 |
Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 Re: Why don't we believe IE anymore? Why the change? |
Randy Johnson |
| Link wrote: | | 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. |
Well, Link, why don't we just forget the whole thing and go back to being Roman Catholics, just eat our magic cookie every week, go to confession, and get busy making money for ourselves so we can live comfortably until we go to purgatory?
_________________
Randy Johnson, Pastor
Ickesburg Church of God
85 Tuscarora Path
Ickesburg, Pennsylvania |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5431
1/29/11 7:03 pm
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| Re: Ticking away... |
Poimen |
| spartanfan wrote: |
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. |
Well, if that is all that IE is or means then we all agree, no matter the denomination; never mind the COG. When the Spirit was poured out initially tongues was the evidence manifested affirming the same. But it does not follow from that alone that tongues must always accompany Spirit baptism.
Don't misunderstand me here, I'm not denying Spirit baptism as both the privilege and responsibility of all believers. Nor am I denying evidences of the same. I'm just making a point. If IE is only about what happened first as a result of the disciples being Spirit baptized on Pentecost, then the whole IE argument as we've been having it is moot. We're all on the same page anyhow.
Furthermore, who has been hi-jacking this thread? And are you suggesting that I am one of them? Just trying to make sure I understand what you're, and to whom your responding.
_________________
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 2/2/11 10:41 am; edited 1 time in total |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5657
1/29/11 8:51 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Ticking away... |
bradfreeman |
| Poimen wrote: | | spartanfan wrote: |
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. |
Well, if that all that IE is or means then we all agree, no matter the denomination; never mind the COG. When the Spirit was poured out initially tongues was the evidence manifested affirming the same. But it does not follow from that alone that tongues must always accompany Spirit baptism.
|
Perhaps what the IE'ers are looking for is some Biblical example to validate our experience--if it happens to us like it happened to them, then it must be real. When you open the "evidence" up to experiences that are not recorded in scripture, it gets harder to validate them.
_________________
I'm not saved because I'm good. I'm saved because He's good!
My website: www.bradfreeman.com
My blog: http://bradcfreeman.tumblr.com/ |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 9027
1/29/11 9:03 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Poimen |
| 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 Scripture 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! |
I've answered this across several replies and several threads already. I've supplied Scriptural rationale for the same as well. I'm not sure then how to take the request for Scriptural support. It seems rather dismissive and condescending, and that not in the positive way. I'm sure I must be misunderstanding somehow, but that is the impression the words themselves are making on me.
That said, the Scriptural support is found:
1. In the fact that Scripture does not record tongues in connection with every account of Spirit baptism. One may assume their presence, but no more. To insist then on tongues as the IE is overstepping Scripture itself.
2. In the fact that Scripture no where delineates any doctrinal affirmation of the IE position as such. It certainly addresses the nature and function of tongues, yet makes no claim for IE in any of that. So again, to insist then on tongues as the IE without exception is an exceeding of Scripture itself.
3. In the fact that Jesus affirms in his pre-ascension discussion with the disciples that He would empower them to carry on His work by sending the Holy Ghost unto them. And that after being so empowered they wold be His witnesses into all the world. Furthermore, having been so empowered, Scripture records that they went everywhere preaching, and He went with them (through the agency of the Spirit) confirming the word with signs following. Among which was certainly their speaking with new tongues. Yet, for all that, no primacy is placed on tongues above any of the other signs or gifts. All are given equally by the same Lord, through the same Spirit, dividing severally as He will.
4. The fact that prophecy is recorded in some instances in the book of Acts as an affirmation of Spirit baptism the same as, even along side, tongues. Again, Scripture places no primacy on one over the other, so we cannot.
5. The fact that some visible demonstration is mentioned with the laying on the apostles hands concerning Simon the sorcerer. One might note that Scripture indicates Simon saw something supernatural occur, but it does not say he heard something (like tongues). One might assume tongues were present, or even the observable phenomenon, and with good reason. But one cannot insist upon such without exceeding the bounds of Scripture itself. We just don't know what He saw.
I suppose that is sufficient Scriptural support and explanation for why some, myself at least, cannot in good conscience affirm IE, as traditionally held. Though I can affirm tongues as important, universally available to, and applicable for all believers. And that tongues are a common, if not the normative, evidence of Spirit baptism. To say less would be to fall short of 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."
Last edited by Poimen on 1/29/11 9:48 pm; edited 1 time in total |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5657
1/29/11 9:22 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Quiet Wyatt |
I don't mean it as condescending. It is a sincere request. I appreciate your re-summarizing of your reasoning. Still don't see how one gets from that that any one of the various gifts of the Spirit may be the initial evidence in any case, but thanks.
Love you brother.
Last edited by Quiet Wyatt on 1/29/11 10:08 pm; edited 1 time in total |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12817
1/29/11 9:29 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Quiet Wyatt |
LC,
Thanks. I have heard that point before, and while I don't find that is persuasive in itself for Paul in chapter 14 said he desired that they ALL may speak in tongues, that nevertheless does not prove the assertion being made as far as I can tell.
The assertion I am questioning the scriptural basis for is the following: "Any one of the various gifts of the Spirit may function as the initial evidence of the baptism in the Spirit." I am simply asking what in Scripture would lead one to think that? |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12817
1/29/11 11:20 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Quiet Wyatt |
LC,
In your view, was/is the baptism in the Holy Spirit something qualitatively new and unique to the New Covenant initiated by Jesus Christ?
QW |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12817
1/30/11 12:17 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Quiet Wyatt |
The reason I asked was it something unique to the New Covenant was because all the other 'manifestational' gifts you mentioned occurred in the Gospel prior to Pentecost. So as I see it this means that prophecy for instance could not serve as an indicator of anything new and unique to the New Covenant, as it had already been manifested in the ministry of the Holy Spirit prior to Pentecost. It would not be anything more significant than the gift of prophecy which had been working already. Without question it was genuinely inspired speech, but it wasn't anything the Spirit hadn't already been doing before.
Also, as has been noted before, Paul question "Do all speak with tongues" does not weigh against the IE doctrine per se, since Paul also said that he desired that they all speak with tongues in the same letter 1 Cor 14. Also, the listing of these gifts in 1 Cor 12 all can be understood as ongoing ministries (regularly operating gifts) in the church. Not all have ongoing ministries of speaking in tongues in the congregational meetings of the church.
QW
Last edited by Quiet Wyatt on 1/30/11 1:13 am; edited 1 time in total |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12817
1/30/11 12:56 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Quiet Wyatt |
| Quote: | | So, Paul's direct implication that not everyone who possessed the manifestational gifts of the Holy Spirit spoke in tongues doesn't count because Paul said he wished they all spoke in tongues? Uhm. Ok. |
This is just your assumption of Paul's "direct implication." Excellent biblical scholars do not all share that this was Paul's "direct implication."
| Quote: | | In the passage in 1 Corinthians 12, we see Paul listing several gifts, (including tongues, prophecy, healing, etc.) and saying these gifts were the empowerment of the Holy Spirit. He then made the direct and explicit implication that one could possess one of those gifts, empowered by the Holy Spirit, and still not possess the gift of tongues. |
Why would Paul truthfully desire that they all speak with tongues if in fact tongues weren't really for everyone?
Every one of the gifts listed in 1 Cor. 12 except for tongues occurred prior to Pentecost, before the promise of the Father was outpoured. Yes the Spirit ministered through these various gifts, both before and after Pentecost, except for one--speaking in tongues.
So in the end, the "any 'manifestational' gift will do for initial evidence" just removes the very significance of the Outpouring in Acts 2 altogether. Jesus didn't need to send the promise of the Father so that they could have the gift of prophecy; that already existed among them even in the Old Testament. Likewise gifts of healing operated through the apostles in the Gospels. The unique and distinct gift signifying the baptism in the Spirit was speaking in tongues. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12817
1/30/11 1:17 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| If I go away I will send the Spirit, the Lord said |
Poimen |
Again, not to belabor the point, in my understanding the difference between OT gifting and NT gifting revolves around the role of Spirit baptism in the absence of Jesus. Through this medium God has provided a way for all believers to now enjoy the fullness of the Spirit. All may now prophesy. All may now speak with tongues. Because all may be baptized and filled with the Holy Ghost.
Consider, not one of those so empowered of Christ during his earthly ministry operated in any supernatural capacity between the time of his ascension and the outpouring of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost. Did they?
Why not? And why then did our Lord tell them to tarry in Jerusalem before beginning their efforts at continuing his ministry on a global scale?
What results did he foretell would accompany them after they tarried in Jerusalem till they were endued with power from on High?
Furthermore, our Lord has said all the law and the prophets prophesied until John (the Baptist). That indicates no more OT saints were called into the prophetic after the birth of John, no? If so, then the need for Spirit baptism to prophesy today is affirmed.
Besides that, prophesy is clearly listed as a gift of the Spirit under the NT. Therefore one may safely conclude if there is any valid prophesying going on among believers since the day of Pentecost it is being done as the Spirit gives the utterance or ability; the same as with tongues, miracles, healings, etc. That puts them on all equal footing in that respect.
Also, the manifestational gifts (as LC denotes them) are not (IMO) resident in the believer. Nor are they necessarily resident in any particular office of the church. This is also (IMO) a noted distinction to that of the OT economy.
Even if you're right, and tongues are the mark of this new dimension of the Spirit working among believers, how does that lead to the forgone conclusion that believers must speak in tongues upon reception of the Spirit baptism? And that before any other sign or gift can be manifested, else they don't have the Holy Ghost?
Is it not enough that they may speak in tongues at all? Must it be initial?
Why? And where does Scripture say so?
Furthermore, are we really ready to deny that one is indeed baptized with the Spirit who without question operates in other spiritual gifts (I've personally known men so used of the Lord), simply because they have not (yet) spoken in tongues?
If so, then by what means are they enabled to operate in the other gifts being without the baptism of the Spirit?
And if so enabled, why do they need the Spirit baptism at all, much less in order to speak in tongues?
That's a lot of questions, no doubt with intended answers. But they are also sincere questions as well. If nothing else, maybe they will help you to better see inside my thought processes on the subject, and I yours by your answers. And if you don't want to answer them, I'll understand. Though some sort of reply to the basic idea(s) would be nice.
P. S. All disagreements aside, I am enjoying the discussion guys. Both here and across the various threads. It is good to have "much disputing" among ourselves so long as it is in pursuit of truth. After all, if I'm wrong I want to know it, and adjust accordingly.
_________________
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 1/30/11 2:43 am; edited 7 times in total |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5657
1/30/11 2:05 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Quiet Wyatt |
| Lord Chancellor wrote: | | Quiet Wyatt wrote: | | Quote: | | So, Paul's direct implication that not everyone who possessed the manifestational gifts of the Holy Spirit spoke in tongues doesn't count because Paul said he wished they all spoke in tongues? Uhm. Ok. |
This is just your assumption of Paul's "direct implication." Excellent biblical scholars do not all share that this was Paul's "direct implication."
|
Lol. Ok. Name one and include a citation.
I want to see one scholar who says the answer to Paul's question was understood to be "yes." |
You misunderstood. I am saying that there are scholars who view Paul's question as referring to the ongoing ministry of speaking in tongues, just as the other gifts listed in that immediate context. So yes I agree the answer would be "No, Paul did not believe that everyone had the ongoing ministry gift of tongues to the congregation."
| Quote: | | And I never said tongues wasn't for everyone. Clearly, Paul thought it was. However, the fact that he directly implies you can have the empowering gifts of the Holy Spirit and still not have the gift of tongues is a pretty strong argument that the empowerment of the Spirit could be manifested (thus, that evidence we're looking for) and one still not speak in tongues. |
Again, that's just your assumption that "Do all speak with tongues" rules out initial evidence, and your assumption that all in the Corinthian church were already baptized in the Spirit. These things are not evident from the text. If Paul was instead saying, "Do all speak with tongues as an ongoing ministry in the church" (as Dr. Stanley Horton for instance affirms), then the reference does not negate initial evidence as is claimed. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12817
1/30/11 2:27 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Randy Johnson |
How about a contrarian question to help answer this one.
Why do so many people resist tongues as the initial evidence?
What are tongues, actually? And what purpose do they serve? And if they are from the Holy Spirit, why do people resist them?
_________________
Randy Johnson, Pastor
Ickesburg Church of God
85 Tuscarora Path
Ickesburg, Pennsylvania |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5431
2/2/11 5:55 am
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
