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

But tongues are a gift none the less. You do not even know what it means when it says in 1cor 12:31
" But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way."
it means to desire the gift that will be the most effective to do what the Lord has called one to do. You use the word love yet you don't even know why God heals today do you? Love is what the gifts are to be used in Jesus healed because HE loved people. You fail so badly not seeing this. That is because you are biased and prideful. EVERYTHING the HOLY Spirit Does is in LOVE!!!!

you have no proof of that statement and you know it. the context of 1cor 13:8 does not say they have ceased nor does it say that when the Bible has completed the gifts of the Holy Spirit will cease. Your error in your understanding and pridefully unwilling to see it

but you are deceived how did that happen?

it seems that way since it says that. I think that Peter was a believer or converted, after Jesus' resurrection. If not, then people who state you have to speak in tongues would be correct since that is what happened in the account in Acts of the day of Pentecost

however, viewing what then becomes the historical account, it seems that salvation is separate from being filled with the Holy Spirit and or receiving a spiritual gift, which is what many here have been trying to point out

the Bible indicates we are sealed by the Holy Spirit, I Corinthians 1:22, at conversion but this confusion with baptism is not correct and it has become a confusing issue for some apparently

we are only saved through the blood of Christ and Jesus had not shed His blood for us when He made that statement to Peter

I would just like to clarify, if possible, that no baptism saves you. we should be water baptized and spirit baptized is another experience, like water baptism, is also after conversion

so this if you were not baptized in the Spirit when you were saved then you are not saved is just without merit. it's like saying well if you are not water baptized too, then you are not saved

these would be things that people are adding to the simplicity that is in Christ

I think what you point out, identifies clearly that only Jesus saves, through His blood and nothing else

it doesn't? if I experience exactly what they wrote about in scripture somehow my experience is not valid?

do you apply that to belief in Christ as well? People were saved by believing in Christ but today that is just supposition?

that is what you are saying in effect. that is the logical conclusion to your position on experience

the truth here, is that you and those who take the position that you have pushed, are the ones that are trying to add to scripture by stating things scripture does not say

I think you need to read my original post concerning this. What I said was that they fellow claimed his position was scriptural but never sighted scripture. He only spoke of his personal experience. His personal experience and his personal words are not scripture.

LOL! what is your experience?

can we verify it in scripture? is every day of your life validated in scripture?

if not, why should we believe a word you say

James 3:13-18
Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom. 14But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth. 15This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish. 16For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work. 17But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. 18And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.

nope. no one was 'saved' until Jesus shed His blood

the Bible says there is no remission of sins without the shedding of blood

do we need to redact that and put your words instead?

I'm sitting on the toilet pooping right now as I type, but there is nothing in scripture about it and I'm not claiming that it is scriptural.
The man made a claim that his experience was scriptural but didn't back it with scripture

too much info. not needed. Please don't do that again

You have the ability and authority to remove the post if you so choose. It's been more than the allotted 5 minutes for me.

The entire book of Acts reveals the will of God providing personal experience as that work which is attributed to the faith of Christ. The mutual faith that work in and with the believers..to both will and perform the good purpose in which God sent it out..

Interestingly following that portion of scripture that speaks of our imputed righteousness (Philippians 2: 13) The Holy Spirit says; Do all things without murmurings and disputings: Its like he was saying ; now behave yourself when you get around your brothers and sisters . No playing "who is the greatest" like the apostles early in their ministry.

That new faith would appear to be the witness that we have received the Spirit of adoption and are no longer Fatherless orphans and widows but have become members of His bride, the church.. A witness a desire to do the will of our father.

I would think that witness is the (un seen)confirming sign

Romans 8:15-16 King James Version (KJV) For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

The Bible does not speak of "sign gifts" as that which confirms a person is getting filled with something to confirm something .That it would seem would be like someone has received a reward and a angel has rung a bell . Hollywood stuff.

What do we have that we have not freely received to begin with. And if we have freely received it why in a sense we would look for bells and whistles. Not that we cannot have traditions that honor God . But in some cases those traditions can make the word of God without effect. Like the tongues doctrine. The scriptures reveals the sign reveals un belief. A tradition of men says it confirms faith.
The same sign cannot confirm opposites?

The gold star is the faith that keeps working in us till the end. God promises us he will not forget the good works we offer towards His name

I have many personal experiences some ok other nothing to write home about. Reading the Bible is a personal experience. Going to church is a personal experience . Having thoughts toward God is a personal experience.

Our living hope is our new incorruptible body not personal experience. .I would think it is our goal of our new faith.

The bible is not a book of personal philosophical experiences. Its a book based on laws. Isaiah 28 is still the foundation of the law that pertains to a certain manner of prophecy of God bringing new revelations called tongues. The Gospel is not; "have you ever been experienced".

Again Jesus had a experience after 40 days in the wilderness but did not give into his worldly desire temptation of the father of lies. he did the will of our unseen father in heaven and declared the one source of Christian faith, as it is written.

Jesus speaking from experience taught against the idea of sign gifts. as in do not go beyond that which is written. Walk by faith the unseen eternal .and not after the things seen the temporal

Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God. Colossians 2:18-19

There is no limbo in between. Either the sign is required to confirm one believes or the sign confirms unbelief.

While the phrase, "praying in tongues" (or closely similar) does not appear, it is reasonable to conclude that is what Paul was referring to in 1 Corinthians 14:14-15, and what Jude meant in v. 20.

Wolfwint,
Please tell me how they knew in Acts 10 that the Gentiles had received the Holy Ghost.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

Perhaps I should have also included this verse in which Peter is using the observable fact (witness) that the Gentiles received the SAME Holy Ghost (which came with tongues, which was the PROOF that they'd received the Holy Ghost) as a demonstration that yes, indeed the apostles considered and taught it that way.

Acts 15:8 KJV
"And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;" <--Remember, the Spirit ITSELF bears witness (is evidence)


Love in Jesus,
Kelby

There's this verse also...

2 Corinthians 11:4 KJV
"For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him."

That's a verse where the Apostle who said " I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:" was talking to people whom he had just been teaching how and when to use tongues(and when not to)... was warning them NOT to fall for a change in gospel, change in Jesus, or change in SPIRIT than what has been poured out so far.

The spirit so far had been arriving with speaking in tongues.

And it can't even be claimed that "tongues had ceased because the bible was finished" because 2 Corinthians is NOT the end of the bible.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

And yes, the gospel that Paul was teaching definitely included tongues (or at least the Spirit that arrived because of his preaching included tongues) because how Paul preached is recorded clearly in Acts 19 and is in perfect alignment (both in word and outcome) with what Peter preached in Acts 2 and 10. All resulting in tongues-speaking believers.

In Jesus name,
Kelby

Look Kelby this is not the point. You interprete acts 10 as proof that every christian is speaking in tongues by getting the Holy Spirit and create a teaching from that event.
I interprete the text as it is written. An proof that the Holy Spirit is as well given the gentiles as it was given to the jews. A thing which was unthinkable till this moment for the jews. And Peter had a lot of problems this to believe, even latér when he visited Paul in galatia.

It is for that indeed.

It just didn't stop being proof.