THERE IS A GENIUNE EXPERIENCE OF MIRACULUOSLY SPEAKING IN ANOTHER LANGUAGE WHEN FILLED WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT DESCRIBED IN THE BIBLE, AVAILABLE FOR EVERYBODY.
BUT THERE IS THE REAL THING.
As I mentioned earlier, I will assume that there is a real thing and will not attempt to discredit your experience (at least in these threads...) so please don't feel the need to justify your experience. I accept that. There is no doubt that the bible teaches there is such a thing as speaking in tongues and as we are utilising the Bible in these threads, I have no desire or reason to attempt to contradict the Bible here. Rather I would like to try to discern what the Bible has to say about the role of speaking in tongues in salvation.
WE CANT FIND THE ANSWER IN THE GOSPELS OF MATTHEW, MARK, LUKE AND JOHN BECAUSE THEY DESCRIBE EVENTS BEFORE THE HOLY SPIRIT WAS GIVEN. THE HOLY SPIRIT WAS NOT TO BE GIVEN TILL AFTER JESUS HAS DIED, ROSE AGAIN, ASCENDED AND BE GLORIFIED. SO, WE CANT READ ABOUT PEOPLE RECEIVING THE SPIRIT IN THE GOSPELS, CAUSE NO ONE DID. IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE.
I don't agree with that statement at all. However, as I have said, let's stick with Acts for now and get into that one later on if we need to.
MANY THEOLOGIANS OBJECT TO THIS BY SAYING THAT WE CANT USE ACTS FOR CONSTRUCTING DOCTRINE BECAUSE IT IS MERELY "NARRATIVE". THEY SAY IT JUST A HISTOICAL RECORD TELLING US WHAT DID HAPPEN NOT WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN, SO FOR DEFINING DOCTRINE WE SHOULD ONLY USE SCRIPTURE THAT IS EXPLICITLY "TEACHING" AND NOT NARRATIVE.
BUT THIS OBJECTION IS TOTALLY WRONG BECAUSE IT SAYS IN 1st TIMOTHY 3:16 THAT: "ALL SCRIPTURE IS USEFUL FOR...... DOCTRINE....".SINCE ACTS IS SCRIPTURE WE CAN THEREFORE USE IT TO DEFINE DOCTRINE, SO, THERE IS NOTHING WRONG OR UNSCRIPTURAL WITH CONSTRUCTING A DOCTRINE OF RECEIVING THE SPIRIT FROM THE BOOK OF ACTS. IN FACT, AS I'VE ALREADY SAID, IT IS THE ONLY PART OF THE N.T. THAT YOU CAN DO SO FROM.Sure. I understand where you're coming from with that. There is little doubt that many use Acts as a place from which to draw doctrine.
WHAT DO WE FIND HAPPENING IN THE BOOK OF ACTS AT THE MOMENT PEOPLE RECEIVE THE SPIRIT? SPEAKING IN TONGUES.
On some ocassions yes. But the point I was making in posting Drew Dixon's article is that this is not always the case. You can ignore that point all you like, but it is still a fact. Not everyone in the book of Acts exhibits tongues at their point of salvation. I know you touch on this later in your post, but whether tongues is always the sign or not (by inference), you simply cannot say that Acts ALWAYS says they spoke in tongues when saved. It's simply not there.
IN ACTS 2, ON THE DAY OF PENTECOST, WHEN THE FIRST DISCIPLES RECEIVED THE SPIRIT, WHAT DID THE NON-CHRISTIAN CROWD SEE AND HEAR THAT SO AMAZED THEM AND CAUGHT THEIR ATTENTION?
DID THEY SEE THE "LOVE" OF THE DISCIPLES? WERE THEY AMAZED COZ THEY SAW THE "PATIENCE" OR "GENTLENESS" OF THE DISCIPLES?
NO. IT WAS TONGUES.
I feel you are looking at these verses as proof-texts for your doctrine, rather than looking at what it actually says. If we are to try to use this a a normative example of someone's salvation then we need to consider a few points.
1. There was the sound of a rushing wind.
2. Tongues of fire appeared over the apostles.
3. The apostles spoke in tongues.
4. People heard these tongues as being their own diverse languages.
So, if your belief that Acts 2 is a normative salvation account then we MUST also expect wind, tongues of fire, and immediate translation of the tongues by someone who naturally speaks that language. But all these things combined NEVER happen doe they? In othr words, ACTS 2 IS NORMATIVE FOR NO ONE EXCEPT THE APOSTLES!!!
But wait! There's more! 
Now if I can take this even further and quote Ian Thomason here, who is well versed in Koine Greek,
"When the current versification of the Bible is removed, the artificial division that separates 1:26 from 2:1-4 disappears. What we find is that the antecedent to the verb 'they-were-filled' (as in "...they were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues") is héndeka apostólon: the eleven apostles with whom Matthias had recently been added. As is the case with English, the action of the Greek verb effects the subject of the sentence or passage. In this instance, the grammatical subject of the passage is the eleven apostles. The 'one hundred and twenty' of verse 15 cannot function as the subject of the account. As I mentioned earlier, Luke's Greek is very polished. It's clear, then, that he intended to impress upon his readers that the twelve apostles alone spoke the languages ('tongues') at Pentecost." (http://pleaseconsider.info/index_frame.htm?../articles/acts/acts2.htm)
In other words, the others of the 120 did not have tongues of fire upon them nor did they speak in tongues. This is why most religious art depicting the Day of Pentecost only shows the Apostles having this experience.
This is not an attempt by mainstream churches to denounce the tongues doctrine, such was not even heard of when these paintings were done. Rather their tradition reflects the Greek text.
Then further on the account we read that:
3000 MORE AND NO TONGUES!!!
So what you have here Brett is not a solid proof-text for your Revivalist doctrine at all. Rather it affirms the opposite that not everyone spoke in tongues on the Day of Pentecost.
As I have said, please don't think this is an attack on your tongues experience. It isn't. Rather it is a challenge to your assumptions and preconceptions (birthed and nurtured in the cult) about speaking in tongues in the Bible.
No comments:
Post a Comment