Quote Originally Posted by tdidymas View Post
Your application here is Biblically wrong, because your idea of tongues being "the initial evidence" is based on the false doctrine you have been taught (which is based on subjective experience), not on the Biblical text.
1. You may believe that it is a false doctrine - that does not make it so.

2. You ***ume much if you believe I was taught this doctrine.

3. Let us get back to the text and leave one more of your ad hominems to yourself.

Like I have expressed before. You may be able to prove I am the Devil's brother, but this does not mean you have answered the arguments.

One could call "initial evidence" of what happened in Acts only, in which tongues was a sign gift to unbelievers, and to the church only insomuch as they needed proof that the Gentiles and other religious groups had actually received the Holy Spirit as the apostles did on the day of Pentecost.
I am really not sure what you are trying to communicate above.

Nowhere in scripture does this indicate that tongues is a regular gift given to believers who receive the Spirit.
I agree that tongues is not a regular gift given to believers who receive the Spirit. I teach that Speaking in Tongues doesn't have to be a gift in all cases, therefore, one need only look at Scripture examples to discover what unique manifestation takes place when one receives the Gift of the Holy Spirit.

Again, Heb. 2 along with the context of what happened and what the apostles argued over in Acts proves my point here.
What proof are you talking about? What exactly did you prove?

I am extracting the proof from the Biblical text only, and eliminating the bias of personal subjective experience. What P/Cs have done here is to take the "initial evidence" of it as a sign gift in Acts, and they have "extrapolated" it as a general application of receiving the Holy Spirit, and called it "the initial evidence" of receiving the Holy Spirit by every believer. This is why the application of it is simply wrong, because the application does not fit the original intent of scripture.
Interesting! So, is the "faith" mentioned in 1 Corinthians the same in kind wherever it is mentioned in the New Testament?

Here again, it is only those with the bias of tongues as "the initial evidence" doctrine who interpret the statement "the Spirit was not yet, because Jesus was not yet glorified" as a justification for saying that OT saints did not have the Holy Spirit. This again is an eisegetical idea inserted into the text. If we take the whole of scripture together, we have OT saints who are said to have the Holy Spirit in many ways.
So, are you saying that the Old Covenant saints received the Gift of the Holy Spirit?

God said "not by might... but by My Spirit," indeed the saints of old have always been referred as living their righteousness before God by the power of the Spirit, since "the righteous one will live by faith." There are those still in the Old Covenant times in the NT gospels who are said to be righteous, and who spoke by the Holy Spirit. The sense in which they had the Holy Spirit was mysterious until the day of Pentecost. Paul alludes to the fact that the gospel was preached to everyone in a subtle way before Christ came, and both Peter and the writer of Hebrews also testify to it. He said that the gospel in OT times was a mystery, before it was revealed to him and the apostles from Christ. This shows that the gospel existed in OT times, though a mystery, and was preached as a mystery to them. Those who believed in the coming Messiah before He came, and who lived a righteous life by faith in God are shown to have the Holy Spirit.
So again, do you teach that Old Testament saints received the Gift of the Holy Spirit?

Anyone who believes in 1 Cor 2 and Gal 5:22 cannot doubt that OT saints had the Holy Spirit to make them a righteous "tree" (see my teaching earlier on this). Paul's teaching on salvation, faith, and spiritual birth is generic for all mankind, and does not follow a chronological construct. Spiritual birth through faith in Christ is retroactive for all time prior to His death and resurrection, as much as after. So then, what can we conclude about the statement "the Spirit was not yet, because Jesus was not yet glorified"? Only that the Spirit is given in such a way as never before.
This is alluded to by Peter in Act 2 wherein he quoted Joel "I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh." The "Spirit not yet" means that the Spirit was not yet poured out in an unmeasurable way to all mankind (i.e. to all the gentiles),
Really!? So, exactly what p***ages change the meaning of the Holy Spirit being given to He was "not yet poured out in an unmeasurable way to all mankind." I cannot find the p***ages! It appears to me that "reading into the text" is going on here.

Just as prior to Jesus' death holiness was limited to the space of the "most holy place," but after the veil was rent, holiness became available to all the gentiles. And this is within the context of John, since he was also mostly apostle to gentiles as Paul was. So then, the Holy Spirit was indeed given to saints prior to Jesus' glorification, but was extremely limited to those who believed the gospel mystery. After Jesus was glorified, and then we get the day of Pentecost, now we have the Spirit poured out freely "on all flesh" because the death and resurrection of Christ makes all the gentiles (and Jews who previously did not believe) holy before God. This all fits together as the sense in which the NT teaches it.
This view seems very confusing.

Do you accept that these are valid objections and proofs that what we observe today is fundamentally different than what was observed in the early church?
I think they may need adjustment, but I would say that those who do not allow the gifts of the Holy Spirit to flow in the ***embly need more adjustment. Why? Because they are totally ignoring 1 Corinthians 12, and 14, as if they can pick and choose what p***ages of Scripture they desire to practice or not!

Respectfully

Adelphos