Canuckster1127 wrote: ...You ask me if I know what Jesus is referring to in John 3:7-8. Jesus is referring to the Holy Spirit. The word in Greek "pneuma" is the same word used for wind.
um, well my exhaustive concordance lists the word "wind" 27 times, 24 refer to wind such as on the sea of Galilee or "a reed shaken in the wind" where the word is
"anemos" not pneuma, and refers to general wind.
The word pneuma is used when referring to a gust of wind, something sudden and noticeable, a gust. This is found here in John 3:8, Acts 2:2 (Pentecost) and a couple of times in Acts.
Canuckster1127 wrote: Jesus is referring to the sound of the wind as an analogy for how we can see the evidence of something we cannot see but which nevertheless exists and has influence upon that which we can see.
I am not the one attempting to infer that that verse is specifically referring to tongues, you appear to be. Therefore the onus is upon you to demonstrate your case, not simply raise doubts as to the plausibility of it being what you wish to suggest.
OK, well,
"God is not the author of confusion", "if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?" (1 Cor. 14:33, 8 ) ... one would expect something as VITAL as being born again should be clearly identified!
You don't have to leave it "up in the air", open to private interpretation... you can simply look at Acts where the Spirity was given to see preciusely what Jesus must have been referring to!
What was seen to enable the apostles to know when the wind of God's Spirit had blown into the hearts of people?
The answer is clearly demonstrated in scriptures I have already quoted!
If anyone dares to say there is another way, the onus is on them to demonstrate it!
Canuckster1127 wrote:
In John 14:20 Jesus says:
"At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you"
- what was that day when Jesus would be in them?
- how did they know?
You're assuming several things here not in the text. The day referred to could be Pentecost or it could be a further date in the eschaton when Christ returns to claim his sheep. It's not clear.
Jesus teaches that it would be clear to His disciples when he was in them and when he was in the Father. Did the disciples not know?
Of course they knew! It was clear to them!
In Acts 2:33 Peter stated:
"Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear." referring to the speaking in tongues as a result of receiving the promised Holy Spirit ... which is Christ in a person:
"ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ be in you ..." (Romans 8:9-10)
Canuckster1127 wrote: Assume, for the sake of argument that you are correct and he is referring to Pentecost, then why would you assume the sign then to be only tongues?
1) because that was the only sign when people received the Spirit (other things happened after that)
2) because if there was an alternative sign (or no sign), Peter & the other apostles later in Acts could not say that people had just received the Spirit when they spoke in tongues, logically, they could only say that they had, at some unknown time previously received the Spirit, but they didn't.
- Please understand this point.
Canuckster1127 wrote: Why should there not be a sound of mighty rushing wind and tongues of flame (or something that appeared like it) above the heads? Is your doctrine a buffet to be picked at as one chooses?
The wind (breath) occurred befoire they received the Spirit, as did the fire, which demonstrated the transferrance from the Old to the New Testament (in the Old Testament, God appeared in fire, now his presence, his temple is individuals that are born of His Spirit, his sons & daughters).
It is not me that is "picking" at scriptures by offering varying experiences of supposedly receiving God's Spirit. I say it's the same for all, all are called to receive the infilling of God's Spirit, evidenced by speaking in tongues.
God united Jew and Gentile this way (se Acts 10:44-48, 11:14-18), how dare anyone come along now and make a division saying there is another way without tongues?
Canuckster1127 wrote: Tongues is mentioned 3 out of 5 times in Acts when the filling of the Holy Spirit takes place. Acts 2 is the inaugral time with his selected disciples and apostles.
The giving of the law was inaugural, does that mean that later generations should not bother with circumcision, the sign of entering that covenant?
Peter plainly stated that the promised Holy Spirit, evidenced by speaking in tongues was for all whom God would call - vv33, 39.
Some people don't seem to appreciate that a Covenant CANNOT be messed about with:
Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.(Gal. 3:15)
Jude warns of those who would seek to change
the faith once delivered to the saints, making a distinction between those who don't have the Spirit, and the beloved who should "pray in the Spirit" (Jude 3, 19-20)
The apostles are said to be the foundation, I would expect the same salvation experience as them and his disciples, otherwise you have a "pick and choose" covenant where people say "ah yes, that was just for them...".
Canuckster1127 wrote:Paul was free under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit at any time to state plainly that if tongues were not evidences a person was not saved. He did not do it despite many very technical and thorough passages in Romans and elsewhere that address salvation.
Acts 19:1-6 details Paul ministering salvation to people. We read that Paul knew that just because a person professes belief does not mean they have received the Spirit, and there must be a way of knowing that you have received, or Paul would not begin by asking the question:
Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? (v2)
Later when they did believe he baptised them , but he knew they still hadn't actually received the Spirit - how?
Then he knew precisely when they received the Spirit - how?
The bible says "they spoke in tongues and prophesied" .. just like in Acts 2 where after receiving the Spirit & speaking in tongues, Peter stood up and preached and prophesied. We see that they spoke in tongues first, indeed prophecy alone cannot be the sign of entering the new covenant because numerous people spoke in tongues before the Spirit was given, includingh King Saul, Balaam and the High Priest.
The letters are written to people that have already received salvation, dealing with questions and issues that mattered to theose people.
Nevertheless, I believe you will have enormous difficulty making sense of Paul's comments on receiving the Spirit and tongues if you believe that only some people speak in tongues when they receive the Spirit. What was Paul referring to here:
"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" (Romans 8:15-16)
and here:
because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. (Gal.4:6)
Praying in tongues
Paul states that if he prays in the Spirit, his understanding is unfruitful, so, he will
not understand what he says...
Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.
For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.
Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?
For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.
I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:
(1 Cor. 14:13-18)
Paul admonishes ALL Christians to pray in the Spirit (Romans 8:26, Eph.6:18), how do you do it if you
don't speak in tongues??
Canuckster1127 wrote:
Are you greater than Paul? Are you greater than Christ?
No! That's why I make sure I understand and am faithful to what they taught!
Canuckster1127 wrote:
27Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues. 29Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues[d]? Do all interpret? 31But eagerly desire[e] the greater gifts.
There's a question for you Tallman. Not from me, but from Paul. Maybe you can answer that too.
bart
The context (read from chapter 11) is that Paul has been teaching on what should happen in meetings.
If you disagree with this, please read a few verses up where it says
"to one is given the word of wisdom, to another ... knowledge... to another faith... tongues..."
If this passage refers to what different people get when they become Christians then it is saying that only "one" or perhaps only some get faith, knwoedle, etc... do you believe this?
How can you even be a Christian without these things?
No, it is precisely because they all have these attributes (see 1:4-7 of this letter) that there needs to be limitation and order when all meet.
The Corinthians were all acting as one member, all speak in tongues (as chap. 14 further makes clear), wherefore Paul reasons with them that they know that not all are apostles etc in the church, so why are theyt all presuming to gife messages in tongues in the church.
If it were true that only some could speak in tongues, the problem of all doing so could never arise so this passage would never have been needed to be written!
.
