 |
Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 Clarifying My Concern |
mytwocents |
It is not with tongues being the initial evidence it is rath with tongues being the ONLY initial evidence.
BTW Mighty Army ---- OUCH!!! |
Acts-celerater
Posts: 813
1/29/11 11:56 am
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| |
Quiet Wyatt |
Having the power to witness/serve is not the same thing as actually witnessing/serving.
For that matter, the Mormons and JWs out-witness us all. Does that mean they really have the Holy Spirit? |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12817
1/29/11 12:35 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| If it is so obvious? |
spartanfan |
| Mighty Army wrote: | | Quote: | | 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? |
If it is SO obvious, why the debate? Is it only obvious to intelligent Spiritual men? Have you considered that it could be obvious that initial means initial and that happened on the Day of Pentecost?
Here is a challenge for you pastors THIS Sunday. Ask for a show of hands of those who have been baptized in the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in other tongues. Then, a show of hands of those who witnessed to 2 people last week. I know, you're not going to put them on the spot and they are not going to be truthful in answering, but you get my point. IF they have this great power to witness AND the other churches don't, why are THEY growing faster than you? Where is the power? Is speaking in a word or two in tongues enough? |
Wow.... that is the question isn't it? You tell me why so many can't seem to grasp the definition of the simple term "initial" and when answering a question concerning it infer that it could possibly mean anything other than "the first, placed or occuring at the beginning"?
And then to accentuate my point here comes mytwocents immediately following you saying "It is not with tongues being the initial evidence it is rather with tongues being the ONLY initial evidence."
Oh my goodness, "the ONLY initial evidence'? Did he really say that. Something has to be first in line unless they happen simultaneously and witnessing powerfully and exhibiting the fruit of the Spirit are definately signs but they take time while the tongues are instantaneous and thus "first' or initial.
How can grown men even be having this infantile discussion is my only question. |
Golf Cart Mafia Underboss
Posts: 3638
1/29/11 12:47 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Mighty Army |
| Quiet Wyatt wrote: | Having the power to witness/serve is not the same thing as actually witnessing/serving.
For that matter, the Mormons and JWs out-witness us all. Does that mean they really have the Holy Spirit? |
I guess the real question here is....if we are the ones with the POWER to witness, why do they "out-witness" us? |
Friendly Face
Posts: 326
1/29/11 12:58 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Quiet Wyatt |
| Mighty Army wrote: |
I guess the real question here is....if we are the ones with the POWER to witness, why do they "out-witness" us? |
Well, since they don't bear witness to the same Jesus we do, they obviously don't have the same Spirit we do.
I hear your admonition to put our faith into practice (and emphasize that to my congregation as well). However, power "to be a witness" is different from actually going out and witnessing as in passing out tracts or street preaching per se. When His Spirit bears witness with our spirits that we are God's children, it doesn't refer to street preaching or even evangelism per se at all. To bear witness to the truth involves one's total lifestyle BEING a faithful witness (a living testimony) of the Lord.
And again, speaking in tongues was just the proverbial tip of the iceberg in Acts 2. The LIVES changed and empowered as a result of the outpouring is what bore witness to the experience. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12817
1/29/11 1:04 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Nature Boy Florida |
| Mighty Army wrote: | | Quiet Wyatt wrote: | Having the power to witness/serve is not the same thing as actually witnessing/serving.
For that matter, the Mormons and JWs out-witness us all. Does that mean they really have the Holy Spirit? |
I guess the real question here is....if we are the ones with the POWER to witness, why do they "out-witness" us? |
Mormons actually speak in tongues.
Are they Spirit baptized or are there other evidences they need , as well.
_________________
Whether you like it or not, learn to love it, because its the best thing going today! |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 16646
1/29/11 1:53 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Clarifying My Concern |
Poimen |
| mytwocents wrote: | | It is not with tongues being the initial evidence it is rath with tongues being the ONLY initial evidence. |
Agreed. And for anyone to suggest otherwise seems disingenuous.
_________________
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: 5657
1/29/11 2:10 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Quiet Wyatt |
| del |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12817
1/29/11 2:13 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Power to witness |
Poimen |
I think we misunderstand what the "power of service" or "power to be witnesses" is about. I understand it to be a reference to empowerment to function in the supernatural, or to operate in spiritual gifts. I also believe that to be the primary purpose for the Spirit baptism.
In this way the body of Christ was equipped to carry on the ministry of Christ with the power (or works) of Christ, by the Spirit of Christ.
The signs following (aka the spiritual gifts, or supernatural enablements) are divine confirmation of the gospel, effected by the Lord's working with us as we go and preach His message everywhere. We needed the Spirit baptism to effect the "Lord working with us" part, producing the "signs" that confirm he message.
In this way we too can preach the gospel, not with enticing words of men, but in the power and demonstration of the Spirit. It gives power to our witness, and indelible mark of divine proportions.
Having said that, I also believe the manifestation of the spiritual gifts in the life of a believer are the evidence of Spirit baptism. However, I see that as inclusive of any and all such gifts, not just tongues (be it private or corporate tongues). But I do believe there will be a supernatural evidence accompanying Spirit baptism, and except it to be immediate. If its not, I cannot be certain of a persons reception of the same. At least not until the gifts are evident in their life. But, while I expect the gifts to manifest immediately, I am confident they will manifest (sooner or later) if a person has indeed been Spirit baptized. Otherwise, and until then, there is no evidence of their baptism in the same.
However, I am not going to deny Spirit baptism where the gifts are operating in one's life, simply because they have not spoken in tongues. For instance, if they've healed the sick, or raised the dead, but have not spoken in tongues. Or where they've prophesied, or given a word of knowledge, but haven't (yet) spoken in tongues. You get the idea.
_________________
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: 5657
1/29/11 2:29 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Quiet Wyatt |
The 72 disciples Jesus sent out in Luke 10 in addition to the Twelve Jesus sent out in Matt 10 were given the authority and power to drive out evil spirits, heal the sick, cleanse the leper, and even to raise the dead. This was even prior to Calvary, not to mention prior to Pentecost.
So it does not seem to follow that just because someone has miracles in their ministry that based on that fact we can assume they have been baptized in the Holy Spirit. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12817
1/29/11 2:44 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| After the ascesion |
Poimen |
| Quiet Wyatt wrote: | The 72 disciples Jesus sent out in Luke 10 in addition to the Twelve Jesus sent out in Matt 10 were given the authority and power to drive out evil spirits, heal the sick, cleanse the leper, and even to raise the dead. This was even prior to Calvary, not to mention prior to Pentecost.
So it does not seem to follow that just because someone has miracles in their ministry that based on that fact we can assume they have been baptized in the Holy Spirit. |
They had Christ in their presence, to issue the enablement or authority in person. But in His absence they (and we) would need another enabler, another comforter, like unto Him. Hence the outpouring of the Spirit. 
_________________
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: 5657
1/29/11 2:50 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Quiet Wyatt |
Jesus sent them out two by two throughout Israel. He was not with them while they were operating in the authority and power He gave them.
In any case, the idea that any of these abilities could be signs of the baptism in the Spirit (not to mention the initial sign) simply does not follow from the evidence in the Gospels or in Acts. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12817
1/29/11 2:56 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Ichthus77 |
| Nature Boy Florida wrote: | | Mighty Army wrote: | | Quiet Wyatt wrote: | Having the power to witness/serve is not the same thing as actually witnessing/serving.
For that matter, the Mormons and JWs out-witness us all. Does that mean they really have the Holy Spirit? |
I guess the real question here is....if we are the ones with the POWER to witness, why do they "out-witness" us? |
Mormons actually speak in tongues.
|
Documentation? Source?
_________________
 |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1270
1/29/11 3:02 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Ichthus77 |
| Mighty Army wrote: | | Quote: | | 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? |
If it is SO obvious, why the debate? Is it only obvious to intelligent Spiritual men? Have you considered that it could be obvious that initial means initial and that happened on the Day of Pentecost?
Here is a challenge for you pastors THIS Sunday. Ask for a show of hands of those who have been baptized in the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in other tongues. Then, a show of hands of those who witnessed to 2 people last week. I know, you're not going to put them on the spot and they are not going to be truthful in answering, but you get my point. IF they have this great power to witness AND the other churches don't, why are THEY growing faster than you? Where is the power? Is speaking in a word or two in tongues enough? |
You can do that with more than just the Baptism.
Ask for a show of hands as to how many have been born again or converted. Then ask how many read their Bibles daily and pray.
Or how many live a "converted" life style.
How many have fruit of being a Christian, etc.
...oh and the Pentecostal faith IS the fastest GROWING around the world and in the USA.
_________________
|
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1270
1/29/11 3:08 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Poimen |
| Quiet Wyatt wrote: | | Jesus sent them out two by two throughout Israel. He was not with them while they were operating in the authority and power He gave them. |
That's beside the point. He was on the earth, and he directly, personally imparted the authority for them to perform the same. He also said he had to leave to send back that same power or authority to the church in His absence.
Otherwise we negate the whole purpose for the coming of the Spirit at all. Who needs the Spirit to enable anything? After all Jesus sent us, and he doesn't have to be with us anymore than He did with the 70. Right?
| Quote: | | In any case, the idea that any of these abilities could be signs of the baptism in the Spirit (not to mention the initial sign) simply does not follow from the evidence in the Gospels or in Acts. |
Simply does not follow? Well, sure it does. As has been shown in various threads by various posters several times already. But I get it. It was hard for me to come to grips with this, being raised a die hard IEer myself. I couldn't see it either, till one day I did.
_________________
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: 5657
1/29/11 3:26 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Quiet Wyatt |
| Poimen wrote: | | Quiet Wyatt wrote: | | Jesus sent them out two by two throughout Israel. He was not with them while they were operating in the authority and power He gave them. |
That's beside the point. He was on the earth, and he directly, personally imparted the authority for them to perform the same. He also said he had to leave to send back that same power or authority to the church in His absence. |
It is not beside the point, brother. He sent them out and GAVE them something (authority and power) to minister while they were not in his immediate bodily presence.
| Quote: | | Otherwise we negate the whole purpose for the coming of the Spirit at all. Who needs the Spirit to enable anything? After all Jesus sent us, and he doesn't have to be with us anymore than He did with the 70. Right? |
I don't think they operated apart from the power of the Spirit any more than John the Baptist, Jesus, or the prophets of old did. In the inauguration of the last days outpouring in Acts, we do see a quantum leap in the amount and extent of the Spirit's power though.
| Quote: | | In any case, the idea that any of these abilities could be signs of the baptism in the Spirit (not to mention the initial sign) simply does not follow from the evidence in the Gospels or in Acts. |
| Quote: | | Simply does not follow? Well, sure it does. As has been shown in various threads by various posters several times already. But I get it. It was hard for me to come to grips with this, being raised a die hard IEer myself. I couldn't see it either, till one day I did. |
In the Book of Acts, these other miracles or gifts you mention are never mentioned as accompanying the baptism in the Spirit.
I am not so much coming at this as a die hard IEer, as I am simply questioning what I see are unwarranted assumptions often made by the anti-IE crowd. All too often their assertions (like, any miracle could be the initial evidence) simply do not hold up. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12817
1/29/11 3:35 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Mighty Army |
| Quote: | | ...oh and the Pentecostal faith IS the fastest GROWING around the world and in the USA. |
That may be true, but what is Pentecostal? That means the churches proclaim themselves to be Pentecostal but that doesn't mean that 100% of the members or attenders speak in tongues. In fact, I bet it is under 50%. Anyway...didn't mean to hijack but couldn't let that go. |
Friendly Face
Posts: 326
1/29/11 4:56 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
| Nature Boy Florida wrote: |
Mormons actually speak in tongues.
Are they Spirit baptized or are there other evidences they need , as well. |
I thought that was something there were records of sporadically early in their history, rather than a common occurrence among them. I hear in some parts of the country they were very active in the Charismatic movement, going to some of the larger meetings during the Charismatic revival.
I heard a Mormon talk about how one of their priest had a vision when someone was being baptized. They believe in all these kinds of things.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
1/29/11 5:02 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Quiet Wyatt |
| Question for anyone: What is the basis for the claim that any gift of the Spirit or miracle could be the initial evidence of the baptism in the Spirit? I honestly have not seen anything in Scrupture to support this idea, and it just seems like a bare assertion, but I am sincerely open and interested in hearing what is the scriptural basis for this idea. Thanks! |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12817
1/29/11 5:07 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Ticking away... |
spartanfan |
| Quiet Wyatt wrote: | | Question for anyone: What is the basis for the claim that any gift of the Spirit or miracle could be the initial evidence of the baptism in the Spirit? I honestly have not seen anything in Scrupture to support this idea, and it just seems like a bare assertion, but I am sincerely open and interested in hearing what is the scriptural basis for this idea. Thanks! |
You'll wait a long time for someone to provide Scripture to support something other than "they spoke with other tongues" or "the circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God."
Of all of the things that the Bible says happened on the day of Pentecost: they spoke with tongues, they declared the marvelous works of God, preached with power, etc. - which one came first? Answer that and you have discovered the "initial" evidence. It's not rocket science. Wow, you talk about a silly discussion.
No one in their right mind questions what was first. But everyone who hijacks the thread spins the topic to which is "the best" evidence.
 |
Golf Cart Mafia Underboss
Posts: 3638
1/29/11 5:46 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
