Actscelerate.com Forum Index Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
@actscelerate Twitter  @actscelerate Facebook  @actscelerate Google+ 

Why don't we believe IE anymore? Why the change?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
   Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Hot Discussions Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Message Author
Post Quiet Wyatt
According to the words of the Lord Jesus himself in Matt. 7:21-23, there will be MANY who will claim to have prophesied, done miracles, and many mighty works in His name to whom He will say "Depart from me ye workers of iniquity!" It would be safe to say from this principle that a person can speak in tongues all the way to HELL if they're not living a holy life. Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 12363
1/28/11 12:40 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Ichthus77
Mighty Army wrote:
Quote:
While there is no direct scripture that specifically says it,


That statement alone means you have nothing but speculation and assumption. It is not that people want to rebel, it is that for so many years, there have been people that lived a life with the Fruit of the Spirit evident in their lives, to the point that it should be enough evidence that they were filled with the Spirit. This while others would live with very little evidence of the Holy Spirit except they said a few words in tongues one time. That is enough to allow them to hold office in a COG while the other person could not.

Again, it is not to rebel but to seek the truth. People should not be ridiculed for seeking truth.



The FRUIT of the Spirit goes with salvation and the process of sanctification.
The BAPTISM of the Holy Spirit (enduement of power for service) is an entirely different experience.
_________________

Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1270
1/28/11 1:08 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Poimen
War Eagle

The change came for me not because tongues are not a consistent biblical evidence or indicator of Spirit baptism. Rather because there was, as you pointed out, no scriptural basis to the claim that tongues are the only evidence of reception thereof. To say more than tongues are a consistent or normative biblical evidence is essentially to go beyond Scripture, to add to it. Likewise, to deny tongues as an evidence of Spirit baptism is to not go far enough, or to take away from Scripture.
_________________
Poimen
Bro. Christopher

Singing: "Let us then be true and faithful -- trusting, serving, everyday. Just one glimpse of Him in glory will the toils of life repay."
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5656
1/28/11 1:21 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Reply with quote
Post Re: IMHO (Didn't Mean to Hi-jack the other thread) Ichthus77
mytwocents wrote:
-John the Baptist, who was filled with the Spirit in His mother's womb. Our doctrine would decree that in his mother's womb he spoke in tongues.

Loran, who I think chairs the Council of 18, preached a sermon in January where he said, citing the John the Baptist example, that we cannot say you have to speak in tongues to be filled with the Spirit.



PRE-PENTECOST fillings such as John the Baptist is a whole other thing. The Gospel of John states "the Holy Spirit was NOT YET GIVEN because Jesus was not yet glorified". So John's filling was BEFORE the Holy Spirit was even given in the NT dispensation or manner. Jesus hadn't risen from the dead and hadn't poured out the Holy Spirit yet. Joel's prophecy hadn't been fulfilled. It's not the same thing at all.
What they received in the Upper Rooom on Pentecost is an entirely different thing and new from all previous experiences.
Elizabeth and Zachariah were also spoken of as being "filled with the Holy Spirit" as were other saints and prophets in the Old Testament.
But that is not the same thing as the Baptism of the Holy Spirit given to the Church the first time in Acts.

(On a side note... if John the Baptist is to be an example for doctrine on Christian experiences, when was he even SAVED? Since he was filled from the womb. Makes for some strange doctrines... pre birth salvation or no need for salvation at all?)
_________________

Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1270
1/28/11 1:28 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Love Getting The Preachers Stirred Up on Friday mytwocents
Makes them preach better on Sunday. Let me clarify some things perhaps misunderstood:
-I believe in speaking in tongues as the spirit gives the utterance
-I believe it is a spiritual gift, the least of the spiritual gifts, but a gift of empowerment for the believer and the church

My struggle is finding a scriptural basis for the hard line that it is the ONLY spiritual gift or manifestation that gives evidence to being spirit filled.

I'm not interested in tradition, you can't base doctrine on the tradition of my papa and my grandpa. Jesus condemned those who did in the gospels.

Give me something to give the sincere lady whose life is filled with spiritual fruit, who is sincere and holy, who demonstrates many spiritual gifts but and says "pastor I've never spoken in tongues , does that mean I am not spirit filled? Why would God keep this from me if our doctrine demands it?"
Acts-celerater
Posts: 797
1/28/11 1:32 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Poimen
Quiet Wyatt wrote:
Excellent post, Randy.

Along with an emphasis on the purpose of the baptism (to be a witness), I strongly believe an appropriate emphasis on scriptural holiness of heart and life (life in the Spirit of Christ) is absolutely essential in order to avoid many of the problems of non-fruitbearing disciples.

I often say to my congregation, you can make it to heaven without speaking in tongues, but you certainly cannot enter heaven without being holy.


Amen guys. There is no power but that born from purity. It is the baptism of the HOLY Ghost after all. Peter is emphatic concerning the conversion of Gentiles. God put put no difference between them, who upon hearing and believing the gospel (salvation) had their hearts purified by faith (sanctification), and received the outpouring of Spirit baptism.

In short, a pure heart is a prerequisite for Spirit baptism.
_________________
Poimen
Bro. Christopher

Singing: "Let us then be true and faithful -- trusting, serving, everyday. Just one glimpse of Him in glory will the toils of life repay."
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5656
1/28/11 1:32 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Reply with quote
Post Ichthus77
Do we really have COG preachers who DON'T believe in the Baptism accompanied by tongues?
NO Pentecostal denomination has retracted this teaching, not even the Assemblies of God. A/G still beleives in IE and requires ministers to reaffirm this doctrine periodically. ALL Pentecostal organizations still contain IE in their written DOF or SOFs.
The PCFNA (Pentecostal and Charismatic Fellowship of North America) which groups together all Pentecostal denominations also holds to IE in their written declarations.
So who is changing? Some individuals?

(Hey I even read an article about anonymous Baptist pastors who are atheist and agnostic, who no longer beleive what they used to, and it's just a job to them but they have to remain silent. There will always be people who disagree with a group to a lesser or greater degree.)
_________________

Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1270
1/28/11 1:42 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Poimen
Actually Ichthus, as I understand it (unless they've changed in the last several years), the 4SQ does not hold to IE as such. Close, a modified version of IE perhaps, but not IE itself. They affirm tongues are the normative initial evidence, but do not insist on them as a required initial evidence.
_________________
Poimen
Bro. Christopher

Singing: "Let us then be true and faithful -- trusting, serving, everyday. Just one glimpse of Him in glory will the toils of life repay."


Last edited by Poimen on 1/28/11 11:53 pm; edited 1 time in total
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5656
1/28/11 1:46 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Reply with quote
Post War Eagle
Poimen wrote:
War Eagle

The change came for me not because tongues are not a consistent biblical evidence or indicator of Spirit baptism. Rather because there was, as you pointed out, no scriptural basis to the claim that tongues are the only evidence of reception thereof. To say more than tongues are a consistent or normative biblical evidence is essentially to go beyond Scripture, to add to it. Likewise, to deny tongues as an evidence of Spirit baptism is to not go far enough, or to take away from Scripture.


Do you then not hold to the trinity or the rapture because there is nothing that explicitly says that either of these two events are actually the way we believe?

I think there is plenty of consistent biblical evidence. I didn't say there was no scriptural basis. I said it does not explicitly say, "tongues is the initial evidence."
Friendly Face
Posts: 366
1/28/11 1:58 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Poimen
War Eagle wrote:

Do you then not hold to the trinity or the rapture because there is nothing that explicitly says that either of these two events are actually the way we believe?


Actually, I do. I find no biblical conflict with those conclusions, no scriptural examples that say or indicate otherwise like I do with IE. Of course, the rapture is IMO a generic term that fits into several explanations of last things, but I do believe Christ will return and catch us away to be with Him.

Quote:
I think there is plenty of consistent biblical evidence. I didn't say there was no scriptural basis. I said it does not explicitly say, "tongues is the initial evidence."


Pardon me then. I would add, not only does it not say that, it also includes references that include no mention of tongues upon Spirit baptism, reference to prophesy as an initial evidence, and references to Spirit baptism with no mention of any spiritual gift as evidence. My point, even if we assume tongues were present on all occasions, and just not mentioned at some, Scripture itself does not affirm that. Therefore, to insist upon such as a doctrinal conclusion is to go beyond Scripture.

I cannot then, in good conscience, insist on tongues as the IE. But I can affirm tongues as a normative evidence of and experience with Spirit baptism.
_________________
Poimen
Bro. Christopher

Singing: "Let us then be true and faithful -- trusting, serving, everyday. Just one glimpse of Him in glory will the toils of life repay."
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5656
1/28/11 2:16 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Reply with quote
Post John Hughes
Quiet Wyatt wrote:
According to the words of the Lord Jesus himself in Matt. 7:21-23, there will be MANY who will claim to have prophesied, done miracles, and many mighty works in His name to whom He will say "Depart from me ye workers of iniquity!" It would be safe to say from this principle that a person can speak in tongues all the way to HELL if they're not living a holy life.


Just because someone is not convinced of the Initial Evidence doctrine does not place them in the catagory of speaking in tongues all the way to hell.

I am amazed at how quick some are to pull out there favorite "aint gonna make it scriptures" when challenged or even an inquiry is made that goes against their held view point. Holy Spirit baptism is not being challenged in this discussion. Many people are in heaven today who never spoke in tongues. Many people have made it to heaven without understanding or possibly believing in the Trinity as defined in our theology. The Rapture....Pre-trib, Mid-trib, post trib or pan-trip is not the issue at all. The issue: is there room for people in this fellowship who do not dot every eye and cross every t . The statement of: "You shouldn't join something if you don't agree with it doesn't hold water!" Some of US were born into this.
_________________
To Live Without Passion, is unforgivable!!
Hey, DOC
Posts: 90
1/28/11 2:36 pm


View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Reply with quote
Post Quiet Wyatt
John Hughes,

I was apparently unclear. I was definitely not saying anyone who disagreed with the IE doctrine was going straight to hell. That would be ridiculous.

What I was saying was that supposedly having a gift of the Spirit (like tongues) in no way guarantees anything, not even that the individual is truly saved, if we are to believe what Jesus said in Matthew 7:21-23 for instance.
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 12363
1/28/11 2:51 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Travis Johnson
For the record, the Declaration of Faith is a relatively young document, created amidst a healthy dose of controversy as a departure from our foundational teachings that we held no man-made creed and take the New Testament as our only rule of faith and practice.

So, to enshrine the DOF (especially as it pertains to Spirit Baptism, Foot Washing, or any Scripturally inferred doctrine) in authority as a hair below the Scriptures is not only unwise, it is also done to the exclusion of and in ignorance of the investment made by our pioneer fathers and mothers who not only did this very thing but called us to do the same, even in our General Assembly gatherings.

We are called to wrestle with the New Testament teachings like the Bereans did and not hold blindly to any teaching because it was passed to us in creedal form from a central office, be that Jerusalem or Cleveland.

Should we give weight to those teachings?
Absolutely.

Should we abstain from wrestling through them?
No. We'd be unfaithful to Christ, the Scriptures, our Church, our denominational fellowship, and our own souls if we did.
_________________
travisjohnson.net
Acts-dicted
Posts: 7832
1/28/11 4:12 pm


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post War Eagle
Poimen,

If the trinity doctrine is so cut and dry where do the Oneness folks get off at?

I see what you're saying about it not specifically saying it, but I'm simply saying there are a lot of things we believe that aren't specifically stated but are rather implied.

From the time of Acts 2, it is often said if not implied that they spoke in tongues upon receiving the baptism of the Spirit.

That's why I believe it. I've not found enough evidence to disprove it. To me, it's almost like an NFL play review. The call on the field stands if there is not enough conclusive evidence to without a doubt prove that it should be overturned. In this case, there is certainly not enough conclusive evidence that tongues is not the initial evidence in my opinion.

But I respect your opinion and anyone else's who disagrees. We just see things obviously different.
Friendly Face
Posts: 366
1/28/11 6:24 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Ichthus77
Poimen wrote:
Actually Ichthus, as I understand it (unless they've chnaged in the last several years), the 4SQ has never held to IE as such. Close, a modified version of IE perhaps, but not IE itself. They affirm tongues are the normative initial evidence, but do not insist on them as a required initial evidence, accepting other spiritual gifts as just as valid an evidence thereof.


The Foursquare website says they believe a person will speak in tongues when baptized with the Holy Spirit.
_________________

Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1270
1/28/11 11:09 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Why don't we believe IE anymore? Why the change? Link
War Eagle wrote:
Didn't want to hijack the survey thread.

Why don't we believe in the tongues as the initial evidence anymore? While there is no direct scripture that specifically says it, there is at least enough ample evidence that it occurred on a consistent basis upon someone receiving the baptism?


If you can't really prove it from scripture, why have it for doctrine.

The basis for the doctrine is a kind of 'example hermeneutics.'

The reasoning goes like this:
People were who were filled/baptized with the Spirit in Acts 2 spoke in tongues.
People who were filled/baptized with the Spirit in Acts 10 spoke in tongues.
People who were filled/baptized with the Spirit in Acts 19 spoke in tongues.
Therefore if you are filled with the Spirit, you will speak in tongues.

I could use the same type of reasoning to argue that if you go to Mt. Sinai, you will hear the audible voice of God.

Moses went to Mt. Sinai and heard the audible voice of God there.
The children of Israel and heard the audible voice of God there.
Elijah went to Mt. Sinai and heard the audible voice of God there.
Therefore, if you go to Mt. Sinai you will hear the audible voice of God.

Sign up for my tour today.

If you go to Mt. Sinai will you really hear the audible voice of God? I don't thin there are any guarantees.

I can make a better argument for the Mt. Sinai theory because I can't prove that EVERYONE in Acts 10 and 19 on whom the Spirit fell/came spoke in tongues. One passage says that 'they' spoke in tongues and magnified God. Another says 'they' spake in tongues and prophesied. If half prophesied and half spoke in tongues, that verse would still be true.

Quote:

There's probably more evidence of the IE doctrine than the pre-trib doctrine or mid-trib doctrine. Granted these ideas aren't in our declaration of faith but they are equally a strong part of our belief system.


There are fewer scriptures that seem to contradict the IE doctrine than the pre-trib doctrine. "Do all speak with tongues?" in the context of I Corinthians 12 makes it hard to hold to IE, especially when you consider Paul calls praying in tongues 'speaking in tongues' in his terminology. II Thessalonians 1 does not fit with pre-trib. I can't find any scripture that sets the rapture before the tribulation.

I've read lots of early Pentecostals weren't pre-trib anyway, but it became more popular over time. I don't know about early COG eschatology.

Quote:

On what basis do we now find that tongues doesn't show the initial evidence that a person has been baptized in the Spirit?


Can you show me scripture that says that we have to require a supernatural sign that someone is filled? If tongues is a sign, not to believe, but to them that believe not, why are we using it as a sign, to believers, that someone else is full of the Spirit?

Quote:
The reality is that by the indwelling of the Spirit in a saved person, (John 20) the Spirit will do exactly as Jesus said He would. Jesus said the Holy Spirit would teach us, guide us, and lead us. That is to say by virtue of listening to the Spirit, a saved person will have levels of discernment, the ability to encourage themselves and others, wisdom, and even be able to see into the prophetic realm to some degree. Why? Because the Spirit lives in them and according to Jesus it's the job of the Holy Spirit to do such in our lives


We could think of many other evidences of the presence of the Spirit, like the love of God being shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, which is given unto us.
_________________
Link
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11055
1/29/11 3:45 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post War Eagle
Link,

In reference to tongues being a sign to the unbeliever, Paul is speaking of the gift of tongues which in my opinion is different than tongues with the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Based on your Sinai reasoning, there are a lot of things we can disprove. Jacob had angelic visitations at a well he built.
Jesus later met a Samaritan woman at the same well and promised her living water.
If I take you to the same well, Jesus will offer you the same thing.
Seriously, we can do a lot of things with that idea which is why it doesn't apply.

There are plenty of things we believe and see in the Bible that falls into patterns. We believe the trinity because of the pattern of the Bible in regards to the revealing of the persons of the trinity as well as scriptures that suggest it. God is a God of patterns from the first time we meet Him in Genesis. There are plenty of references of men and women speaking in tongues after having received the baptism.

If indeed tonguees is not the initial evidence, what is? Maybe I'll start another thread. That might be a loaded question . . . Very Happy
Friendly Face
Posts: 366
1/29/11 8:32 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Why don't we believe IE anymore? Why the change? spartanfan
War Eagle wrote:
Didn't want to hijack the survey thread.

Why don't we believe in the tongues as the initial evidence anymore? While there is no direct scripture that specifically says it, there is at least enough ample evidence that it occurred on a consistent basis upon someone receiving the baptism?

There's probably more evidence of the IE doctrine than the pre-trib doctrine or mid-trib doctrine. Granted these ideas aren't in our declaration of faith but they are equally a strong part of our belief system.

I guess I'm trying to figure out why the change. Doyle made a good point that for years the COG was known by this doctrine. Now we want to disregard it? Is our reasoning because other Pentecostal denominations have done so and therefore we may be losing people to them? If so, shame on us for compromising. That's what it is right? Is our rationale because it makes our people feel better about not speaking in tongues? If so, shame on us again for not promoting this wonderful experience.

On what basis do we now find that tongues doesn't show the initial evidence that a person has been baptized in the Spirit? The reality is that by the indwelling of the Spirit in a saved person, (John 20) the Spirit will do exactly as Jesus said He would. Jesus said the Holy Spirit would teach us, guide us, and lead us. That is to say by virtue of listening to the Spirit, a saved person will have levels of discernment, the ability to encourage themselves and others, wisdom, and even be able to see into the prophetic realm to some degree. Why? Because the Spirit lives in them and according to Jesus it's the job of the Holy Spirit to do such in our lives.

I've always looked at the baptism of the Holy Spirit separately, not because I was raised that way, but because structurally speaking, it makes perfect sense to me.


In my opinion the arguments against tongues as the initial evidence are the silliest arguments going around on this board in recent months. Initial simply means first - and nobody with a reasonable mind and even basic knowledge of the Bible can truthfully say that as far as being the "first" noticeable happening when being filled in the book of Acts was "they began to speak" with other tongues.

The arguments always take us away from what was the first indication of the change to what is the best proof of His abiding presence. We start talking about "first" and everyone it seems wants to talk about best- and those are 2 different things. I don't know how anyone with any integrity in interpreting the Scriptures can look at Acts 2:4...(All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues[a] as the Spirit enabled them. NIV) and Acts 10: 44 - 46 (While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongues[b] and praising God. )... and believe in their wildest imagination that something besides the speaking in other tongues was the first (initial) indicator that they had received the Holy Spirit.

It is so silly that it is laughable to me that otherwise intelligent Spiritual men would not understand the "initial" evidence and would insist on changing the rhetoric to "best". How can we be so silly as to reject the obvious?
Golf Cart Mafia Underboss
Posts: 3596
1/29/11 8:32 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Quiet Wyatt
Link,

The rather obvious problem with your analogy is that while we all do need to hear from God, He nowhere commands anyone else to go to Sinai in order have the same kind of experience Moses did. But the Gospels and Acts do demonstrate that the baptism in the Holy Spirit is meant to be for all followers of Jesus.

The initial evidence doctrine originated because earnest Christians saw the scriptural directive and privilege of being baptized in the Holy Spirit, and sought to have the same kind of experience--because it is presented in the Gospels and in Acts as the kind of baptism Jesus came to give.

In the decades leading up to the early Pentecostal revival, the Holiness and Revival movements among evangelicals saw that their experience was sorely lacking when compared to that of the early Christians in the Book of Acts, and preached and taught the necessity for Christians to receive this experience subsequent to regeneration. The initial evidence doctrine was inductively derived by earnest Holiness Christians who searched the Book of Acts for what the initial evidence/sign was that accompanied the baptism in the Spirit as promised by the Lord.
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 12363
1/29/11 8:58 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Why don't we believe IE anymore? Why the change? Ichthus77
spartanfan wrote:


In my opinion the arguments against tongues as the initial evidence are the silliest arguments going around on this board in recent months. Initial simply means first - and nobody with a reasonable mind and even basic knowledge of the Bible can truthfully say that as far as being the "first" noticeable happening when being filled in the book of Acts was "they began to speak" with other tongues.

The arguments always take us away from what was the first indication of the change to what is the best proof of His abiding presence. We start talking about "first" and everyone it seems wants to talk about best- and those are 2 different things. I don't know how anyone with any integrity in interpreting the Scriptures can look at Acts 2:4...(All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues[a] as the Spirit enabled them. NIV) and Acts 10: 44 - 46 (While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongues[b] and praising God. )... and believe in their wildest imagination that something besides the speaking in other tongues was the first (initial) indicator that they had received the Holy Spirit.

It is so silly that it is laughable to me that otherwise intelligent Spiritual men would not understand the "initial" evidence and would insist on changing the rhetoric to "best". How can we be so silly as to reject the obvious?


This is so true! A lot of times its totally comparing apples and oranges.
There is such a huge difference between "sign" and purpose or results of the baptism. Neither one excludes the other. Yet you always get the "I think its the fruit, I prefer fruit any day" Yet you go to the BIBLE and in NONE of the cases such as Acts 8, 10, 19, etc., was there ever TIME to measure "fruit of the Spirit" such as kindness etc. or ongoing results.
Each one of the Bible outpourings was IMMEDIATE, with an IMMEDIATE sign. No time to sit around for days and months and years and evaluate fruit. The NT goes on the iinstantaneous experience with it's immediate, outward visible sign each and every time, and declares it a reception of the Baptism. Nothing else was ever even measureable in any of the accounts.
_________________

Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1270
1/29/11 10:17 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Hot Discussions Post new topic   Reply to topic
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 2 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Acts-celerate Terms of Use | Acts-celerate Policy
World News Network | Acts-celerate Chat
Contact the Administrator.


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group :: Spelling by SpellingCow.