Holy Spirit Baptism and Tongues

[Canuckster1127]

That, of course, is your opinion. And you, of course, are entitled to your opinion.

We are, I assume, mostly born again Christians here and love the Lord Jesus and are endeavoring to serve Him to the best of our ability. We are all different and have different purposes within the body of Christ. No one of us is better or more important than any one else.

I repeat, we are all different. Unique. Trying to get everyone to do things the same way, when there is no compelling reason to do so, is stifling the Holy Spirit.

I kind of like Thomas Edison's saying, "There are no rules here, we're trying to get something accomplished."

"Once, when a new employee checked in at Menlo Park, he asked Edison for a copy of the lab rules. "There ain't no rules around here," said Edison. "We're trying to accomplish something." Accomplish he did. He worked 24 hours a day, taking fifteen-minute cat naps when he was tired, and eating on the run, when he was hungry."

I like Thomas Edison too.

I've stated it's up to you.

I'm sorry we've gotten off on the wrong foot.

You've had some good things to say in several areas and I'm glad you're here.

Hopefully over time here we'll get to know each other better as brothers in Christ (I'm assuming you're male )

Moderating is not always easy. We do our best.

Blessings,

Bart

[bizzt]

As a former Charismatic who has become Reformed, I have a few questions for my "tongues speaking" and "prophecying" brothers.

1.) What ever happened to the "gift of tongues" involving earthly languages (See Acts 2:5-6)? The same is true with the Gentiles in Acts 10:45-47, as Peter said that they “received the Holy Spirit just as we have.” This seems to be strangely lacking in the modern version of the gift, which made its first appearance in the early 1900's. Based on that, we would have to conclude that the modern gift, if anything, is not the same as the biblical gift, but something altogether different.

2. What is the modern "gift of prophecy"? It can't be special revelation from God Himself because that revelation ceased (Rev. 22:18). The Bible is the complete word of God. It is fully sufficient and is the “whole council of God”. There has been nothing held back that was profitable. It is not to be added to in any way, shape or form. A Prophet, by definition, must speak authoritative, inerrant, infallible words of the Living God, words that are equal in authority to the Bible itself. I have met many who claimed to have the “gift of prophecy” in my charismatic years. Trust me, they didn't have it. Their “prophecies” are either vague and meaningless, or they are riddled with errors. The biggest problem. of course, would be to determine what is "The Word of God". If we still have prophets, then we don't have the complete Word of God available in the Scriptures.

3.) How did the church manage to survive for nearly 2,000 years without these gifts? Either the modern charismatics are in error, or every church father from the second century to the 19th are in error. I have to go with the first choice.

I would highly recommend The Final Word by O. Palmer Robertson

Hey PL

Although I have never spoken in Tongues the Gift is still there. I was in a Service that a person was speaking in Tongues and no one knew what was being said. There was a person in the Back that heard the Tongue and realized it was his Original Language. The Message was specifically for him In any case Tongues is there but for the people with that Gift and NOT EVERYONE will have that gift. Coming from a Pentecostal Go Figure

[Canuckster1127]

I can't recall all the detail of it as it was 20 years ago, but I do recall as a student at Oral Roberts University sitting in a required lecture for a required class referred to as "Charismatic Life and Ministry" and being given a lecture tracing the continued presence of tongues within the Church from 150 AD until the present.

What i remember in particular was a great deal of reliance upon the Montanists (an early heresy) as a key line of preservation.

Frankly, I found it to be a very tortured line of logic as a younger man without a lot of background to evaluate it. I did a little research on the Montanists at the time and determined I didn't find that particular line of argument to be very convincing.

[Kerux]

Although I have never spoken in Tongues the Gift is still there. I was in a Service that a person was speaking in Tongues and no one knew what was being said. There was a person in the Back that heard the Tongue and realized it was his Original Language. The Message was specifically for him

I assume you were in an English speaking 'service.' Did the person in the 'back' also speak English? If so, then there was no need for the person speaking in 'tongues' to be speaking in any language other than English. God id not the God of confusion. And other than the two involved, there was no one else, it seems, who could offer verification.

Quite frankly, I doubt the validity of these stories based upon my understanding of verses of relevant Scripture.

[bizzt]

Although I have never spoken in Tongues the Gift is still there. I was in a Service that a person was speaking in Tongues and no one knew what was being said. There was a person in the Back that heard the Tongue and realized it was his Original Language. The Message was specifically for him

I assume you were in an English speaking 'service.' Did the person in the 'back' also speak English? If so, then there was no need for the person speaking in 'tongues' to be speaking in any language other than English. God id not the God of confusion. And other than the two involved, there was no one else, it seems, who could offer verification.

Quite frankly, I doubt the validity of these stories based upon my understanding of verses of relevant Scripture.

Actually you are correct the person in the Back did not speak that well of English. Considering the Whole Church is the witness including myself I would say it is True. That was really the first time I seen a Miracle like that. And to me that is the true form of Tongues as well.

[Kerux]

I don't want to belabor this but no, the whole congregation wasn't a witness to the person in the front speaking in the same language as the person in the back. Unless everyone in the congregation could understand the language being spoken, then the best they could do was take the word of the person in the back that the person in the front was speaking in his language.

Nothing more.

[puritan lad]

Bizzt,

I'm not sure about the details of the "tongues" in your service, ie. what language did the speaker already know?, etc. The larger issue here is what entails "The Word of God". Can it still be added to through tongues and prophecy? Is not the Bible the whole counsel of God? Has not the faith "once for all" been delivered to the saints? If prophecy, as defined by the Bible, still happens, then the Bible is incomplete. As a result, modern charismatics have invented a new type of prophecy out of thin air, which isn't any authoritative, infallible word from the Lord, but a word that was infallible in the beginning, but made fallible by human agency. (I wonder if they would consider the Bible the same way, since it was written by human hands. In short, there is no biblical basis for any such prophecy. When true prophecy is given, the church is required to obey it. (Deut. 18:18-19).

As a former Pentecostal, I can confidently say that most of the "prophecies" given today are pure nonsense (if not all). Under the Old Covenant, these prophets would have been stoned to death (Deut. 18:20). Canuckster brought up a name from the past that is the epitemy of the modern prophecy movement. Oral Roberts. Did he ever raise that million dollars or whatever amount it was? If not, why is he still alive?

In the end, when someone opens their jaws and utters, "Thus sayeth the Lord..", they had better be getting ready to quote scripture. If not, they need to really study hard Rev. 22:18. I am convinced that the office of Prophet ceased with the end of the Old Covenant in 70 AD, and the more "prophecies" i hear uttered today, the more convinced I am of that fact.

God Bless,

PL

[Canuckster1127]

Bizzt,

I'm not sure about the details of the "tongues" in your service, ie. what language did the speaker already know?, etc. The larger issue here is what entails "The Word of God". Can it still be added to through tongues and prophecy? Is not the Bible the whole counsel of God? Has not the faith "once for all" been delivered to the saints? If prophecy, as defined by the Bible, still happens, then the Bible is incomplete. As a result, modern charismatics have invented a new type of prophecy out of thin air, which isn't any authoritative, infallible word from the Lord, but a word that was infallible in the beginning, but made fallible by human agency. (I wonder if they would consider the Bible the same way, since it was written by human hands. In short, there is no biblical basis for any such prophecy. When true prophecy is given, the church is required to obey it. (Deut. 18:18-19).

As a former Pentecostal, I can confidently say that most of the "prophecies" given today are pure nonsense (if not all). Under the Old Covenant, these prophets would have been stoned to death (Deut. 18:20). Canuckster brought up a name from the past that is the epitemy of the modern prophecy movement. Oral Roberts. Did he ever raise that million dollars or whatever amount it was? If not, why is he still alive?

In the end, when someone opens their jaws and utters, "Thus sayeth the Lord..", they had better be getting ready to quote scripture. If not, they need to really study hard Rev. 22:18. I am convinced that the office of Prophet ceased with the end of the Old Covenant in 70 AD, and the more "prophecies" i hear uttered today, the more convinced I am of that fact.

God Bless,

PL

PL,

Not defending, but just as information.

The Oral Roberts things (among many) was that he needed $10 million or God would call him home.

He did raise it. A lot of it came from a race track owner in Florida.

The ironic thing, is that the money was for the "City of Faith" which Oral took as a command from God to raise a medical center on par with the Mayo Clinic to mix faith, medicine and prayer.

It was never completely finished and in the end was abandoned and the buildings turned into Offices.

Bart

[bizzt]

Bizzt,

I'm not sure about the details of the "tongues" in your service, ie. what language did the speaker already know?, etc. The larger issue here is what entails "The Word of God". Can it still be added to through tongues and prophecy? Is not the Bible the whole counsel of God? Has not the faith "once for all" been delivered to the saints? If prophecy, as defined by the Bible, still happens, then the Bible is incomplete. As a result, modern charismatics have invented a new type of prophecy out of thin air, which isn't any authoritative, infallible word from the Lord, but a word that was infallible in the beginning, but made fallible by human agency. (I wonder if they would consider the Bible the same way, since it was written by human hands. In short, there is no biblical basis for any such prophecy. When true prophecy is given, the church is required to obey it. (Deut. 18:18-19).

As a former Pentecostal, I can confidently say that most of the "prophecies" given today are pure nonsense (if not all). Under the Old Covenant, these prophets would have been stoned to death (Deut. 18:20). Canuckster brought up a name from the past that is the epitemy of the modern prophecy movement. Oral Roberts. Did he ever raise that million dollars or whatever amount it was? If not, why is he still alive?

In the end, when someone opens their jaws and utters, "Thus sayeth the Lord..", they had better be getting ready to quote scripture. If not, they need to really study hard Rev. 22:18. I am convinced that the office of Prophet ceased with the end of the Old Covenant in 70 AD, and the more "prophecies" i hear uttered today, the more convinced I am of that fact.

God Bless,

PL

I am not disagreeing with you there PL

It was an African Tongue at this time I can't recall which one. What was spoken was a word of Encouragement. I thought it was Cool. PL why is the Bible Incomplete if Prophecy exists. Does Prophecy have to be written down? In Your theology the Gifts have to cease right? Sorry just want to understand your position

God Bless

[puritan lad]

PL why is the Bible Incomplete if Prophecy exists. Does Prophecy have to be written down? In Your theology the Gifts have to cease right? Sorry just want to understand your position :)

God Bless

Because of the very definition of prophecy itself. A prophet, by definition, is the "mouthpiece of God".

"I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him." (Deuteronomy 18:18)

There is a sense today that prophecy occurs, and that is through the preaching of the Word. However, the gift of prophecy, as given in Bible times, cannot still exist along with the completion of the Canon. If "prophecy", if given in accordance with the above definition, still takes place, then we have "Words of God" being spoken that are in addition to the Bible. The words spoken are to have equal authority with the Scriptures. They are to be authoritative (Deut. 18:19), inerrant and infallible (Deut. 18:22). Anything less than this resulted in death for the prophet (Deut. 18:20). The bottom line issue is how we define the Word of God. Is it the Bible alone (Sola Scriptura), or is it the bible plus whatever Words are given through prophecies. Pentecostals want it both ways, but that isn't an option. There is no biblical basis for a lesser form of prophecy. When the prophet spoke in the New Testament, it was also to be obeyed (Acts 13:2-3). The Bible clearly defines what prophecy is, and warns us against adding to it (Rev. 22:18).

Hope this helps explain the Reformed view of prophecy.

PL

[FFC]

PL why is the Bible Incomplete if Prophecy exists. Does Prophecy have to be written down? In Your theology the Gifts have to cease right? Sorry just want to understand your position

God Bless

Because of the very definition of prophecy itself. A prophet, by definition, is the "mouthpiece of God".

"I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him." (Deuteronomy 18:18)

There is a sense today that prophecy occurs, and that is through the preaching of the Word. However, the gift of prophecy, as given in Bible times, cannot still exist along with the completion of the Canon. If "prophecy", if given in accordance with the above definition, still takes place, then we have "Words of God" being spoken that are in addition to the Bible. The words spoken are to have equal authority with the Scriptures. They are to be authoritative (Deut. 18:19), inerrant and infallible (Deut. 18:22). Anything less than this resulted in death for the prophet (Deut. 18:20). The bottom line issue is how we define the Word of God. Is it the Bible alone (Sola Scriptura), or is it the bible plus whatever Words are given through prophecies. Pentecostals want it both ways, but that isn't an option. There is no biblical basis for a lesser form of prophecy. When the prophet spoke in the New Testament, it was also to be obeyed (Acts 13:2-3). The Bible clearly defines what prophecy is, and warns us against adding to it (Rev. 22:18).

Hope this helps explain the Reformed view of prophecy.

PL

I wholeheartedly agree.

[Canuckster1127]

PL why is the Bible Incomplete if Prophecy exists. Does Prophecy have to be written down? In Your theology the Gifts have to cease right? Sorry just want to understand your position

God Bless

Because of the very definition of prophecy itself. A prophet, by definition, is the "mouthpiece of God".

"I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him." (Deuteronomy 18:18)

There is a sense today that prophecy occurs, and that is through the preaching of the Word. However, the gift of prophecy, as given in Bible times, cannot still exist along with the completion of the Canon. If "prophecy", if given in accordance with the above definition, still takes place, then we have "Words of God" being spoken that are in addition to the Bible. The words spoken are to have equal authority with the Scriptures. They are to be authoritative (Deut. 18:19), inerrant and infallible (Deut. 18:22). Anything less than this resulted in death for the prophet (Deut. 18:20). The bottom line issue is how we define the Word of God. Is it the Bible alone (Sola Scriptura), or is it the bible plus whatever Words are given through prophecies. Pentecostals want it both ways, but that isn't an option. There is no biblical basis for a lesser form of prophecy. When the prophet spoke in the New Testament, it was also to be obeyed (Acts 13:2-3). The Bible clearly defines what prophecy is, and warns us against adding to it (Rev. 22:18).

Hope this helps explain the Reformed view of prophecy.

PL

I understand the reformed view of Prophecy.

Rev 22:18 applies to Revelation. It's a stretch to make it a complete stricture against any other form of prophesy, particularly in view of the passages in Corinthians.

I don't buy into the popular charismatic, pentecostal type interpretation which I agree is frought with all kinds of excesses and dangers.

I believe the arguments utilized from the traditional reformed position appeal more strongly to a philosophical hermeneutical framework than what I see exegetically coming from the passages typically quoted.

[bizzt]

Thank you PL. You are always Thorough with your Explaination

[1harpazo]

As a former Charismatic who has become Reformed, I have a few questions for my "tongues speaking" and "prophecying" brothers.

1.) What ever happened to the "gift of tongues" involving earthly languages (See Acts 2:5-6)? The same is true with the Gentiles in Acts 10:45-47, as Peter said that they “received the Holy Spirit just as we have.” This seems to be strangely lacking in the modern version of the gift, which made its first appearance in the early 1900's. Based on that, we would have to conclude that the modern gift, if anything, is not the same as the biblical gift, but something altogether different.

2. What is the modern "gift of prophecy"? It can't be special revelation from God Himself because that revelation ceased (Rev. 22:18). The Bible is the complete word of God. It is fully sufficient and is the “whole council of God”. There has been nothing held back that was profitable. It is not to be added to in any way, shape or form. A Prophet, by definition, must speak authoritative, inerrant, infallible words of the Living God, words that are equal in authority to the Bible itself. I have met many who claimed to have the “gift of prophecy” in my charismatic years. Trust me, they didn't have it. Their “prophecies” are either vague and meaningless, or they are riddled with errors. The biggest problem. of course, would be to determine what is "The Word of God". If we still have prophets, then we don't have the complete Word of God available in the Scriptures.

3.) How did the church manage to survive for nearly 2,000 years without these gifts? Either the modern charismatics are in error, or every church father from the second century to the 19th are in error. I have to go with the first choice.

I would highly recommend The Final Word by O. Palmer Robertson

First, I realize this is an old topic (the last post being in 2006) but new people come to this site and read these posts so it's new to them (us). I registered on 12-26-10.

The answer to your first question is that the "gift of tongues" in earthly languages as are all of the other gifts of the Spirit are still here in the body of Christ today. Just because we don't see or hear this gift in operation, doesn't mean it has ceased. God does not change and His gifts are irrevocable.

Question 2. The gift of prophecy is defined in 1Cor. 14:3. The gift is to edify, exhort and console the person(s) hearing the message. It does not necessarily involve forth-telling future events. Distinguishing between the gift of prophecy, the role of the Old Testament prophet and the New Testament prophet is extremely important. God gives the gift of prophecy to whomever He chooses and that person is not necessarily operating in the office of the prophet. The OT prophet, gave prophecies that when fulfilled had to be 100% correct, but he had another duty. He was the mouthpiece of God to direct and guide the nation of Israel. He was the watchman on the wall. He was to reveal the problems the Israelites were committing and to exhort them to repent and turn back to God. The NT prophet has the same duty-only it is to the church. He is to be the watchman on the wall. He is to point out where the church (usually the local assembly or even a person) is erring and encourage and exhort them to repent and turn back to God.

The five-fold ministry of God (apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers) are still in operation. These five offices are "for the equipping the saints for the work of service,to the building up of the body of Christ; UNTIL we all attain the unity of faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God,to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fulness of Christ." (Eph. 4:11-13 NASU). Yes there are apostles and prophets operating in the church today.

Question 3. The church survived 2,000 years with the gifts of the Holy Spirit. They have not ceased and the gifts will be used more and more as we near the second coming of Jesus Christ. The church will operate in them in greater frequency as the Holy Spirit sheds God's grace (charisma-gifts) on us.

puritan lad, I know that it's been awhile since your post and I'm new here, but I hope this helps those who read this topic from now on.

[puritan lad]

1.) Since Israel is the OT Church, then the role of NT and OT Prophecy are the same. Both are inspired by God (see 2 Peter 1:19-21 for a NT example), and therefore are inerrant, infallible, and authoritative. Besides, the Pentecostal outpouring itself was a fulfillment of Joel's OT Prophecy concerning prophecy. Nowhere did Joel suggest that the definition of prophecy would be changed (a position that charismatics require, but cannot justify).

2.) How can there be apostles today when the qualifications of an apostle are???
a.) Be an eyewitness to the resurrected Christ (Acts 1:22, 1 Cor. 9:1).
b.) Be appointed to the position by Christ himself (Luke 6:13, Gal 1:1).
c.) Validate that appointment with signs and wonders (2 Cor. 12:12).

Clearly no one alive today meets the first two requirements, and I would suggest that #3 is also out, but that can be debated.