Born Again Speaking in Tongues

[7seasrekeyed]

Exactly Sister!!! Concrete faith, Immotile, discerning and not gullible.

well that's interesting

FYI, I DO speak in tongues

and pray too

God is so good!

 

[CS1]

Please provide scripture that shows water baptism administered another way.


The scriptures I provided show that the people followed the instructions given by Peter during Pentecost: they repented, they got water baptized in Jesus name for the remission of their sin and received the gift of the Holy Ghost.

And yes, regardless of the sequence in which these requirements were done, the fact is they were done. Yes all were saved due to their obedience.

LOl OK How about this

I would say trustworthy verification of ANY miracles is sketchy at best.

But let's say for instance that Wigglesworth punching a cancer victim in the stomach or beating a dead person back to life, actually DID happen. We are told that our enemy can perform lying wonders and signs designed to deceive.

We are also told to test the spirits because not all are from God.

So how do we to discern the frauds, the lying wonders and the true, Blessed real thing from the Lord? Certainly not merely by the results or an experience.

We do it by hearing God through His Word. There is not a SINGLE recorded incident ANYWHERE in Scripture that I am aware of where violence is used to heal a person. Violence is used by the ENEMY. Such as in the case of the boy who would throw himself into the fire, or the guy in the graveyard that would beat and terrorize himself and others.

If you can show a case where violence is used I will rethink my position.

lol the idea that a person who is ignorant and has never embraced the devil prays for people and give glory to God and our Lord and the devil can out power God and heal a person to do lying wonders.

can you show me where in the Word of God one person healed by a demon? you do that and I will answer the last question you asked with scripture

 

[CS1]

Depends on who is writing the history. History is littered with deceivers posing as messengers of God. Time will soon be here when the last great one will move mankind rapidly to the consummation of the world.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

I would expect Pharisees and some other to call what was praiseworthy a work of the devil they did it to Jesus too

 

[7seasrekeyed]

All these signs shall follow them.......Did Jesus say that to you? Were you an eye witness to all that He did and to His resurrection? It was to ''His Apostles'', they were the ones given the authority to do those things as a sign that they were eye witnesses to Jesus ministry and His resurrection. No one else could then claim to be one of the Apostles of Jesus if they did not have that authority and power given to them by Jesus.
No one outside of the apostles could lay their hands on a person and impart the gifts except for the Apostles of Jesus.

.

so Paul was what then?

demoniac?

Jesus didn't say those words directly to him either and low and behold!

Paul wrote about tongues to an entire church full of people...who were abusing the gift

so he set them straight

follow the directions given by Paul, and there should be no confusion etc. but people do not do that all the time, so we end up with 2 kinds of errors

we end up with people who deny what is plainly written and we end up with people who go emotionally hog wild

neither is correct

however, going out of one's way to deny the Holy Spirit is far worse than people needing correction

seems you joined the forum just to castigate those who speak in tongues...and yes, I read your post where you said that you used to speak in tongues but now you call it garbage (might not be the word you used, but same meaning)

however, like your thoughts above regarding the Apostles being the only ones Jesus was speaking to, apart from my thoughts on Paul, how do you explain the word BELIEVE?

do you believe or not? well if you do you are a believer

you and others conveniently leave out ANY AND ALL scripture that does not agree with you

so basically, you create your own version of the Bible

 

[7seasrekeyed]

Your'e very welcome. But I am still waiting for a scripture that is written directly to you? That scripture is for those who choose to believe. It doesn't have your name attached to it. Wow you are just so important aren't you? Thank you.

and I'll say this again to you

how is it you seem to believe you can be so sarcastic?

your FIRST post was rude and almost 80 posts later you still seem to feel the need to 'stick it' to people

 

[garee]

@Petercito

https://www.therevivalfellowship.com/

Still not hearing?

.Not interested in. "For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept". or in other words...All things written in the law and the prophets ?

But rather as those in Jerimiah 444 ; we will certainly do whatsoever our own mouth says and see no evil in doing so ?

Isaiah 28:10-12 King James Version (KJV) For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.

 

[PennEd]

LOl OK How about this



lol the idea that a person who is ignorant and has never embraced the devil prays for people and give glory to God and our Lord and the devil can out power God and heal a person to do lying wonders.

can you show me where in the Word of God one person healed by a demon? you do that and I will answer the last question you asked with scripture

Proper decorum would dictate that the person who asked first would be answered first.

But I'll answer. I don't believe for ONE SECOND that ANY of his supposed miracles were true. That is why it is so vitally important to focus on the method that he used to "heal" these people. We are told to pray over and lay hands on the sick. NOT to violently strike them and throw babies against a wall, and kick them. These methods INHERENTLY display that he is not operating under the H.S.

The antichrist will SEEM to have a mortal head wound but somehow be resurrected. Is that not a lying wonder?

 

[garee]

Look the problem is you keep repeating scriptures about the church of that time. But missing the point of the origins of what was going on.

I agree and understand what is written there.

Where do we first see tongues being introduced into the bible? It is not in the book of Acts like almost everyone seems to think but in Isaiah 28v11,12 as Paul quotes in 1 Corinthians 14v21

1 Corinthians 14v20Brothers and sisters, stop thinking like children. In regard to evil be infants, but in your thinking be adults. 21In the Law it is written:
“With other tongues
and through the lips of foreigners
I will speak to this people,
but even then they will not listen to me,
says the Lord.”
22Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is not for unbelievers but for believers.

Go back and read the entire chapter in Isaiah 28 and get an understanding of what is being said. God is rebuking the leaders. That is not a good thing. Do you want to be rebuked?

Who did Jesus always rebuke and always call a wicked and perverse generation? The leadership of Israel, the pharisees and teachers of the law.
That is who the tongues, LANGUAGES are addressing. The unbelievers are the unbelieving nation of Israel, who crucified The Lord Of Glory.
The lips of foreigners are the gentiles or more correctly the ethnic groups.

This in no way applies to anyone of today.

Amen, once a person confirms what the sign points (unbelievers ,no faith) Then the rest of the doctrine of tongues as a new manner of prophecy can fall into place. Leaving it in limbo is not walking by faith.

 

[garee]

All these signs shall follow them.......Did Jesus say that to you? Were you an eye witness to all that He did and to His resurrection? It was to ''His Apostles'', they were the ones given the authority to do those things as a sign that they were eye witnesses to Jesus ministry and His resurrection. No one else could then claim to be one of the Apostles of Jesus if they did not have that authority and power given to them by Jesus.
No one outside of the apostles could lay their hands on a person and impart the gifts except for the Apostles of Jesus.

The word apostle simply means "sent one" with no other meaning added. . The word apostle has had extra meanings attached to it from different sects. . It in the end of the matter takes away from the intent of the author. ..violating the warning not to add to a word (singular)

All, as in everyone of these signs shall follow everyone who believes .Its not one metaphor and not another. Believers speak in a new tongue, the gospel seed. They will not be harmed by the poison of a false gospel .

When they preach the new tongue, the gospel of salvation. God can raise them from those dead in there trespasses and sins without hope and without God. And give them a new living hope.

Laying on of hands as a ceremonial law (shadow).God is not served by human hands as if he who satisfies all needs needed something from the clay he is forming Christ in.

The Holy Spirit and not the apostles impart the gift of that Spirit that does work in us to both will and perform his good pleasure .

 

[CS1]

Proper decorum would dictate that the person who asked first would be answered first.

But I'll answer. I don't believe for ONE SECOND that ANY of his supposed miracles were true. That is why it is so vitally important to focus on the method that he used to "heal" these people. We are told to pray over and lay hands on the sick. NOT to violently strike them and throw babies against a wall, and kick them. These methods INHERENTLY display that he is not operating under the H.S.

The antichrist will SEEM to have a mortal head wound but somehow be resurrected. Is that not a lying wonder?

If you do not believe anything was done by God through him, ok. I ask you why do you believe everything bad said about him is true? Are you more apt to listen to those who are not in the faith and eyewitnesses? and give accounts more about this man acceptance and truthfulness? I have never seen SW, nor do I agree with his methods but I know why from what I have learned the reason why he did that. throwing babies against the wall? really and you know that to be true? Is it you just judge the guy you have never seen before?

The antichrist and his moral blow to the head is an event to happen. I asked you to show me where in the word of God a Demon healed. or the devil.
There is none.

SW was a very ignorant man from what I have read about him. Many many disagreed yet testified to the healing done by God when he hit them in the name of Jesus. There are documented rasing from the dead, you do not accept them Ok, but you will accept the word of a scoffer and mocker? You are right, Please note I said that Ok, you are right He should have just laid his hand on them, then they only would have attacked today the miracle that was done.

 

[CS1]

I would say trustworthy verification of ANY miracles is sketchy at best.

But let's say for instance that Wigglesworth punching a cancer victim in the stomach or beating a dead person back to life, actually DID happen. We are told that our enemy can perform lying wonders and signs designed to deceive.

We are also told to test the spirits because not all are from God.

So how do we to discern the frauds, the lying wonders and the true, Blessed real thing from the Lord? Certainly not merely by the results or an experience.

We do it by hearing God through His Word. There is not a SINGLE recorded incident ANYWHERE in Scripture that I am aware of where violence is used to heal a person. Violence is used by the ENEMY. Such as in the case of the boy who would throw himself into the fire, or the guy in the graveyard that would beat and terrorize himself and others.

If you can show me a case where violence is used I will rethink my position.

to answer your question:

So how do we to discern the frauds, the lying wonders and the true, Blessed real thing from the Lord? Certainly not merely by the results or an experience.

the end result does matter I do not see anywhere SW healed calling on the devil. AS I do not see lying wonders or demons healing in the name of the Lord in the word of God.

Sw was not a person who was very educated, I think God used him despite his unlearned. There is nothing showing his latter year he did that anymore, he may have been corrected. But most Christian gave glory to God for what God did as they believe. That is praiseworthy.

Jesus spits and made mud put in a person's eye called a woman a dog. Elijah disrespected Kings. Peter shadow healed Paul sent clothes . all of that seems crazy to the natural mind have prayed for people and God has healed them. In my younger days, I did not hit anyone LOl but I was too young and ignorant on how to pray for women properly, I had to learn. God gave me grace because I think he knew my heart was right yet I was in error and needed to be corrected. Now I see God do even more than I can ever think.

 

[Wansvic]

here is the issue that many do not see One Jesus is always authoritative when HE speaks. always. you do not understand what "in the name means " and how does that translate contextually with what Jesus said to do. I do not think the Apostles would change what Jesus said to do. the only edifying answer is not you have to be baptized IN Jesus name ONLY which is never said in the word of God.

The answer would be BOTH are correct. baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit or In the Name of Jesus or what many of those who elitize scripture fail to see the full statement

I baptize you in the name of the Lord Jesus or by the authority given me by the Lord Jesus Christ Into the Father and of the Son and in the Holy Ghost. the phrase " In the name of the Lord Jesus " is identifying with Christ authority to do so. This too fulfills the word John the Baptist said in the gospel of John chapter one of who would be Baptizing in the Holy Spirit and fire.

Jesus is the one who gave HIS authority to the Apostle s to baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

The biblical as well as historical record show clearly that from the apostolic era until around 325 a.d. people were water baptized in the singular name of Jesus. The church leaders of Rome who later became the Roman Catholic Church made this change. Protestant church leaders and members are evidently uninformed of this fact and continue to this day to propagate a man made tradition.

Reminds me of how the religious leaders of Jesus' day demanded that Peter and John stop using Jesus' name. In saying this, again, I am in no way suggesting people are consciously aware that they are not following the biblical pattern for water baptism.

Acts 4:18-19
And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus.
But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.

Some say God would not be that rigid and demand exact adherence. Ask yourself, Is that seen in the bible record?

 

[CS1]

The biblical as well as historical record show clearly that from the apostolic era until around 325 a.d. people were water baptized in the singular name of Jesus. The church leaders of Rome who later became the Roman Catholic Church made this change. Protestant church leaders and members are evidently uninformed of this fact and continue to this day to propagate a man made tradition.

Reminds me of how the religious leaders of Jesus' day demanded that Peter and John stop using Jesus' name. In saying this, again, I am in no way suggesting people are consciously aware that they are not following the biblical pattern for water baptism.

Acts 4:18-19
And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus.
But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.

Some say God would not be that rigid and demand exact adherence. Ask yourself, Is that seen in the bible record?

wrong

 

[CS1]

The biblical as well as historical record show clearly that from the apostolic era until around 325 a.d. people were water baptized in the singular name of Jesus. The church leaders of Rome who later became the Roman Catholic Church made this change. Protestant church leaders and members are evidently uninformed of this fact and continue to this day to propagate a man made tradition.

Reminds me of how the religious leaders of Jesus' day demanded that Peter and John stop using Jesus' name. In saying this, again, I am in no way suggesting people are consciously aware that they are not following the biblical pattern for water baptism.

Acts 4:18-19
And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus.
But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.

Some say God would not be that rigid and demand exact adherence. Ask yourself, Is that seen in the bible record?

no one is suggesting to stop so your point is not well founded. I have said both are correct.

The error is those who say you were not saved UNless you were baptized in the name of Jesus only. That is not true. That is an error, the emphasis on ONLY. Those who were baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of The Holy Ghost or in the Name of The Lord Jesus Christ are both valid. I think it is funny you see church history outside of the Bible as credible only when you make it support your belief.

 

[Wansvic]

no one is suggesting to stop so your point is not well founded. I have said both are correct.

The error is those who say you were not saved UNless you were baptized in the name of Jesus only. That is not true. That is an error, the emphasis on ONLY. Those who were baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of The Holy Ghost or in the Name of The Lord Jesus Christ are both valid. I think it is funny you see church history outside of the Bible as credible only when you make it support your belief.

The biblical record just does not support this.
I think the following is a good comparison. Try to get your prayers answered, cast out a demon, have the sick recover, etc. by confessing let this be done in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Your request will not be heard. The word states that if one asks they will receive if the request is made in the name of Jesus.

Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.
Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full. John 16:23-24

Also, we are told:
And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him. Col 3:17

 

[Wansvic]

wrong

The included image is from a Roman Catholic Bible Catechism booklet. Notice the last paragraph. And specifically the last three sentences.

 

[Waggles]

All these signs shall follow them.......Did Jesus say that to you?

YES through the gift of prophecy; where God speaks directly to his church.

 

[Petercito]

What I meant and did not accurately state in my original comment was that core salvation issues, etc. would have to be kept intact. Otherwise how is one to be judged if they have not been provided with proper information.

I have done research concerning whether the salvation components in the Book of Acts and the epistles were modified in various bible translations and to date am unaware of any changes. Of course the footnotes, etc. in study bibles will always reflect publishers bias toward their preferred denominational belief system.

The KJV is the earliest bible published in English and I believe it is the closest translation to the original texts. The many other translations came about afterward and in my opinion there is ample evidence that they do change meaning of passages of scripture. Not good.

Well I have advised you. Unless you refer back to the original in Greek you will never.

What I meant and did not accurately state in my original comment was that core salvation issues, etc. would have to be kept intact. Otherwise how is one to be judged if they have not been provided with proper information.

I have done research concerning whether the salvation components in the Book of Acts and the epistles were modified in various bible translations and to date am unaware of any changes. Of course the footnotes, etc. in study bibles will always reflect publishers bias toward their preferred denominational belief system.

The KJV is the earliest bible published in English and I believe it is the closest translation to the original texts. The many other translations came about afterward and in my opinion there is ample evidence that they do change meaning of passages of scripture. Not good.

That's an opinion or belief you have. The problem is the bible does have many errors. From words being added, words being removed. Commas in the wrong place. Chapter divisions in the wrong place etc.

The bible in the original contains no punctuation or chapter divisions or even spaces between the words. So when a translator comes a long it's up to him to decide on those things and it's an extremely difficult job. If you have a particular theological bias then you can alter a lot just by a comma.

In regards to the salvation components well you may be right, you may not be, I will keep that in mind moving forward.

 

[CS1]

The biblical record just does not support this.
I think the following is a good comparison. Try to get your prayers answered, cast out a demon, have the sick recover, etc. by confessing let this be done in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Your request will not be heard. The word states that if one asks they will receive if the request is made in the name of Jesus.

Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.
Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full. John 16:23-24

Also, we are told:
And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him. Col 3:17

there is nothing that says to be baptized in the name of Jesus only to be saved.

I will say it even more clearly. Jesus said in Matt 28: 19
"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"

These words spoken BY the Lord Jesus Christ are not null in void because what the Holy Spirit Peter says in Acts 2:38. Nothing in Acts 2:38 says ONLY. That is an error. The context of what Jesus said in Matthew 28:19 was restated in other gospels about the great commission.

far as prayers answered I find your comment very disturbing. Everything Jesus did and said was to bring to the Father.
YO suggest that a person cannot be healed because they said: "we ask in the name of the Father and of the Son and the Holy Spirit" and not the name of Jesus only is the most foolish thing I have ever heard.

The very prayer Jesus taught His disples, Jesus said when you pray
Luke 11:12

2 So He said to them, “When you pray, say:

Our Father in heaven,

my prayers are heard because I am saved and have a relationship with the Lord. Your outlook on prayer is unbiblical. You do not see where both are valid?

you would be a person to tell one new in the faith they are not saved because they had not been baptized in the name of Jesus only? you would do that? you believe that?

 

[Petercito]

well that's interesting

FYI, I DO speak in tongues

and pray too

God is so good!

Oh lovely, good for you. And what language is it that you speak? Gibberish? Babbel? Is it the sound of mumbling while your finger moves up and down across your lips? Hilarious.


Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’23Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’