Some truth about speaking in tongues, the Holy Ghost, spiritual gifts and 1 Corinthians 14

[KelbyofGod]

Water seen the temporal without fail represents the eternal not seen . Never do the two become one. We do not know Christ after any rudiment of this corrupted creation. We walk by faith. The unseen eternal. What we are is not what we will be. What kind of flesh next time no one knows we do know it will not corrupt . We do know it will not be flesh and blood type. It could never enter the new.

Our heavenly Optiomologist gives us his 20/ 20 prescription.

2 Corinthians 4:18While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

Garee,

I may not always understand what you say, but I appreciate that you read and contribute.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

 

[KelbyofGod]

A sign and gift that confirms what? Unbelief? It cannot be a outward sign that confirm both belief and no faith. Which master, the things seen or that not seen, faith ?

Basically, I see 'signs' as something that is visible or observable. Like flashes of lightening and booms of thunder are 'signs' that a thunderstorm is near. Both prophesying and speaking in tongues are signs of something. The actions of prophesying and the action of speaking in tongues were both given (by God) to the believers.

If a person wants to know what the sign is for, it seems reasonable that first they'd have to observe the sign, then ask the meaning of it.

That would definitely be the case for each prophecy delivered to an individual or group. If people don't think that is the case now (because maybe prophecy doesn't operate in their church) they should still be able to consider what it would have been like in the OT when a prophet walked up and gave some prophecy to them. For example "Hey God....is it true that you are intending to destroy our city, or is this just some looney?"

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

 

[notuptome]

If by speaking in tongues you are intending to convey a message unto MAN, there is need of an interpreter. If you are speaking in tongues because you are intending to convey a message unto GOD, there is no need of an interpreter because God already understands what's being said.... (unless you'd like to consider God the interpreter...in which case, yes there's already an interpreter present).

It is important to consider to WHOM you are speaking in tongues.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

Circular reasoning. We do not speak to God in tongues but we speak to God as children to their Father.

It is important that we conduct our selves according to the word of God. The Holy Spirit ministers to us through the word of God. Teaching us to be righteous and conforming us to the image of our Savior.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I'm glad you asked these particular questions because a few weeks/months ago God brought this topic to my attention and sparked some questions in my heart concerning it. As I asked them, he explained the answers in a way that I'd formerly not understood. I tried a few times to summarize the questions & answers but it either got way too lengthy, or lacked necessary details. So I deleted that and decided just to give my simplest answers then do my best to explain the 'why' afterwards. Here goes:

Romans 6: 3-5 = Water
1 Corinthians 12:13 = Spirit
Galatians 3:27 = Spirit
Colossians 2:12 = Water

I'll even give my answer concerning a bonus, unasked verse:

Ephesians 4:5 = I didn't have a clue... until actually looking up the verse this time (first time after what I'd recently learned). Now I think I understand, but first let me start on the 'Why' I gave the answers to the first 4.

My questions to God revolved around the fact that I see two baptisms (1=Water 2=Spirit) and hadn't forgotten Ephesians 4:5. Also, I'd seen verses that mention a 'baptism' (like those you asked about) which don't specify which baptism they are talking about. (Some mention baptism in regards to death, some in regards to life.) Then I'd clearly remember Ephesians 4:5 and considered that some believe there is only one baptism (that matters)...Spirit baptism (because that's what Jesus does personally). I'm certainly not going to downplay the importance of Spirit baptism. And I likewise don't want to discount water baptism because it, too, was set up by God. I was unable to reconcile all these details on my own. So eventually I ASKED. lol ( James 4:2 "...you have not because you ask not.")

In simplest terms. There are two distinct (and different) types of baptism because there are two distinct (and different) things to be accomplished. I'll state the need several ways, numbering each in #1, #2 form:

1. There is a need to be joined into Jesus' death.
2. There is a need to be joined into Jesus' life.

1. There is a need to put off the old man.
2. There is a need to put on the new man.

1. There is a need to be born of water.
2. There is a need to be born of the spirit.

1. There is a need to wash away our sins.
2. There is a need to receive the Holy Ghost.

So, what God showed me when I asked him to reconcile these facts was this:

There is a baptism that accomplishes the #1 items (Water baptism)
There is a baptism that accomplishes the #2 items (Spirit baptism)

So if you review the list of verses you gave me, it's easier to see which ones are describing a baptism dealing with Death, as compared to those describing a baptism dealing with Life.

Once you have some time to start digesting this concept, feel free to ask more about Ephesians 4. But do take some time to consider the reality of what is posted here. (Ephesians 4 actually explains this concept even further, but one of my mistakes was that I was internally quoting verse 5 as if it was a stand-alone concept instead of part of a sentence.) I prefer not to jump to the single, harder-to-explain instance before establishing the validity (or at least potential validity) of the answer to the multiple easier-to-explain instances.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

Ok, Here is where I think the interpretors made a huge mistake by not interpreting a word and just transliterating it.

I asked this for a reason to see where you stood. And those verses by themselves to try to make a point.

In all of those verses (except Col 2) we see that we are told we were baptised into actual things, If the interpretors would have interpreted the word, I doubt we would have this discussion, because the word would be quite clear on what was being said.

The word baptize is actually an action word. One is doing something to an object, by using another object. Or in another object (imagine the term being baptised into water. Where the object A is being baptized into another object which is water.)

You see, 3 of the verses I gave are in this exact format
In romans 6 we have the act of each of us being baptised, or placed into christ himself, and also the death and burial of CHrist

In Gal 3, We have an act of each of us being baptised, or placed into CHrist

And in 1 cor 12 we have an act of each of us being baptised into one body (that body being the body of Christ)

In 1 cor 10, we have an example of the children of israel being baptized, or placed into union with Moses.

In col 2. It does not name a specific object that we were baptised in. But context gives us a clue. Paul informs us that we all have been spiritually circumcised by the hands of God. Through baptism. Now to say this is baptism in water done by the hands of man would be kind of making paul contradict himself would it not? Of course, This is the baptism which is performed by God himself.

In a few of these passages it also tells is who is doing the baptising.. namly by the spirit (holy spirit)

In doing this, I am just taking the word literally for what it means, Not trying to add some word. Imagine if romans 6 meant baptism in water (as I used to believe) lets see how that would look like by insirting “baptise in water” in the text.

“For do you not know that you were “baptised in water” in christ jesus were “baptised in water” into his death.“

See how odd this sounds, it does not make any sense whatsoever, So I believe we should just interpret the word as an action word. With Jesus and his death being the subject by which we are or were baptised into’

As for eph 5. I assume you mean “washing of water by the word” and this is what your speaking of? Jesus mentioned this to the disciples when he washed their feet. He said they were ALREADY completely CLEAN by the word in which was spoken to them. As jesus als said in John 6, it is the spirit who gives life, the words he speaks (by which we are made clean) are spirit and life. This if it is baptism at all. Would be the washing or baptism of the spirit

John 3. Water and spirit. Nicodemus would not even know of christian baptis at this time, the fact jesus did not mention it if it was so important leads me to believ that baptism is not mentioned here.

So we have to possibilities. Water equals the HS (see Rom 4, the rivers of living water, which Jesus said was the HS)

Of most likely physical birth (that which is born of flesh is flesh)

Both are more likely and fit much better in context than some baptism which jesus did not even mention.


Anyway, I will let you resapond, then move on.

 

[KelbyofGod]

As a response to this earlier post, I would like to point out a consequence of the statement regarding your comfort level. Then I'll address the assumption you followed it with, In which you partly explain the reason for your discomfort. I separated it

In response to speaking in tongues as an attribute of the outpouring of the Holy Ghost, you'd said this:

Those are three examples.

1. In acts 2. It was done as a sign to Isreal (prophesied in the OT I believe)
2. In acts 10, It was a sign to peter who still struggled to believe the gentiles could get this spirit also (As he said later, who was he that he could withstand God)
3. In acts 19, It again could just be a sign

To use these examples to make a doctrine, I am not comfortable with that.

The consequence is this:
If we disregard the only Bible-given examples of people receiving the baptism of the Holy Ghost (with attributes actually listed) as irrelevant or non-applicable, then doesn't that mean we're basing our doctrine on examples of our own choosing, rather than God's?

Personally, I think disregarding the examples God selected is much more dangerous than using them.

Otherwise everyone who ever came to christ would immediately start prophesying and speaking in tongues, like these people are, this is just not so.

If I may be so bold as to say it bluntly... this is an incorrect assumption of what would happen today, because it's an inaccurate summary of what happened then. In only 1 case (Acts 10) did it happen without delay... and you state that using a single event is NOT a good foundation upon which to build a solid doctrine. In all the remaining cases, the individuals experienced some sort of delay, the end of which is clearly evident. In all cases there is a clear moment or event during which the Holy Ghost is poured out and received, and some attribute is listed as being observable to the onlookers. And in 3 out of 4 cases, that identifying attribute is clearly described.

I say that attribute is when the individuals begin speaking in tongues. This explanation passes through all 4 biblical examples intact....even if you plug it in the Acts 8 account where the attribute was not specifically stated.

And I get it that this is NOT what most churches teach. And I would also say that this is why most churches feel the need to discount or disregard the examples God gave us.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

 

[TLC209]

Ok, Here is where I think the interpretors made a huge mistake by not interpreting a word and just transliterating it.

I asked this for a reason to see where you stood. And those verses by themselves to try to make a point.

In all of those verses (except Col 2) we see that we are told we were baptised into actual things, If the interpretors would have interpreted the word, I doubt we would have this discussion, because the word would be quite clear on what was being said.

The word baptize is actually an action word. One is doing something to an object, by using another object. Or in another object (imagine the term being baptised into water. Where the object A is being baptized into another object which is water.)

You see, 3 of the verses I gave are in this exact format
In romans 6 we have the act of each of us being baptised, or placed into christ himself, and also the death and burial of CHrist

In Gal 3, We have an act of each of us being baptised, or placed into CHrist

And in 1 cor 12 we have an act of each of us being baptised into one body (that body being the body of Christ)

In 1 cor 10, we have an example of the children of israel being baptized, or placed into union with Moses.

In col 2. It does not name a specific object that we were baptised in. But context gives us a clue. Paul informs us that we all have been spiritually circumcised by the hands of God. Through baptism. Now to say this is baptism in water done by the hands of man would be kind of making paul contradict himself would it not? Of course, This is the baptism which is performed by God himself.

In a few of these passages it also tells is who is doing the baptising.. namly by the spirit (holy spirit)

In doing this, I am just taking the word literally for what it means, Not trying to add some word. Imagine if romans 6 meant baptism in water (as I used to believe) lets see how that would look like by insirting “baptise in water” in the text.

“For do you not know that you were “baptised in water” in christ jesus were “baptised in water” into his death.“

See how odd this sounds, it does not make any sense whatsoever, So I believe we should just interpret the word as an action word. With Jesus and his death being the subject by which we are or were baptised into’

As for eph 5. I assume you mean “washing of water by the word” and this is what your speaking of? Jesus mentioned this to the disciples when he washed their feet. He said they were ALREADY completely CLEAN by the word in which was spoken to them. As jesus als said in John 6, it is the spirit who gives life, the words he speaks (by which we are made clean) are spirit and life. This if it is baptism at all. Would be the washing or baptism of the spirit

John 3. Water and spirit. Nicodemus would not even know of christian baptis at this time, the fact jesus did not mention it if it was so important leads me to believ that baptism is not mentioned here.

So we have to possibilities. Water equals the HS (see Rom 4, the rivers of living water, which Jesus said was the HS)

Of most likely physical birth (that which is born of flesh is flesh)

Both are more likely and fit much better in context than some baptism which jesus did not even mention.


Anyway, I will let you resapond, then move on.

So John 3 when Jesus talks about water and Spirit isnt He talking about water baptism and Holy Spirit baptism?

I know some people interpret that as the being born of water means to them the birth but I wouldnt consider that because He is answering the question about being born Again. A second time. So we cant go back into our mothers womb like Nicodemus had mentioned. It seemed absurd. John the baptist when he baptized Jesus asked him why he was baptizing Jesus. He saif Jesus I must be baptized of you. So it was clear they knew a Spiritual baptizm was going to take place and Jesus would be the one to baptize us.

Water baptizm = remission of sins/ of the flesh kind of rebirth.
And Spiritual baptizm of the Holy Spirit the fire kind that fills and creates new. New creatures. The fullfillment of a born again in Christ.

Thats what I understand from John 3.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

As a response to this earlier post, I would like to point out a consequence of the statement regarding your comfort level. Then I'll address the assumption you followed it with, In which you partly explain the reason for your discomfort. I separated it

In response to speaking in tongues as an attribute of the outpouring of the Holy Ghost, you'd said this: The consequence is this:
If we disregard the only Bible-given examples of people receiving the baptism of the Holy Ghost (with attributes actually listed) as irrelevant or non-applicable, then doesn't that mean we're basing our doctrine on examples of our own choosing, rather than God's?

Personally, I think disregarding the examples God selected is much more dangerous than using them.
If I may be so bold as to say it bluntly... this is an incorrect assumption of what would happen today, because it's an inaccurate summary of what happened then. In only 1 case (Acts 10) did it happen without delay... and you state that using a single event is NOT a good foundation upon which to build a solid doctrine. In all the remaining cases, the individuals experienced some sort of delay, the end of which is clearly evident. In all cases there is a clear moment or event during which the Holy Ghost is poured out and received, and some attribute is listed as being observable to the onlookers. And in 3 out of 4 cases, that identifying attribute is clearly described.

I say that attribute is when the individuals begin speaking in tongues. This explanation passes through all 4 biblical examples intact....even if you plug it in the Acts 8 account where the attribute was not specifically stated.

And I get it that this is NOT what most churches teach. And I would also say that this is why most churches feel the need to discount or disregard the examples God gave us.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

How can one be saved if they have not yet been washed by the Holy Spirit and anointed by him?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

So John 3 when Jesus talks about water and Spirit isnt He talking about water baptism and Holy Spirit baptism?

No he is explaining what he means about being born again. Nothing more nothing less. The word baptize is. It in the text. If Jesus meant him to understand baptism he would have told him believe and be baptized

I know some people interpret that as the being born of water means to them the birth but I wouldnt consider that because He is answering the question about being born Again. A second time. So we cant go back into our mothers womb like Nicodemus had mentioned. It seemed absurd. John the baptist when he baptized Jesus asked him why he was baptizing Jesus. He saif Jesus I must be baptized of you. So it was clear they knew a Spiritual baptizm was going to take place and Jesus would be the one to baptize us.

Water baptizm = remission of sins/ of the flesh kind of rebirth.
And Spiritual baptizm of the Holy Spirit the fire kind that fills and creates new. New creatures. The fullfillment of a born again in Christ.

Thats what I understand from John 3.

we are washed by water by the word not by some man immersing is in the spirit as Paul said to Titus. We are saved not by our works of righteousness (water baptism is a work of righteousness) but by gods mercy by the WASHING and renewal of the spirit

Water baptism gets us wet. Holy Spirit baptism makes us spiritual clean

The circumcision done without handsagain john 3 is Jesus explaining we have two births. One physical (flesh or water) and one spiritual (spirihow are we born again. John 3:16. Again if water was baptism Jesus would have said baptism when he told nicodus how to be before again he did not he said believe that was it.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

No he is explaining what he means about being born again. Nothing more nothing less. The word baptize is. It in the text. If Jesus meant him to understand baptism he would have told him believe and be baptized


we are washed by water by the word not by some man immersing is in the spirit as Paul said to Titus. We are saved not by our works of righteousness (water baptism is a work of righteousness) but by gods mercy by the WASHING and renewal of the spirit

Water baptism gets us wet. Holy Spirit baptism makes us spiritual clean

The circumcision done without handsagain john 3 is Jesus explaining we have two births. One physical (flesh or water) and one spiritual (spirihow are we born again. John 3:16. Again if water was baptism Jesus would have said baptism when he told nicodus how to be before again he did not he said believe that was it.

That should say not by some man immersing ya in water

 

[KelbyofGod]

Ok, Here is where I think the interpretors made a huge mistake by not interpreting a word and just transliterating it.

I asked this for a reason to see where you stood. And those verses by themselves to try to make a point.

In all of those verses (except Col 2) we see that we are told we were baptised into actual things, If the interpretors would have interpreted the word, I doubt we would have this discussion, because the word would be quite clear on what was being said.

The word baptize is actually an action word. One is doing something to an object, by using another object. Or in another object (imagine the term being baptised into water. Where the object A is being baptized into another object which is water.)

You see, 3 of the verses I gave are in this exact format
In romans 6 we have the act of each of us being baptised, or placed into christ himself, and also the death and burial of CHrist

In Gal 3, We have an act of each of us being baptised, or placed into CHrist

And in 1 cor 12 we have an act of each of us being baptised into one body (that body being the body of Christ)

In 1 cor 10, we have an example of the children of israel being baptized, or placed into union with Moses.

In col 2. It does not name a specific object that we were baptised in. But context gives us a clue. Paul informs us that we all have been spiritually circumcised by the hands of God. Through baptism. Now to say this is baptism in water done by the hands of man would be kind of making paul contradict himself would it not? Of course, This is the baptism which is performed by God himself.

In a few of these passages it also tells is who is doing the baptising.. namly by the spirit (holy spirit)

In doing this, I am just taking the word literally for what it means, Not trying to add some word. Imagine if romans 6 meant baptism in water (as I used to believe) lets see how that would look like by insirting “baptise in water” in the text.

“For do you not know that you were “baptised in water” in christ jesus were “baptised in water” into his death.“

See how odd this sounds, it does not make any sense whatsoever, So I believe we should just interpret the word as an action word. With Jesus and his death being the subject by which we are or were baptised into’

As for eph 5. I assume you mean “washing of water by the word” and this is what your speaking of? Jesus mentioned this to the disciples when he washed their feet. He said they were ALREADY completely CLEAN by the word in which was spoken to them. As jesus als said in John 6, it is the spirit who gives life, the words he speaks (by which we are made clean) are spirit and life. This if it is baptism at all. Would be the washing or baptism of the spirit

John 3. Water and spirit. Nicodemus would not even know of christian baptis at this time, the fact jesus did not mention it if it was so important leads me to believ that baptism is not mentioned here.

So we have to possibilities. Water equals the HS (see Rom 4, the rivers of living water, which Jesus said was the HS)

Of most likely physical birth (that which is born of flesh is flesh)

Both are more likely and fit much better in context than some baptism which jesus did not even mention.


Anyway, I will let you resapond, then move on.

Although I see your point about baptize as an action word , I don't actually have a problem with the wording "baptized in water" in the appropriate verses. Same as I wouldn't have a problem using "baptized in the Spirit" in the others. However, I will consider more on it from your point of view.

This is how I would paraphrase the Romans 6 description (total layman-speak):

Baptism in water is our symbolic version of Jesus' baptism in death. Jesus had a burden of our sins on him prior to his death. He submitted (by obedience and faith ) to be placed fully down into death, then came up out of death never to return to it. When he came up out of death he no longer had the burden of our sins on him. Baptism in water is our way to link up with that cleansing. He did it for real, we do it symbolically (for lack of better wording). We start off with sins. We allow ourselves to be placed fully down into the water (by obedience and faith) and when we come up, the attachment to sin has been broken and we come up clean, leaving those sins behind. If we submit to that symbolic kind of baptism, we are attached to the real work that he did.

Again, that's just my greatly paraphrased description.

 

[TLC209]

That should say not by some man immersing ya in water

I still do not agree. That chapter after He tells Nicodemus John is baptizing in water so its clear they go together. Nicodemus was not given Spiritual insight. It was not for him to recieve. He even tells him that he doesnt believe so why should he tell him things concerning heavenly things.

So no He didnt share with Him what it was. But its clear to be born again is done with water and Spirit. We cannot exclude water baptism. For that same reason Jesus fullfilled that duty by being immersed Himself.

Do you really think Jesus needed to be baptized in water? Even John was puzzled. Its clear that Jesus was being obedient to God. Jesus need not get remission for sins Jesus was sinless. Think of that and see if you can get a clear definitive reason for Jesus to be baptized in water other than obeying Gods commands.

All love brother. We need to sharpen eachother and stand firm in our beliefs and be clear in our beliefs. Im open to truth. God bless you

 

[Jordan77]

I have been reading through some of the posts on here. I have my own opinion on tongues and the baptism of the Holy Spirit. But anyways may the Lord guide and lead each and everyone of you into the Truth. Tongues does not mean you are saved and it is not a requirement for anything.

 

[KelbyofGod]

How can one be saved if they have not yet been washed by the Holy Spirit and anointed by him?

One answer to your question is to reply "Do you feel the need to label Peter as 'unsaved' prior to the outpouring on the day of Pentecost?" Or was he simply "saved"(kept, protected, delivered) all the way to the day of Pentecost when Jesus gave him the next necessary thing?

"Saved" or "unsaved" are labels some churches like to pin on people. I feel no need to label someone that way.

1. A person either has the Holy Ghost, or they don't.
2. A person either has been water baptized (dunked in water in Jesus name for remission of sins), or they haven't.
3. A person either believes, or doesn't.
4. A person either is in God's will, or they aren't.
5. A person either is lying, or they aren't.
6. Etc, etc.

As I read Acts 8 (or 2, 10, or 19) as it describes the status of each person/group, I can clearly see the status of each of those first 3 items...without feeling the need to label them as "saved" or "unsaved" at any point. And I don't feel conflicted about it.

For someone who feels the need to apply the label "Saved" ... Well, that person may feel conflicted because they now have to choose a point at which to apply the label of "saved" in a way that remains consistent with all the beliefs they've attached to that label. Go ahead and try it with Acts 8:12-17 and tell me at which point you would call them "saved".

 

[Deade]

No, not when either one is praying alone, or all together praying. See EG, we who do, are not confused. But, confusion is when those who don't are trying to understand Spirit by natural understanding. And we have Hollywood giving impressions of the supernatural as all demonic. Plus, the demonic having all power.

Fear is never faith.

There are two uses of tongues EG. What we call the gift of tongues is equal to prophecy in being a message to the individual fellowship from the Lord. But, because it needs to be interpreted or the fellowship not knowing what is said, it's the lesser in comparison to the gift of prophecy.

What I was talking about is individual prayer closet praying, or corporately. Then God prays His perfect will through us which we might not know or see, and pray amiss in our own understanding, That's the benefit.

Example, God is calling my son to step out in ministry. Me as His mother, am fearful of what might happen. He has a good job, etc. So I pray Lord don't let this happen, I need him at home, the cannibals might eat him...😘 Ect... understand? Probably a bad answer or example, but this is me. 🙂 God does move according to our faith. So we need to be careful with our prayers.

I do know of when a friend of mine finding out her husband was cheating, took a gun and was on the way to the woman's house to shoot her. A group of women were praying together in church, and saw in a vision what was being planned and got there before she arrived. Another advantage. Can this happen in a church without tongues? Of course. If one has been given the prophetic of visions and dreams interpretation. Another gifting of an office.

You have to accept what you may of been given for it to be profitable.

Another misunderstanding is prophecy. This is giving a message in the power of Holy Spirit at the moment of infilling. Smith Wigglesworth never made a sermon before a meeting. He would wait for the anointing, same as Kathryn Kulhman, and those giants of faith before us.

It's not a prepared sermon as often is given in churches.. But! One can hear before the service and write it down. These are the ways Holy Spirit moves.

I was raised in a Church of God, which teaches blood bought children of God, and sanctified living. They have one thing right, but the second is works. Which you and Dcon are protesting in the not by works thread.

You and I differ only on what the works are. In that thread if I would bring in what I know is the works of God, for Jesus plainly stated what they are, it would just confuse the issue of faith alone in the blood sacrifice of the Lord.

Only believing what Jesus sent back to earth so we could do the same works He did, is how the gifts will be manifested to the whole body. And I know this is His will. For how can He walk in a disjointed body?

Best sermon I ever heard by Lynn Hiles. All together we are lovely. And powerful.

Good explanation stones. I was trying for full understanding while I was praying in tongues, because Oral Roberts taught that it was possible. I was getting a few things when God stopped me. He then told me that I do not want to know every little detail about what the Spirit prays. He said the prayer might be about an auto accident I will have next week. If the Spirit revealed that to me, I would do nothing but worry about it. What is worry? A lack of faith.

Sometimes when praying our flesh pops up and started repeating words or we ask for things that are not expedient for our spiritual growth. When that happens, I just let the Spirit take over and not try to figure it all out. That is what Paul meant by "my understanding is unfruitful" (1 Cor. 14:14).

 

[Deade]

eternally-gratefull said:

Otherwise everyone who ever came to christ would immediately start prophesying and speaking in tongues, like these people are, this is just not so.

If I may be so bold as to say it bluntly... this is an incorrect assumption of what would happen today, because it's an inaccurate summary of what happened then. In only 1 case (Acts 10) did it happen without delay... and you state that using a single event is NOT a good foundation upon which to build a solid doctrine. In all the remaining cases, the individuals experienced some sort of delay, the end of which is clearly evident. In all cases there is a clear moment or event during which the Holy Ghost is poured out and received, and some attribute is listed as being observable to the onlookers. And in 3 out of 4 cases, that identifying attribute is clearly described.

Let's face it Kelby, you are not going to convince these naysayers that prophetic tongues are different than prayer tongues. I have never participated in prophetic tongues (talking or interpreting) but I have witnessed them. I know some people doubt they happen, maybe even some of the witnesses. That is why we have this scripture:

1 Thess. 5:20 "Despise not prophesyings." I guess there was a tendency to question them, while they were happening. I would be afraid to. I mean, think about it. If it was false it would be none of my business anyway. But if it wasn't false and we spoke against it, we might be struck by lightening.

 

[KelbyofGod]

Good explanation stones. I was trying for full understanding while I was praying in tongues, because Oral Roberts taught that it was possible. I was getting a few things when God stopped me. He then told me that I do not want to know every little detail about what the Spirit prays. He said the prayer might be about an auto accident I will have next week. If the Spirit revealed that to me, I would do nothing but worry about it. What is worry? A lack of faith.

Sometimes when praying our flesh pops up and started repeating words or we ask for things that are not expedient for our spiritual growth. When that happens, I just let the Spirit take over and not try to figure it all out. That is what Paul meant by "my understanding is unfruitful" (1 Cor. 14:14).

Deade,

Yep, It's nice to know that we can pray in the spirit (tongues) and let God decide what to ask without us needing to carry the burden of knowing what it is all about.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

 

[KelbyofGod]

Let's face it Kelby, you are not going to convince these naysayers that prophetic tongues are different than prayer tongues. I have never participated in prophetic tongues (talking or interpreting) but I have witnessed them. I know some people doubt they happen, maybe even some of the witnesses. That is why we have this scripture:

1 Thess. 5:20 "Despise not prophesyings." I guess there was a tendency to question them, while they were happening. I would be afraid to. I mean, think about it. If it was false it would be none of my business anyway. But if it wasn't false and we spoke against it, we might be struck by lightening.

EternallyGrateful and I were discussing rather than outright arguing. We understand that we still may not agree when we end the discussion, and I think we're both OK with that.

As for one person speaking in tongues and another person receiving the message because the tongues speaker (at some point) was speaking the hearer's native language...I've not personally witnessed that happening, yet. I have seen it where a message was given in tongues then the interpretation came in prophecy.

There's a lot to question when it comes to spiritual gifts. My opinion is that we are supposed to test/try/question/prove things rather than just take it or leave it based on our own understanding. Sometimes the truth isn't obvious and we have to seek God until he reveals what is really going on. Consider the damsel following Paul and saying, "These men are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation." in Acts 16:17 KJV. She did that for quite some time before Paul realized what was going on and rebuked the ungodly spirit out of her.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

BTW, thanks for the 'likes'. It's nice to receive encouragement on occasion.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Although I see your point about baptize as an action word , I don't actually have a problem with the wording "baptized in water" in the appropriate verses. Same as I wouldn't have a problem using "baptized in the Spirit" in the others. However, I will consider more on it from your point of view.

This is how I would paraphrase the Romans 6 description (total layman-speak):

Baptism in water is our symbolic version of Jesus' baptism in death. Jesus had a burden of our sins on him prior to his death. He submitted (by obedience and faith ) to be placed fully down into death, then came up out of death never to return to it. When he came up out of death he no longer had the burden of our sins on him. Baptism in water is our way to link up with that cleansing. He did it for real, we do it symbolically (for lack of better wording). We start off with sins. We allow ourselves to be placed fully down into the water (by obedience and faith) and when we come up, the attachment to sin has been broken and we come up clean, leaving those sins behind. If we submit to that symbolic kind of baptism, we are attached to the real work that he did.

Again, that's just my greatly paraphrased description.

This is the way I used to see it also. Because it is what I was taught growing up. It just does nto make any since anymore really.

If it says Baptized INTO Christ. Why is not Christ (not water) Same with when it says we were baptized into his death, Again, Christ and death being the subject we are baptized into. Again, I used the example given of the people of Israel baptized INTO paul as one of the things which convinced me it should be this way.

While I agree, Baptize in water is symbolic of what God spiritually does to us at the moment of salvation (the baptism of the spirit or the spiritual circumcision done by the hand of God) It is also a place for people to give an open testimony (which is what our church does. Many friends and neighbors have come to christ because of our baptisms, we have an actual party where we all go out back, Have a dinner and celebrate the birth of our new brothers and sisters, and share with the world the things that brought them to christ.)

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I still do not agree. That chapter after He tells Nicodemus John is baptizing in water so its clear they go together. Nicodemus was not given Spiritual insight. It was not for him to recieve. He even tells him that he doesnt believe so why should he tell him things concerning heavenly things.

So no He didnt share with Him what it was. But its clear to be born again is done with water and Spirit. We cannot exclude water baptism. For that same reason Jesus fullfilled that duty by being immersed Himself.

Do you really think Jesus needed to be baptized in water? Even John was puzzled. Its clear that Jesus was being obedient to God. Jesus need not get remission for sins Jesus was sinless. Think of that and see if you can get a clear definitive reason for Jesus to be baptized in water other than obeying Gods commands.

All love brother. We need to sharpen eachother and stand firm in our beliefs and be clear in our beliefs. Im open to truth. God bless you

I can not agree,

Jesus told nicodemous, He must be born again

Nicodemus asks how that is possible Can he go back into his mothers wormb

Jesus explains what he means (water-spirit/flesh-spirit) explaining the difference between being born in the flesh and being born in the spirit. That which is flesh is flesh. But to become spiritually alive, you must be born of the spirit.


Nicodemus asks, How can these things be.

Jesus then tells him HOW to be born again. He also tells him he should already know about those things (your reasoning that he could not understand is in error. Jesus says otherwise)

John 3: 10 Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things? 11 Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our witness. 12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13 No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man [b]who is in heaven. 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up,15 that whoever believes in Him should [c]not perish but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

We see clearly here What being born again is and how it is accomplished.

1. As moses lifted up serpant, Jesus will be lifted up
2. Whoever looked on the serpent in faith was saved. So whoever looks at and BELIEVES in Jesus, will be saved
3. Jesus uses the term Everlasting or eternal life. This signifies that once a person believes, they have been BORN AGAIN, and this life Jesus calls eternal

Once again, IF BAPTiSM was the context of the passage, Jesus would have explained to nicodemus that after jesus is lifted up. Whoever believes AND IS BAPTIZED will be granted or given eternal. Life (born again) he does not, because baptism is NOT in context.

 

[garee]

Basically, I see 'signs' as something that is visible or observable. Like flashes of lightening and booms of thunder are 'signs' that a thunderstorm is near. Both prophesying and speaking in tongues are signs of something. The actions of prophesying and the action of speaking in tongues were both given (by God) to the believers.

If a person wants to know what the sign is for, it seems reasonable that first they'd have to observe the sign, then ask the meaning of it.

That would definitely be the case for each prophecy delivered to an individual or group. If people don't think that is the case now (because maybe prophecy doesn't operate in their church) they should still be able to consider what it would have been like in the OT when a prophet walked up and gave some prophecy to them. For example "Heey God....is it true that you are intending to destroy our city, or is this just some looney?"

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

That is one way signs are used as a prewarning. Another way signs are used is to represent those who rebel against prophecy as a sign against them many time throughout the bible God uses sign to point to those who gave no faith coming from the scriptures..

This is the case with tongues it not a sign in respect to those who believe God but a sign of unbelief (no faith) coming from the scriptures as those who rebel against God. The "kind" of sign must be determined or a person could be performing something some thing that makes the whole doctrine without effect.