to do it - how do
> they do it without praying in tongues Peter ?

For example:

Romans 8:26-27
And the Holy Spirit helps us in our distress. For we don't even know
what we should pray for, nor how we should pray. But the Holy Spirit prays
for us with groanings that cannot be expressed in words. [27] And the Father
who knows all hearts knows what the Spirit is saying, for the Spirit pleads
for us believers in harmony with God's own will.

Do you groan everytime you pray in tongues?? Oh no!!! You can't be
saved!!!!!

I pray in the Spirit everytime I simply turn to God and say "I don't know
what to pray, you tell me what to pray". I let God tell me the important
things that need to be addressed.

> > Have a read:
> >
> > 1 Cor. 14:13-17 (NLT)
>
> NLT ? . . . I have now
>
> >
> > See verse 16? Praying "in the spirit" (which in this case means tongues
but
> > doesn't always does it? See how in verse 14 praying in tongues is
defined as
> > a subset of praying in the spirit)
>
>
> What other way of praying in the spirit does the bible ever give ?
>

See above.

>
>
> >
> > 1 Cor. 14:18-19
> > I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. [19] But
in a
> > church meeting I would much rather speak five understandable words that
will
> > help others than ten thousand words in an unknown language.
> >
> > I rest my case (with thanks to the Apostle Paul).
>
>
> Paul obviously apreciated the private benefit of praying in tongues,
> for him to go on about this to people who havn't got it would leave them
> with a sour taste in the mouth !
>

Paul is very clear on the fact that tongues is good for personal
edification. But that's straying off the point.

> . .or at least asking the question . . why has God sent this man to
> tell us the benefit of an ability he has chosen not to give me !
>

1 Cor. 12:7-11
A spiritual gift is given to each of us as a means of helping the entire
church.
[8] To one person the Spirit gives the ability to give wise advice; to
another he gives the gift of special knowledge. [9] The Spirit gives special
faith to another, and to someone else he gives the power to heal the sick.
[10] He gives one person the power to perform miracles, and to another the
ability to prophesy. He gives someone else the ability to know whether it is
really the Spirit of God or another spirit that is speaking. Still another
person is given the ability to speak in unknown languages, and another is
given the ability to interpret what is being said. [11] It is the one and
only Holy Spirit who distributes these gifts. He alone decides which gift
each person should have.


How do you handle the fact that Paul says that God gives tongues to "some"
not "all"?


>
> Also, if as you think, God does not give all Christians the ability to
> pray in tongues, we have Paul, who you thank, disagreeing with God ! . .
>
> 1Co:14:5: I would that ye all spake with tongues

Context context Nick. Read from verse 1:

1 Cor. 14:1-6
Let love be your highest goal, but also desire the special abilities the
Spirit gives, especially the gift of prophecy. [2] For if your gift is the
ability to speak in tongues, you will be talking to God but not to people,
since they won't be able to understand you. You will be speaking by the
power of the Spirit, but it will all be mysterious. [3] But one who
prophesies is helping others grow in the Lord, encouraging and comforting
them. [4] A person who speaks in tongues is strengthened personally in the
Lord, but one who speaks a word of prophecy strengthens the entire church.
[5] I wish you all had the gift of speaking in tongues, but even more I
wish you were all able to prophesy. For prophecy is a greater and more
useful gift than speaking in tongues, unless someone interprets what you are
saying so that the whole church can get some good out of it.
[6] Dear brothers and sisters, if I should come to you talking in an
unknown language, how would that help you? But if I bring you some
revelation or some special knowledge or some prophecy or some teaching-that
is what will help you.

See what Paul says. Tongues are cool but they aren't half as cool as praying
in a language everybody understands. Verse 5 actually diminishes the value
of tongues because it ain't half as useful as prophecy.

Ian Smith

unread,
Oct 18, 2001, 2:05:30 PM10/18/01
to
On Wed, 17 Oct 2001 21:59:04 +0100,
Tony Comer <to...@comerfamily.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

> Tell us why Alpha doesn't equal God-Lite!

I'm not 100% certain what your comment means, but assuming it indicates a
denigration of the alpha course because it doesn't provide an absolutley
rigorous and complete revelation of the nature of God, I assume you will
tell us of a method which does...

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| Opinions expressed in this post are my own, and do
|o o| not reflect the views of Amos, my mbu puffer fish.
|/ \| (His view is that snails are very tasty.)
http://www.achrn.demon.co.uk/amos.html

Ian Smith

unread,
Oct 18, 2001, 2:03:39 PM10/18/01
to

So, environmental stewardship is actually more important than being right
with God?

Sleepalot

unread,
Oct 18, 2001, 4:29:00 PM10/18/01
to
On 18 Oct 2001 18:05:30 GMT, Ian Smith wrote:

>On Wed, 17 Oct 2001 21:59:04 +0100,
> Tony Comer <to...@comerfamily.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Tell us why Alpha doesn't equal God-Lite!
>
>I'm not 100% certain what your comment means, but assuming it indicates a
>denigration of the alpha course because it doesn't provide an absolutley
>rigorous and complete revelation of the nature of God, I assume you will
>tell us of a method which does...
>
>regards, Ian SMith

A Kalashnikov up the left nostril would probably do it for me. ;-)

--
Sleepalot (an atheist)

Tim Whittingham

unread,
Oct 18, 2001, 5:03:03 PM10/18/01
to
"Ian Smith" <i...@achrn.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:slrn9su6...@phlegethon.smithnet...

> On Wed, 17 Oct 2001 21:59:04 +0100,
>
> .....assuming it indicates a

> denigration of the alpha course because it doesn't provide an absolutley
> rigorous and complete revelation of the nature of God, I assume you will
> tell us of a method which does...
>
Of course there can be no such thing, and Alpha is a great revelation for a
lot of people. It's just a shame that it is so dominant that there is no
alternative and it seems to be establishing a kind of new orthodoxy as in -
'What is Christianity? The definitive answer from HTB on a 60min video. All
your questions answered.'

Tim W

Tim Whittingham

unread,
Oct 18, 2001, 5:53:10 PM10/18/01
to
"Sleepalot" <sle...@carlisle98.freeserve.stringco.uk> wrote in message
news:eneust4i92fsggic4...@4ax.com...
Known as The Moment of Truth.

Tim W

Peter R

unread,
Oct 18, 2001, 5:10:59 PM10/18/01
to
>any ideas?

I presume what you are asking is "Is the Alpha movement a good or a
bad thing?"

To which my unreserved answer is *yes* :-)

Peter R

Nick Ashton

unread,
Oct 18, 2001, 8:17:45 PM10/18/01
to
Peter Ould wrote:

> Romans 8:14-17
> For all who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God.
> [15] So you should not be like cowering, fearful slaves. You should
> behave instead like God's very own children, adopted into his family-calling
> him "Father, dear Father." [16] For his Holy Spirit speaks to us deep in our
> hearts and tells us that we are God's children. [17] And since we are his
> children, we will share his treasures-for everything God gives to his Son,
> Christ, is ours, too. But if we are to share his glory, we must also share
> his suffering.
>
> The Spirit spoke deep in my heart and told me so!!!!!

Strange that the apostles NEVER asked for people to claim this but
instead
waited for the Spirit to give them utterance in tongues.

I question whether what you are using as a bible should actually be
called
scripture, it subtly replaces *the Spirit* crying abba father with *our
spirit* calling God "Father".


>
> > And why did the apostles never believe in this other way? they judged
> > that people had just received the Spirit when they heard tongues without
> > ever enquiring after this other way first.
> >
>
> OK, let's have a Scripture reference please.

OK, 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.
(tongues not some inaudible voice in the heart)


Gentiles:-
Ac:10:44: While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all
them which heard the word.
Ac:10:45: And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished,
as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured
out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Ac:10:46: For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God.

(again no enquiry as to whether they had heard an inaudible voice in
the heart before they spoke in tongues).

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.
(ditto).

>
> Romans 8:26-27
> And the Holy Spirit helps us in our distress. For we don't even know
> what we should pray for, nor how we should pray. But the Holy Spirit prays
> for us with groanings that cannot be expressed in words. [27] And the Father
> who knows all hearts knows what the Spirit is saying, for the Spirit pleads
> for us believers in harmony with God's own will.
>
> Do you groan everytime you pray in tongues?? Oh no!!! You can't be
> saved!!!!!


You assume that "groaning" means making some pained-like noise whereas
other scriptures, including those in this passage show it is a desire
to be changed. Only the Spirit can satisfy this and since He knows all
things, He has the words when we don't so he can comfort and satisfy
that
desire.


>
> I pray in the Spirit everytime I simply turn to God and say "I don't know
> what to pray, you tell me what to pray". I let God tell me the important
> things that need to be addressed.

So you then understand, as would others in your congregation, so this is
*not* praying in the Spirit.

1Co:14:16: Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that
occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks,
seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?

> >
>

> Paul is very clear on the fact that tongues is good for personal
> edification. But that's straying off the point.


On the contrary !
It *is* the point - the MAIN purpose / reason why God's people are to
speak in tongues is for personal edification.


>
> How do you handle the fact that Paul says that God gives tongues to "some"
> not "all"?


Because this passage is *not* talking about what different people get
when they *become* Christians !
(Acts details that, and here we *never* read of "some" getting "gifts"
of
wisdom, knowledge, faith, tongues, discernment etc.)
Since chapter 11, 1 Corinthians has been detailing what should and
shouldn't happen when the whole church meets together.

The "gifts of the Spirit" are the corporate use (i.e. *giving* to the
whole church) of attributes that ALL Christians have privately, as
already
re-iterated in this very book:-

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:
1Co:8:1: Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all
have knowledge.

It is precisely because of this fact that there has to be limitation
and order when all meet together. More than one *could* speak at once,
but this would cause confusion. As with previous chapters, the
corinthians
had specific faults in this area.

In chapter 3/4 he tells them not to be followers of men-why?
- because that's what they were doing

In chap. 5 he tells them not to be in fellowship with fornicators-why?
- because that's what they were doing

In Chapter 6 he tells them not to take each other to court - why?
- because that's what they were doing

....

....

In chapter 11 he tells them not to eat and drink daily food in the
meetings-why?
- because that's what they were doing

In chapter 12 he tells them not to all act as one member/function and
in chapter 14 he specifically reasons with them not to all speak in
tongues in the meeting-why?
- because they weren't actually doing that ?
No! because that's what they were doing


God only gives it to 2 or 3 to speak in tongues (each with
interpretation
and one at a time).

By the way, have you ever been to meetings where this happens ?


>
> Context context Nick. Read from verse 1:
>

> See what Paul says. Tongues are cool but they aren't half as cool as praying
> in a language everybody understands. Verse 5 actually diminishes the value
> of tongues because it ain't half as useful as prophecy.

So from the context, why are tongues "cool" why would Paul want them all
to do it ?

Gareth McCaughan

unread,
Oct 18, 2001, 8:20:23 PM10/18/01
to
Alan Zanker wrote:

What if they make people more enthusiastic about God, and
spending more time on God-stuff makes them more considerate,
compassionate, [etc] ?

--
Gareth McCaughan Gareth.M...@pobox.com
.sig under construc

Ken Down

unread,
Oct 18, 2001, 1:47:05 PM10/18/01
to
In article <3bcec...@news1.vip.uk.com>, "phil99" <phi...@silvermead.net>
wrote:


> Perhaps it depends what you're looking for. If you want to feel good with
> God, it seems to work for lots of people. If you like long sales pitches,
> you'll love it. But don't look to alpha for any content on social
> responsibility, or environmental stewardship, cos it isn't there.

The purpose of the course is to introduce people to God. Social
responsiblity and environmental stewardship are very fine things, but they
are quite other than knowledge of God.

You might as well condemn the 39 Articles because they don't mention them
either.

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

David Ould

unread,
Oct 18, 2001, 11:37:50 AM10/18/01
to
"Nick Ashton" <amet...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:3BCED28B...@ntlworld.com...

> Also, if as you think, God does not give all Christians the ability to
> pray in tongues, we have Paul, who you thank, disagreeing with God ! . .
>
> 1Co:14:5: I would that ye all spake with tongues

so they don't all speak in tongues....

yet the letter is written to the church in Corinth:

1Cor1:2 "To the church in Corinth, those sanctified in Christ Jesus and
called to be holy"
also note in v7 that they "do not lack any spiritual gift"

and yet in chapter 14 some clearly do not speak in tongues!

I would be interested how you reconcile this with your belief that without
speaking in tongues you cannot be a Christian.

David

Steven Carr

unread,
Oct 19, 2001, 5:04:43 AM10/19/01
to
"Tim Whittingham" <tim.whitti...@virgin.net> wrote in message

> "Ian Smith" <i...@achrn.demon.co.uk> wrote in message

> > .....assuming it indicates a


> > denigration of the alpha course because it doesn't provide an absolutley
> > rigorous and complete revelation of the nature of God, I assume you will
> > tell us of a method which does...

> Of course there can be no such thing, and Alpha is a great revelation for a
> lot of people. It's just a shame that it is so dominant that there is no
> alternative and it seems to be establishing a kind of new orthodoxy as in -
> 'What is Christianity? The definitive answer from HTB on a 60min video. All
> your questions answered.'

Well, you can always put out your own anti-HTB video , subtitled
'All your answers questioned.'


--
Posted from [195.243.112.11]

Richard Emblem

unread,
Oct 19, 2001, 5:31:33 AM10/19/01
to

Grrrroooaaaannn :-) help yourself to jelly babies Peter.

Richard Emblem

unread,
Oct 19, 2001, 5:31:30 AM10/19/01
to
In article <9qn6do$p86v0$1...@ID-87143.news.dfncis.de>, "Peter Ould"
<po...@cwcom.net> writes:
<snip>

>See what Paul says. Tongues are cool but they aren't half as cool as praying
>in a language everybody understands. Verse 5 actually diminishes the value
>of tongues because it ain't half as useful as prophecy.

A valiant effort Peter but no-one has ever really got through to Nick :-(
Many of us value the use of tongues but I think he is the only one who regards
them as *compulsory* for all christians.

Richard Emblem

unread,
Oct 19, 2001, 5:31:32 AM10/19/01
to
In article <eneust4i92fsggic4...@4ax.com>, Sleepalot
<sle...@carlisle98.freeserve.stringco.uk> writes:

LOL - help yourself to jelly babies for that one Sleepalot!

Steven Carr

unread,
Oct 19, 2001, 6:33:40 AM10/19/01
to
"Peter R" <pet...@clear.net.nz> wrote in message
news:3bcf4ec3$1...@clear.net.nz...

Well, my first reaction is that it is a very bad thing and I'm totally
opposed to it, and will fight it tooth and nail.

My second reaction is to look at the subject header to find out
what is it I'm opposed to.

Steven Carr

Colin Bell

unread,
Oct 19, 2001, 6:48:00 AM10/19/01
to
"David Ould" <ma...@davidould.freeserve.co.uk> writes:

> "Nick Ashton" <amet...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:3BCED28B...@ntlworld.com...
>
> > Also, if as you think, God does not give all Christians the ability to
> > pray in tongues, we have Paul, who you thank, disagreeing with God ! . .
> >
> > 1Co:14:5: I would that ye all spake with tongues
>
> so they don't all speak in tongues....
>
> yet the letter is written to the church in Corinth:

"yet the letter is written to the church in Cornish". Makes an odd kind
of sense.

Colin

Peter Ould

unread,
Oct 19, 2001, 8:20:28 AM10/19/01
to
"Nick Ashton" <amet...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:3BCF7129...@ntlworld.com...

> Peter Ould wrote:
>
> > Romans 8:14-17
> > For all who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God.
> > [15] So you should not be like cowering, fearful slaves. You should
> > behave instead like God's very own children, adopted into his
family-calling
> > him "Father, dear Father." [16] For his Holy Spirit speaks to us deep in
our
> > hearts and tells us that we are God's children. [17] And since we are
his
> > children, we will share his treasures-for everything God gives to his
Son,
> > Christ, is ours, too. But if we are to share his glory, we must also
share
> > his suffering.
> >
> > The Spirit spoke deep in my heart and told me so!!!!!
>
> Strange that the apostles NEVER asked for people to claim this but
> instead
> waited for the Spirit to give them utterance in tongues.
>

And yet the Scriptures say that the Holy Spirit speaks to us in our hearts
and tells us that we are adopted children of God. This is a specific
speaking to the inheritors of the treasures of heaven, so can't be
interpreted as a "general revelation".

Take the case of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch. Was the Ethiopian saved?
He was certainly baptised. Bit presumpteous of Philip to baptise him if he
wasn't save don't you think?

Did Philip wait for him to speak in tongues? Does Ian Paisley go to mass
every Saturday evening? I think not.........

Let's not stop there. Look at the conversion account of Paul in Acts 9.
Please show me the verse where Paul shows his salvation by speaking in
tongues. I can't find it, because it isn't there. Ananias certainly doesn't
demand such proof from him. And yet, Paul has been sent to Ananias to
specifically receive the Holy Spirit (verse 18). If tongues is so important,
why is it not mentioned at this point as a validifier of the salvation tthat
Paul has received?

You see Nick, there are plenty of cases of people receiving the Holy Spirit
and yet not speaking in tongues as well as those who did, even in Scripture.


> I question whether what you are using as a bible should actually be
> called
> scripture, it subtly replaces *the Spirit* crying abba father with *our
> spirit* calling God "Father".

Well, lets have a look at the original greek before we starting claiming
that the NLT or NIV or whatever is out of synch. Care to tell us what the
original text is and why the NLT is therefore a bad translation?

>
>
> >
> > > And why did the apostles never believe in this other way? they judged
> > > that people had just received the Spirit when they heard tongues
without
> > > ever enquiring after this other way first.
> > >
> >
> > OK, let's have a Scripture reference please.
>
> OK, 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.
> (tongues not some inaudible voice in the heart)
>

OK, but the tongues of Pentecost was fundamentally different to subsequent
tongues, because it involved speaking in earthly languages and not a
heavenly one. It is a one off specific Baptism to inaugurate the general
Baptism. The fact that the Apostles speak in all different earthly languages
highlights the fact that the Gospel is for all peoples.

You still need to show how Romans 8:14-17 reconciles with this. Paul writes
that we know we are saved because the Spirit witnesses to our spirit. He
does not say we know we are saved because we speak in tongues.

>
> Gentiles:-
> Ac:10:44: While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all
> them which heard the word.
> Ac:10:45: And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished,
> as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured
> out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
> Ac:10:46: For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God.
>
> (again no enquiry as to whether they had heard an inaudible voice in
> the heart before they spoke in tongues).
>

And yet Paul and the Ethiopian didn't speak in tongues...... You need to
deal with this. All you have shown so far is that *some* new believers spoke
in tongues. I have shown that some didn't.

> 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.
> (ditto).

Well ditto here to my point.

>
>
>
> >
> > Romans 8:26-27
> > And the Holy Spirit helps us in our distress. For we don't even know
> > what we should pray for, nor how we should pray. But the Holy Spirit
prays
> > for us with groanings that cannot be expressed in words. [27] And the
Father
> > who knows all hearts knows what the Spirit is saying, for the Spirit
pleads
> > for us believers in harmony with God's own will.
> >
> > Do you groan everytime you pray in tongues?? Oh no!!! You can't be
> > saved!!!!!
>
>
> You assume that "groaning" means making some pained-like noise whereas
> other scriptures, including those in this passage show it is a desire
> to be changed. Only the Spirit can satisfy this and since He knows all
> things, He has the words when we don't so he can comfort and satisfy
> that
> desire.
>


And the words are??? You see the person is distress in Romans 8:26-27 is
praying in the Spirit, yet there are no tongues evidenced.

>
> >
> > I pray in the Spirit everytime I simply turn to God and say "I don't
know
> > what to pray, you tell me what to pray". I let God tell me the important
> > things that need to be addressed.
>
> So you then understand, as would others in your congregation, so this is
> *not* praying in the Spirit.
>
> 1Co:14:16: Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that
> occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks,
> seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?
>

Nick, pardon me for being a bit pedantic and abrasive but you really must
stop verse-hopping like that. Go to the start of chapter 14 and read again.
See how in the first 5 verses he specifically donwplays the usefulness of
tongues. In verse 5 he says that he would rather everybody prophecies than
speaks in tongues, yet prophecy does not seem to you to be a requisite for
salvation.

Verse 16 is making this point again, the uselessness of tongues for broader
application. It had nothing to say on whether tongues are necessary. Neither
does it explicitly (or implicitly) correlate praying in tongues and "praying
in the spirit".

>
>
> > >
> >
> > Paul is very clear on the fact that tongues is good for personal
> > edification. But that's straying off the point.
>
>
> On the contrary !
> It *is* the point - the MAIN purpose / reason why God's people are to
> speak in tongues is for personal edification.
>

But has no baring whatsoever on the necessity for tongues.

>
> >
> > How do you handle the fact that Paul says that God gives tongues to
"some"
> > not "all"?
>
>
> Because this passage is *not* talking about what different people get
> when they *become* Christians !

OK, let's think about that a moment. Why does Paul say "to SOME tongues".
What's that all about? Please note that any argument you use on tongues here
can be applied to all the other spiritual gifts in these few verses.

> (Acts details that, and here we *never* read of "some" getting "gifts"
> of
> wisdom, knowledge, faith, tongues, discernment etc.)
> Since chapter 11, 1 Corinthians has been detailing what should and
> shouldn't happen when the whole church meets together.
>
> The "gifts of the Spirit" are the corporate use (i.e. *giving* to the
> whole church) of attributes that ALL Christians have privately, as
> already
> re-iterated in this very book:-
>
> 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:
> 1Co:8:1: Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all
> have knowledge.
>
> It is precisely because of this fact that there has to be limitation
> and order when all meet together. More than one *could* speak at once,
> but this would cause confusion. As with previous chapters, the
> corinthians
> had specific faults in this area.

Yes, but once again the subject you are talking about and quoting Scripture
on is the order and use of tongues, not it's necessity.

<snip the very quick overview of 1 Corinthians>

>
>
> God only gives it to 2 or 3 to speak in tongues (each with
> interpretation
> and one at a time).
>
> By the way, have you ever been to meetings where this happens ?
>

Yes, because I'm a Charismatic Christian. I have spoken in tongues myself on
a few rare occasions. I do not however speak as a matter of course in
tongues because I do not have that general gift. Furthermore, I am dubious
from my own personal experience of tongues (which have been very
supernatural) that the kind of everyday tongues that some charismatics
engage in are real tongues at all.

>
>
>
> >
> > Context context Nick. Read from verse 1:
> >
> > See what Paul says. Tongues are cool but they aren't half as cool as
praying
> > in a language everybody understands. Verse 5 actually diminishes the
value
> > of tongues because it ain't half as useful as prophecy.
>
>
>
> So from the context, why are tongues "cool" why would Paul want them all
> to do it ?
>

Because he sees it as edifying. He would like all Christians to be doing
things that are edifying. However, he makes the point that corporate
edification (prophecy) is a gift that is far more desirable than personal
edification (tongues). If you want to argue that this passage speaks about
the necessity for tongues then from the very stress that Paul puts on
prophecy you must argue that prophecy is even more necessary for a believer?

Let me summarise where we have got to here:

i) You have shown passages in Scripture where new believers have spoken in
tongues. The Apostles have seen this as evidence that they have received the
Spirit. However, these passages are merely evidence that these particular
Christians spoke in tongues after their conversion.
ii) As opposed to this we have at least two cases in Scripture where new
converts (the Ethiopian and Paul) do not specifically speak in tongues. In
neither of these cases is there any textual evidence that they are even in
any way interrogated to find out if they spoke in tongues.
iii) In one of these cases of a new convert not speaking in tongues, Paul,
it is in the specific case of him receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit. You
need to explain why the Scripture does not talk about him speaking in
tongues at this occasion.
iv) You have not provided an explanation of 1 Corinthians 12. Instead of
leaping to another verse that talks about speaking in tongues, I'd like to
see you exegete 1 Corinthians 12 verse by verse, explaining how the word
"SOME" does not mean that only some of the elect will receive the gift of
tongues. You need to be prepared to apply the same argument to all gifts in
1 Cor 12 where Paul states that "some" will receive that gift or explain why
tongues is a different case, despite the fact that the textual context is
the same as all the other verses.

Nick, I am genuinely open to going further on this, but I'd like you to see
you tackle these specific points, which I don't think you are doing at the
moment.

Peter

Angela Rayner

unread,
Oct 19, 2001, 8:16:57 AM10/19/01
to
Steven Carr <stevenc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9dc28d5a9b9c503181...@mygate.mailgate.org...

I don't think it would necessarily need to be anti-HTB, but I very very much
like the idea :-) I reckon uk.r.c could start an interesting video venture
with "All your answers questioned" :-) In fact, we've probably enough views
to do a whole series....and questions are so much more interesting than
answers...

ciao for now

--
Angela Rayner ><8>

"Truly loving another means letting go of all expectations. It means full
acceptance, even celebration of another's personhood."
-Karen Casey

Pam

unread,
Oct 19, 2001, 11:16:21 AM10/19/01
to
"Steven Carr" <stevenc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<9dc28d5a9b9c503181...@mygate.mailgate.org>...

> > Of course there can be no such thing, and Alpha is a great revelation for a


> > lot of people. It's just a shame that it is so dominant that there is no
> > alternative and it seems to be establishing a kind of new orthodoxy as in -
> > 'What is Christianity? The definitive answer from HTB on a 60min video. All
> > your questions answered.'
>
> Well, you can always put out your own anti-HTB video , subtitled
> 'All your answers questioned.'

Steven:

First time you and I have agreed in ages. I think that idea is truly inspired!

Pam

Alan Zanker

unread,
Oct 19, 2001, 11:54:55 AM10/19/01
to
Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:

Then I would regard them as a Good Thing. But I can only go by the
unfortunate results - splits and divisions leading to members leaving
- in some of those churches I know quite well which have had them.

I do know of one young man with considerable potential earning power
who chose poorly-paid full time work for a charity after attending an
alpha course, but I also know that he'd already decided to do that
beforehand, so I don't think that counts.

Alan

rob.m...@virginnospam.net

unread,
Oct 19, 2001, 1:54:12 PM10/19/01
to
On Thu, 18 Oct 2001 22:03:03 +0100, "Tim Whittingham"
<tim.whitti...@virgin.net> wrote:
snipped...

>>
>Of course there can be no such thing, and Alpha is a great revelation for a
>lot of people. It's just a shame that it is so dominant that there is no
>alternative and it seems to be establishing a kind of new orthodoxy as in -
>'What is Christianity? The definitive answer from HTB on a 60min video. All
>your questions answered.'
>
>Tim W

No alternative?

Y course,
Emmaus,
Saints Alive,
Good News Down Your Street,

Horses for courses - alpha's too long for baptism prep, but we've used
a shortened GNDYS before very succesfully.
Y course seems to use less resources than alpha (though personally I
found it a bit stilted).

I'm sure there's other available - what is anyone else's favourite
tool?

Richard Emblem

unread,
Oct 19, 2001, 2:05:14 PM10/19/01
to
In article <ncmn12ndh...@perot.art-render.com>, Colin Bell
<c...@art-render.com> writes:

I believe that the Cornish "tongue" died out in the 19th century.

Richard Emblem

unread,
Oct 19, 2001, 2:05:13 PM10/19/01
to
In article <LZTz7.1972$Rq2.7183@NewsReader>, "Peter Ould"
<peter...@credit-scoring.co.uk> writes:
<snip comprehensive post on tongues>

>Nick, I am genuinely open to going further on this, but I'd like you to see
>you tackle these specific points, which I don't think you are doing at the
>moment.

Loads more jelly babies for your efforts Peter, I shall send Nick some virtual
langue-de-chat biscuits in the hope of encouraging a more fruitful discussion
than all previous ones on this subject.

Richard Emblem

unread,
Oct 19, 2001, 2:05:24 PM10/19/01
to
In article <9qp5sg$k39$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>, "Angela Rayner"
<ac...@cam.ac.uk> writes:

> I reckon uk.r.c could start an interesting video venture
>with "All your answers questioned" :-) In fact, we've probably enough views
>to do a whole series....and questions are so much more interesting than
>answers...

Angela Queen of Questions - you would say that!

Ken Down

unread,
Oct 19, 2001, 1:08:25 AM10/19/01
to
In article <eneust4i92fsggic4...@4ax.com>, Sleepalot
<sle...@carlisle98.freeserve.stringco.uk> wrote:

> A Kalashnikov up the left nostril would probably do it for me. ;-)

Let me know your address and I'll be right round - kalashnikov in one hand,
holy water in the other.

Robert Marshall

unread,
Oct 19, 2001, 2:21:25 PM10/19/01
to
On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, tim.whitti...@virgin.net wrote:

> The definitive answer from HTB on a 60min video. All your questions
> answered.'
>

They don't really do this? please tell me you're joking!

R
--
Love is the answer, but while you are waiting for the
answer, sex raises some pretty good questions.
-- Woody Allen

Sleepalot

unread,
Oct 19, 2001, 5:01:26 PM10/19/01
to

--
Sleepalot (an atheist)

Sleepalot

unread,
Oct 19, 2001, 5:01:27 PM10/19/01
to
On Thu, 18 Oct 2001 22:53:10 +0100, Tim Whittingham wrote:

You forgot the Kalashnikov. Until you find it, I'll call
it the moment of pragmatism.

Tim Whittingham

unread,
Oct 19, 2001, 5:17:32 PM10/19/01
to
"Robert Marshall" <rob...@chezmarshall.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:m1sncf5...@chezmarshall.freeserve.co.uk...

> On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, tim.whitti...@virgin.net wrote:
>
> > The definitive answer from HTB on a 60min video. All your questions
> > answered.'
> >
>
> They don't really do this? please tell me you're joking!
>
> R

They don't. I made it up and shouldn't have put it in quotes. I was just
giving my impression of the tenor of the thing. I haven't done the course
But I have seen some materials and some videos and the telly prog.

Tim W

Tim Whittingham

unread,
Oct 19, 2001, 5:16:50 PM10/19/01
to
<rob.m...@virginnospam.net> wrote in message
news:3bd06641...@news.virgin.net...

>
> No alternative?
>
> Y course,
> Emmaus,
> Saints Alive,
> Good News Down Your Street,
>
> Horses for courses - alpha's too long for baptism prep, but we've used
> a shortened GNDYS before very succesfully.
> Y course seems to use less resources than alpha (though personally I
> found it a bit stilted).
>
> I'm sure there's other available - what is anyone else's favourite
> tool?

Well as an ordinary, provincial, not particularly active in the church type
of person I have never heard of the others but have heard a lot about Alpha.
What are the others like?

Tim W

Tim Whittingham

unread,
Oct 19, 2001, 5:39:15 PM10/19/01
to
"Sleepalot" <sle...@carlisle98.freeserve.stringco.uk> wrote in message
news:8051ttkp7lgrmoefh...@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 18 Oct 2001 22:53:10 +0100, Tim Whittingham wrote:
>
> >"Sleepalot" <sle...@carlisle98.freeserve.stringco.uk> wrote in message
> >news:eneust4i92fsggic4...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> A Kalashnikov up the left nostril would probably do it for me. ;-)
> >>
> >Known as The Moment of Truth.
>
> You forgot the Kalashnikov. Until you find it, I'll call
> it the moment of pragmatism.
> >
The Kalashnikov (or similar) is essential. I believe the phrase is used in
Bullfighting to describe the moment preceding the kill. I am told that when
you are quite sure you are about to die a lot of your priorities change very
quickly and some things suddenly become very obvious as soon as it's too
late to do anything about them. I think tubeweld alluded to a near death
experience of his own not long ago. I suspect it may have led him to come
here to ukrc to seek out hiscoming and accuse him of talking twaddle.

Tim W

Debbie

unread,
Oct 19, 2001, 7:12:42 PM10/19/01
to
On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 17:54:12 GMT, rob.m...@virginnospam.net wrote:


>No alternative?
>
>Y course,
>Emmaus,
>Saints Alive,
>Good News Down Your Street,
>
>Horses for courses - alpha's too long for baptism prep, but we've used
>a shortened GNDYS before very succesfully.
>Y course seems to use less resources than alpha (though personally I
>found it a bit stilted).
>
>I'm sure there's other available - what is anyone else's favourite
>tool?

Can't resist the temptation to mention "Journey", since I typeset
every b****y word of the course book.

It's a course in Christian discipleship which starts with where
participants are, and leads them on an exercise in exploration of
Christian living by focussing on parts of the Jesus story. More info
at:

http://www.journeycourse.org.uk/
http://www.stansted.net/stjohns/journey/index.html

Debbie
--
Urban Theology Unit
Sheffield
Views expressed in this email are my own and are not
necessarily those of the University of Sheffield or UTU.

Tony Gillam

unread,
Oct 19, 2001, 7:27:16 AM10/19/01
to
"Richard Emblem" <rem...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011019053130...@nso-fq.aol.com...

> A valiant effort Peter but no-one has ever really got through to
Nick :-(
> Many of us value the use of tongues but I think he is the only one
who regards
> them as *compulsory* for all christians.

Ve haf veys of making you talk!

--
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

Nick Ashton

unread,
Oct 20, 2001, 5:54:01 AM10/20/01
to
Peter Ould wrote:

>
> And yet the Scriptures say that the Holy Spirit speaks to us in our hearts
> and tells us that we are adopted children of God. This is a specific
> speaking to the inheritors of the treasures of heaven, so can't be
> interpreted as a "general revelation".

Therefore you must have a wrong private interpretation of this passage
because otherwise we have a conflict between what the apostles taught
in Acts and in the letters. In Acts they knew precisely when people
had received the Spirit because of the Spirit's witness with the sign
of tongues, they never whether people had heard a voice in their heart
of God saying you are now adopted of God or similar.

Anyone can claim that "God told me" but so that our faith should be
in God and so that people should listen to his true people God bares
witness in a way that is beyond private claim. With all the prophets,
and Jesus and in the NT God introduced his true people with specific
signs.

Jesus said:-
If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. (Joh:5:31)

If this speaking in your heart is really just you telling yourself you
are adopted it has huge implications for your salvation and
what you are doing in the meantime.

Jeremiah 17:9 says:-
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can
know it?

We know from the NT that "many" will come before The Lord on judgement
day assuming they were saved but will be shown that they were deceived
all along !

To try and be a Christian without actually having received the Spirit is
to put yourself under law / burdens / works so God makes it clear to us
when we actually have the Spirit:-

And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the
Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
(Ac:15:8)

. .of course Peter was referring to Acts 10:45-46 and 2:4, 33.

>
> Take the case of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch. Was the Ethiopian saved?
> He was certainly baptised. Bit presumpteous of Philip to baptise him if he
> wasn't save don't you think?


Where does the bible teach that only "saved" people can be baptised ?

Also, why doesn't this passage say he "received the Spirit" do you
therefore
think this is unnessary ?

We know from earlier in Acts 8 (v12-16) that Philip knew that just
because
people believed in Jesus and were baptised does NOT mean they have
received
the Spirit. Assuming that Phipil was not now compromising what he knew,
for the Ethiopian to "go his way rejoicing" he must have heard and
accepted
the need to also receive the Spirit.


>
> Did Philip wait for him to speak in tongues? Does Ian Paisley go to mass
> every Saturday evening? I think not.........
>
> Let's not stop there. Look at the conversion account of Paul in Acts 9.
> Please show me the verse where Paul shows his salvation by speaking in
> tongues. I can't find it, because it isn't there. Ananias certainly doesn't
> demand such proof from him. And yet, Paul has been sent to Ananias to
> specifically receive the Holy Spirit (verse 18). If tongues is so important,
> why is it not mentioned at this point as a validifier of the salvation tthat
> Paul has received?
>
> You see Nick, there are plenty of cases of people receiving the Holy Spirit
> and yet not speaking in tongues as well as those who did, even in Scripture.


I se you are claiming that they did not speak in tongues in some
incidences,
not because it says so, but because these passages do not repeat the
same
detail as to how they knew people had which is given elsewhere !

To see how rediculous this argument is please consider that not every
occurrence says that they "repented" or "received the Spirit", would you
therefore say that these are also optional ?

If you meet someone, they will introduce their name to you, if you meet
them again they may confirm it, but if after 3 meetings you meet this
person it seems highly odd that they tell you their name !

If one can receive the Spirit and not speak in tongues, they could
never say that people had *just received* the Spirit when they spoke
in tongues . . . but they did, once would be enough but 3 times this
detail is given (Acts 2, 10, 19) - you are not appreciating the detail
that is given.

Paul obviously had a way of knowing that he had received the Spirit
since visiting Ananias because he went out preaching to others
- he could hardly tell them to receive the Spirit (be "born again")
without first knowing that he had.


>
> > I question whether what you are using as a bible should actually be
> > called
> > scripture, it subtly replaces *the Spirit* crying abba father with *our
> > spirit* calling God "Father".
>
> Well, lets have a look at the original greek before we starting claiming
> that the NLT or NIV or whatever is out of synch. Care to tell us what the
> original text is and why the NLT is therefore a bad translation?

I don't have a greek interlinear, maybe someone else can supply the
information.
KJV says:-
Ro:8:15: For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear;
but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba,
Father.
Ro:8:16: The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are
the children of God:

also, regarding specifically receiving the Spirit we read:-
Ga:4:6: And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his
Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

My reasoning is based on the fact that scriptures explain each other
and do not contradict, so I was comparing the "witness" spoken of here
with what is said elsewhere and what actually happened in Acts which
details people receiving the Spirit.

> >
> > OK, 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.
> > (tongues not some inaudible voice in the heart)
> >
>
> OK, but the tongues of Pentecost was fundamentally different to subsequent
> tongues, because it involved speaking in earthly languages and not a
> heavenly one.

Where do you get that from ?
Who says tongues elsewhere is not earthly languages ?
Not my bible !
In fact in Acts 11:14-18 Peter specifically says that God gave the
gentiles the SAME as the jews.

Peter you are quick to believe things the bible doesn't show, but slow
to believe what it does !


> It is a one off specific Baptism to inaugurate the general
> Baptism.

There is "one baptism", "one faith", the idea that the first one is
different to the general is non-sensical, this means it is NOT the same
as the general !

Pentecost was "the beginning" of the new way, not a one-off !

> The fact that the Apostles speak in all different earthly languages
> highlights the fact that the Gospel is for all peoples.

Although all the hearers were jews, and they were all left in doubt
and confusion !
Also, when "all peoples" (i.e. gentiles) received the Spirit they
*also* spoke in tongues.


>
> You still need to show how Romans 8:14-17 reconciles with this. Paul writes
> that we know we are saved because the Spirit witnesses to our spirit. He
> does not say we know we are saved because we speak in tongues.

Easy, when people spoke in tongues it was "as the Spirit gave them
utterance".
This sign marked ("bare witness") the fact that they had just received
the Spirit,
i.e. been adopted by God.

>
> And yet Paul and the Ethiopian didn't speak in tongues...... You need to
> deal with this. All you have shown so far is that *some* new believers spoke
> in tongues. I have shown that some didn't.

No you havn't, you have only shown that the writer did not deem it
neccessary
to repeat the same detail again, and for good reason as I detailed
above.

You need to deal with the fact that if what you say is true, the
apostles
were wrong to judge that people had *just received* the Spirit without
first checking as to whether the people had heard God speak in their
hearts
telling them they are adopted.

>
> And the words are??? You see the person is distress in Romans 8:26-27 is
> praying in the Spirit, yet there are no tongues evidenced.


what do you mean "there are no tongues evidenced" ? In this passage he
is talking about what is happening when and why people pray in the
Spirit.


>
> >
> > >
> > > I pray in the Spirit everytime I simply turn to God and say "I don't
> know
> > > what to pray, you tell me what to pray". I let God tell me the important
> > > things that need to be addressed.
> >
> > So you then understand, as would others in your congregation, so this is
> > *not* praying in the Spirit.
> >
> > 1Co:14:16: Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that
> > occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks,
> > seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?
> >
>
> Nick, pardon me for being a bit pedantic and abrasive but you really must
> stop verse-hopping like that. Go to the start of chapter 14 and read again.
> See how in the first 5 verses he specifically donwplays the usefulness of
> tongues. In verse 5 he says that he would rather everybody prophecies than
> speaks in tongues, yet prophecy does not seem to you to be a requisite for
> salvation.
>
> Verse 16 is making this point again, the uselessness of tongues for broader
> application. It had nothing to say on whether tongues are necessary. Neither
> does it explicitly (or implicitly) correlate praying in tongues and "praying
> in the spirit".

You are being pedantic because you are missing the point I am making:-
Please deal with the specific point that if God gives you the "important
things that need to be addressed." and these things are understood by
you
and others when you pray, then this, according to v16 is *NOT* praying
in
the Spirit.

(to explain v5, this passage is about the corporate use of attributes
that all Christians have, the main purpose of tongues is for private
use,
it does not help other Christians if I speak to them in tongues,
therefore
in meetings I seek rather to prophesy)

> >
> > On the contrary !
> > It *is* the point - the MAIN purpose / reason why God's people are to
> > speak in tongues is for personal edification.
> >
>
> But has no baring whatsoever on the necessity for tongues.

It is evident that you see no need for speaking in tongues personally,
neither did I until I met people that did and saw that they had a
confidence and relationship with God that I could not attain to.

I don't think I can communicate this to you over a discussion forum.

The only thing I can do is mention a couple more scriptures which maybe
you will want to explore at some time in the future:-

Isa:28:11: For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to
this people.
Isa:28:12: To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the
weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
(quoted in 1 Cor. 14:21-22 in relation to speaking in tongues)

Zep:3:9: For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they
may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent.

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,
Jude:1:21: Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of
our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.

You may also consider that like man, God confirms entry into a covenant
with a specific sign:-

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.

>
> Yes, but once again the subject you are talking about and quoting Scripture
> on is the order and use of tongues, not it's necessity.

I was showing that this is about order and use in the corporate arena,
not
about what different people receive when they become Christians.

>
> <snip the very quick overview of 1 Corinthians>

That overview was designed to show the fact that because he was telling
them not to all speak in tonhgues in meetings shows that they all could.


>
> >
> >
> > God only gives it to 2 or 3 to speak in tongues (each with
> > interpretation
> > and one at a time).
> >
> > By the way, have you ever been to meetings where this happens ?
> >
>
> Yes, because I'm a Charismatic Christian. I have spoken in tongues myself on
> a few rare occasions. I do not however speak as a matter of course in
> tongues because I do not have that general gift. Furthermore, I am dubious
> from my own personal experience of tongues (which have been very
> supernatural) that the kind of everyday tongues that some charismatics
> engage in are real tongues at all.


If you have spooken in tongues only once, you *have* the general
ability.
The idea that you can only do it when "god moves upon you" as some
people
say is wrong, it mixes up OT happening and overlooks the fact that under
the NT, once a person has received the Spirit, the Spirit remains, in
all
his fulness. You can speak in tongues whenever you like !
You have control over when where, how long and how loud you do it.


>
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Context context Nick. Read from verse 1:
> > >
> > > See what Paul says. Tongues are cool but they aren't half as cool as
> praying
> > > in a language everybody understands. Verse 5 actually diminishes the
> value
> > > of tongues because it ain't half as useful as prophecy.
> >
> >
> >
> > So from the context, why are tongues "cool" why would Paul want them all
> > to do it ?
> >
>
> Because he sees it as edifying. He would like all Christians to be doing
> things that are edifying. However, he makes the point that corporate
> edification (prophecy) is a gift that is far more desirable than personal
> edification (tongues). If you want to argue that this passage speaks about
> the necessity for tongues then from the very stress that Paul puts on
> prophecy you must argue that prophecy is even more necessary for a believer?

This passage is about the corporate use of what all Christians have,
this passage shows that they all could speak in tongues so it does not
benefit others to hear you speak in tongues.
Since the main use / need for tongues is personal private I am not
surprised
that this passage plays it down, limiting to "some" i.e. 2 or 3, as a
sign to
any unbelievers present who of couse will not have spoken in tongues.

Christians can edify themselves in tongues outside the meeting, so they
should use the few meeting times as an opportunity to receive and give
to
others using prophesy and words that can be understood by all.


>
> Let me summarise where we have got to here:
>
> i) You have shown passages in Scripture where new believers have spoken in
> tongues. The Apostles have seen this as evidence that they have received the
> Spirit. However, these passages are merely evidence that these particular
> Christians spoke in tongues after their conversion.

No Acts 10 shows that the apostles knew that there was no other way of
saying that people have just received the Spirit, that's why they never
ask for one.


> ii) As opposed to this we have at least two cases in Scripture where new
> converts (the Ethiopian and Paul) do not specifically speak in tongues. In
> neither of these cases is there any textual evidence that they are even in
> any way interrogated to find out if they spoke in tongues.

How they knew when or if they received the Spirit is not detailed. If
there
was another way God would need to detail it for us. He doesn't because
by
now he expects us to believe the detail he has already given showing
these
is only one way. Jesus did say that the way is narrow and that "many"
would
seek to enter by another . . .but would not be able !

We have NO cases in scripture where we are told that someone received
the
Spirit but didn't speak in tongues.


> iii) In one of these cases of a new convert not speaking in tongues, Paul,
> it is in the specific case of him receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit. You
> need to explain why the Scripture does not talk about him speaking in
> tongues at this occasion.

Explained above


> iv) You have not provided an explanation of 1 Corinthians 12. Instead of
> leaping to another verse that talks about speaking in tongues, I'd like to
> see you exegete 1 Corinthians 12 verse by verse, explaining how the word
> "SOME" does not mean that only some of the elect will receive the gift of
> tongues. You need to be prepared to apply the same argument to all gifts in
> 1 Cor 12 where Paul states that "some" will receive that gift or explain why
> tongues is a different case, despite the fact that the textual context is
> the same as all the other verses.

I have ! several times.
The context is when they all meet together and God only wants "some"
(specifically 2 or 3) to speak out in tongues, i.e. *give* to the
meeting.
If "all" do then visitors will think them mad.

If you do not accept this context of corporate use, then it is *you*
that
needs to explain why you are making tongues different, because *you*
wouldn't
say that only "some" Christians have faith, only "some" have knowledge
(and
some know nothing) and some have discernment (and the rest have no
discernment).

Here's the passage:-
1Co:12:8: For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to
another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;
1Co:12:9: To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of
healing by the same Spirit;
1Co:12:10: To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to
another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to
another the interpretation of tongues:

Please explain !
(The fact that interpretation is also mentioned shows this because
interpretation is not used in private.)


>
> Nick, I am genuinely open to going further on this, but I'd like you to see
> you tackle these specific points, which I don't think you are doing at the
> moment.

I look forward to seeing your response to the specific points I have
made.

- Nick

Richard Emblem

unread,
Oct 20, 2001, 6:45:03 AM10/20/01
to
In article <H61A7.24969$sF.18...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>, "Tim
Whittingham" <tim.whitti...@virgin.net> writes:

> I think tubeweld alluded to a near death
>experience of his own not long ago.

Tubeweld = Tumbleweed?
I prefer tubeweld :-)

Richard Emblem

unread,
Oct 20, 2001, 6:45:02 AM10/20/01
to
In article <m1sncf5...@chezmarshall.freeserve.co.uk>, Robert Marshall
<rob...@chezmarshall.freeserve.co.uk> writes:

>On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, tim.whitti...@virgin.net wrote:
>
>> The definitive answer from HTB on a 60min video. All your questions
>> answered.'
>>
>
>They don't really do this? please tell me you're joking!

They don't.

Richard Emblem

unread,
Oct 20, 2001, 6:45:07 AM10/20/01
to
In article <9qr53d$gve$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Tony Gillam"
<tgi...@cyberyacht.freeserve.co.uk> writes:

>"Richard Emblem" <rem...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20011019053130...@nso-fq.aol.com...
>> A valiant effort Peter but no-one has ever really got through to
>Nick :-(
>> Many of us value the use of tongues but I think he is the only one
>who regards
>> them as *compulsory* for all christians.
>
>Ve haf veys of making you talk!

:-P

Robert Marshall

unread,
Oct 20, 2001, 9:39:00 AM10/20/01
to

Well the person who gave us the first talk about alpha said - to
reassure people worried about leading groups - don't worry all the
answers are in the back of the book! For me, it's had difficulty
recovering from that

R
--
We need to help one another to understand that, whoever we are, we are
enemies of the Spirit of Love and Justice whenever our minds are shut
and our hearts hardened to the humanity of those who oppose us.
-- Carter Heyward (Saving Jesus from those who are right)

Gareth McCaughan

unread,
Oct 20, 2001, 9:43:12 AM10/20/01
to
Tim Whittingham wrote:

> The Kalashnikov (or similar) is essential. I believe the phrase is used in
> Bullfighting to describe the moment preceding the kill. I am told that when
> you are quite sure you are about to die a lot of your priorities change very
> quickly and some things suddenly become very obvious as soon as it's too
> late to do anything about them. I think tubeweld alluded to a near death
> experience of his own not long ago. I suspect it may have led him to come
> here to ukrc to seek out hiscoming and accuse him of talking twaddle.

"... Then at last
The matador did what we wanted him to:
He raised his sword, and his aim was true.
In that moment of truth, I suddenly knew --
That someone had stolen my wallet."

-- Tom Lehrer, "In Old Mexico".

--
Gareth McCaughan Gareth.M...@pobox.com
.sig under construc

Tony Gillam

unread,
Oct 20, 2001, 10:57:57 AM10/20/01
to
"Richard Emblem" <rem...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011019140514...@nso-cm.aol.com...

> In article <ncmn12ndh...@perot.art-render.com>, Colin Bell
> <c...@art-render.com> writes:
David Ould wrote

> >> so they don't all speak in tongues....
> >>
> >> yet the letter is written to the church in Corinth:
> >
> >"yet the letter is written to the church in Cornish". Makes an odd
kind
> >of sense.
>
> I believe that the Cornish "tongue" died out in the 19th century.

Zur av a babel if 'e allows them thar tongues.

Sleepalot

unread,
Oct 20, 2001, 12:18:42 PM10/20/01