Evidence for God from Science

jlay wrote: .. .Tallman. What is your scriptural reference that THE church is where, "all members pray in tongues" ?[/b]

First, let's agree that one must be baptised in the Spirit to be in God's church:

for by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. (1 Cor. 12:13)

Then we simply need to identify from scripture what the baptism in the Spirit is, this should also identify how all are "made to drink" into that Spirit.

Acts 1:8, 2:4, 33, 39; 10:44-48, 11:14-18 clearly identify the baptism in the Spirit, also referring to it as "the beginning" and receiving the Spirit.
These show that it was known precisely when people were baptised in the Spirit, they all immediately spoke in tongues, the Spirit gavce them the utterance, he made them drink - Isaiah 28:11-12 describe tongues as "the refreshing (compare 1 Cor.14:21-22).

If it were possible to be baptised in the Spirit and not speak in tongues it would not have been possible to judge that people had just received the baptism in the Spirit, it could only be said that people had at some unknown time previously received that Spirit.
This was not the case.

Funny. I read Paul's conversion account (all three of them) and don't read anywhere that he spoke in tongues when he came to Christ. He certainly had that gift, but you made the distinction earlier between having the gift and one's initial "baptism". Perhaps we should conclude, then, that Paul wasn't really saved.

In any case, your error is obvious. Just because some people spoke in tongues when they were first saved does not mean that all people must have that same experience. Paul was blinded when he was first saved. Does that mean if we all aren't blinded that we then aren't saved? In other words, you've taken a descriptive passage and made in normative, which is pretty much what all charismatics do with the book of Acts.

On the flip side, you have the Gospel of John, which has this express statement: "These things have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing, you may have life in His name" (John 20:31). It also includes that famous John 3:16. I can't help but notice that NOWHERE in his gospel does he tell us that, if we've REALLY believed, we are going to speak in tongues. You would think with John's immense concern that his readers KNOW they are saved, he would have included that little factoid (English trivia: what does 'factoid' mean? Hint: I used it properly in that sentence!).

That point is further verified in 1 John 5:13 - "These things I have written to you that you may KNOW you have eternal life." And guess what?!? Nothing about tongues again!

Now, let's take it still another step further. So you believe that you had a Pentecost experience. Glad you think that. Are you aware that the word for "tongue" in Acts (and everywhere else) literally means "language"? So, what language did you speak in? French? German? Italian? And after that, also note that when that happened, everyone around them heard the Gospel in their own language. So tell me, when you "spoke in tongues," did those around you all hear the Gospel in their own native language? If not, sorry to say, you were blithering and little more, and I guess that means you can join the rest of us folk here who you condemn as being unsaved.

TallMan wrote:God united Jew and Gentile, putting no difference between them, all were graciously filled and knew precisely when, they spoke in tongues, which is "praying in the Spirit", something ALL Christians are to do (Romans 8:26, Eph.6:18).

There are many disciplined religious people about, but without the above, they are not following the Jesus of the bible, rather, "another Jesus" (2 Cor. 11:4) of their own, or someone else's imagination.

I know I need to answer and post more constructively . . . . I'll try to add to this . . . shortly.

First, let's agree that one must be baptised in the Spirit to be in God's church:

for by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. (1 Cor. 12:13)

I would first like to hear an example of where you have spoken in tongues as described in Acts 1. Or where you heard someone speaking in tongues and understood it as clearly as if they were speaking English.
I Already quoted this same verse in this thread. However, I suspect we may have a differing view of what being "baptized in the Spirit," means.

What you are stating does not jive with Paul's correction of the church in Corinth. "Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. 8To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, 9to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, 10to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues.11All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines." Paul shows obvious distinctions that one spirit can manifest differently in differnt people.

Chapter 14
"I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. He who prophesies is greater than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, (understands) so that the church may be edified."
Obviously the church in Corinth had heard of what had happened at Pentecost and other places. And obviously there was some phony stuff going on. The address of this issue is because there was something bogus going on in Corinth. Paul is saying. I would like each of you to speak legitimately in tongues, but I'd rather you ........

"11If then I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be to the one who speaks a (W)barbarian, and the one who speaks will be a barbarian to me."
Clearly, this is Paul's clever attempt to discourage what is going on in Corinth. Do you want to appear a disciple, or a barbarian/savage?

What is the outcome then? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also;v.15
The mind and spirit should be on the same page here. On the day of Pentecost, the disciples new what words were coming out of their mouths. It wasn't incoherent babbling.


Let me make it clear. I am not a cessationist. I want all that is available from God. Tongues, healings, etc. All to His glory. I do not want to thwart anything that is legitimately happening from God. But I do know that what I have scene from many Pentecostals regarding tongues is a bunch of babble. Why, considering Paul's warnings in 1 Cor, would a room full of English speaking people babble in some incoherent gibberish? This is exactly why Paul says, "Otherwise if you bless in the spirit only, how will the one who fills the place of the ungifted say the "Amen" at your giving of thanks, since he does not know what you are saying?"


27If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret;
28but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God.


Who is the interpreter? I think this is where many have erroneously gone astray. Is it not one who understands the language being spoken? In other words, if there is no one present who speaks the language/tongue you are speaking in, then you should be silent.

The church I'm in numbers about 60,000 worldwide

I don't mean to intrude, but what church is that?

Zašto? wrote:

The church I'm in numbers about 60,000 worldwide

I don't mean to intrude, but what church is that?

This one.

Jac3510 wrote: . . .In any case, your error is obvious. Just because some people spoke in tongues when they were first saved does not mean that all people must have that same experience.

That wasn't my reasoning.

TallMan wrote:

Zašto? wrote:

The church I'm in numbers about 60,000 worldwide

I don't mean to intrude, but what church is that?

This one.

oh

It's not one of those churches that teach that it is wrong to be Catholic Christian or any other denomination, except the denomination of that church, is it?

Zašto? wrote:oh
It's not one of those churches that teach that it is wrong to be Catholic Christian or any other denomination, except the denomination of that church, is it?

We teach that God only nominated one way of salvation, starting at "the beginning" (Pentecost) and continuing the same today.
Anyone who sticks to that is right by God.
Man has de-nominated this way (broken it up).

What is a "Catholic Christian"?

How dos one become one of those?

What denomination are you?

Zašto? wrote:

TallMan wrote:

Zašto? wrote:

The church I'm in numbers about 60,000 worldwide

I don't mean to intrude, but what church is that?

This one.

oh

It's not one of those churches that teach that it is wrong to be Catholic Christian or any other denomination, except the denomination of that church, is it?

Well, considering that he has been declaring that anybody that doesn't speak in tongues is not a CHristian, then yes, pretty much any CAtholic or Presbyterian or Episcopal or the other myriad of denominations or non-denominational churches that don't insist of spekaing in tongues would be wrong.

TallMan wrote: What is a "Catholic Christian"?

How dos one become one of those?

PM me if interested, I still have some applications left.

Byblos,
This is a thread about how one "receives Christ."

So an exegesis on the RCC plan of salvation would be more than appropriate.

jlay wrote:Byblos,
This is a thread about how one "receives Christ."

So an exegesis on the RCC plan of salvation would be more than appropriate.

Jlay, why are you doing this to me brother? You know how I feel about such topics (just kidding, really). Believe it or not, the RCC plan of salvation is not at all that different from any other Christian plan. Simply put, accepting God's gift of grace through faith, baptism, repentance, works of the spirit. Anything else is superfluous.

zoegirl wrote:

Zašto? wrote:

TallMan wrote:

Zašto? wrote:

The church I'm in numbers about 60,000 worldwide

I don't mean to intrude, but what church is that?

This one.

oh

It's not one of those churches that teach that it is wrong to be Catholic Christian or any other denomination, except the denomination of that church, is it?

Well, considering that he has been declaring that anybody that doesn't speak in tongues is not a CHristian, then yes, pretty much any CAtholic or Presbyterian or Episcopal or the other myriad of denominations or non-denominational churches that don't insist of spekaing in tongues would be wrong.

oh thats not right, "speaking in tongues" is not what saves you, it's faith in Christ..(by the way I don't think Jesus "spoke in tongues")

One is not a Christian because they belong to the right church. You are not "in" because you are Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, etc.

One is part of "the church" because of the work Christ has done in them. If speaking in tongues is a result of genuine salvation that is necessary to "prove" one is a Christian, then you can bet I want it. However, I fail to see how careful examination of the whole counsel of God confirms Tallman's position. To this point I have asked him three times to provide me with a testimony of his experience speaking tongues in a way that harmonizes with an Acts 2 event. So far, nothing. He has also skipped past specific scriptural issues I have posted here.

Could you imagine meeting Christ on that day. You gave him your life. Followed Him. Loved Him. You came to Him with the burdens of your sin, asking Him to wash you clean according to what is promised, that whoever beleives in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. The flow of God was real in your life. He was your source, your supply, your redeemer. And then he says, "Sorry, you never spoke in tongues. Off to Hell with you."