Why The Delay in Acts 8:5-24 To Be Saved?

[1stCenturyLady]

The operation of the gift of tongues within the church (assembly) is explained in detail in Scripture. Because these were foreign UNLEARNED languages spoken supernaturally by the power of the Spirit, interpretation was an absolute necessity for any edification for others. And women were forbidden from speaking.

Common mistake, but wrong. For you to be correct you need to contradict specific rules.

 

[Enoch111]

Exactly. What TYPE of sign? We already agreed there is a judgment of some kind involved, so it is a negative sign, so is not prophecy which is positive. What is that type of sign called in Scripture? Hint, Jesus is the same type of sign.

A sign to UNBELIEVING JEWS that God was working through those speaking genuine languages supernaturally, and therefore the Gospel was from God, not man.

The Bible says that the Jews always wanted "signs" (miracles to show that God was at work). But in spite of all the miracles of Christ, they refused to obey the Gospel. Nevertheless, the gift of tongues was to be manifested so that prophecies would be fulfilled. Yet, for all that, the Jews (for the most part) remained unbelieving.

21 In the law [the OT] it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.

22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

 

[Enoch111]

Common mistake, but wrong. For you to be correct you need to contradict specific rules.

I have given you five specific verses which say that interpretation is a necessity. So you are the one who is contradicting Scripture.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

A sign to UNBELIEVING JEWS that God was working through those speaking genuine languages supernaturally, and therefore the Gospel was from God, not man.

And so you do not take into account 1 Corinthians 14:23??? What you believe is a common doctrine of man, based on human story telling and reasoning, and reading scripture out of context. The truth is recognized when you complete the thought by adding verse 23.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

I have given you five specific verses which say that interpretation is a necessity. So you are the one who is contradicting Scripture.

Interpretation IS a necessity for one of the two manifestations of tongues. You are just not aware of the first, only the second.

 

[Dave L]

Exactly. What TYPE of sign? We already agreed there is a judgment of some kind involved, so it is a negative sign, so is not prophecy which is positive. What is that type of sign called in Scripture? Hint, Jesus is the same type of sign.

A sign to unbelievers = those under God's wrath.

 

[bbyrd009]

And so you do not take into account 1 Corinthians 14:23??? What you believe is a common doctrine of man, based on human story telling and reasoning, and reading scripture out of context. The truth is recognized when you complete the thought by adding verse 23.

more steps on that ladder too, i guess

 

[Episkopos]

="JesusIsFaithful, post: 304106, member: 6711"]In Acts 8th chapter where Philip was casting out unclean spirits and healing the lame, the Samaritans in that area were being afflicted by Simon the sorceror with unclean spirits and Simon was an infamous highly regarded man in the area.

Acts 8:9 But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one:10 To whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God.11 And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries.12But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.13 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.

So when Philip came in and did those wonderful things, the people were bewildered into following Philip as Simon was doing, believing BUT "wondering" in the "things" Philip was preaching about, thus becoming fans of Philip instead of Simon now; hence the gall of bitterness that was in Simon for taking the spotlight of the people away from him. That was why Peter & John had to come. The promise of the Holy Spirit could not come from Philip because of this "fan mentality" he had inadvertently got going. So even when Simon saw that Peter & John were laying hands for the people to receive the promise of the Holy Spirit to be saved, he was still looking at the people doing these miracles as the Samaritans were, only Simon thought he could buy that power which goes to show the necessity for God to lift the people's sights higher to the Lord and not to Philip nor Peter & John.

That was the reason for the delay.

It should be noted that until they had received the Spirit of Christ, they were none of His and thus not saved yet.

Romans 8:9 But 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.

This is speculation on your part. You are trying to make a line in the sand whereby one is saved and one isn't. The above text is speaking of the baptism in the Spirit. This is not a final salvation event....receiving Christ is enough...if they continue in faithfulness and humility with the fear of the Lord.

So you are adding in a human reasoning into the text.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

A sign to unbelievers = those under God's wrath.

I'll just tell you what I'm getting at.

Therefore tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers;...23 Therefore if the whole church comes together in one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those who are uninformed or unbelievers, will they not say that you are out of your mind?

Jesus is the same type of sign to the unsaved world. Like tongues, only those who have the sign will rejoice, but those without the sign will mock. It is like the Pharisees vs. the disciples. Luke 2:34 " “Behold, this Child is destined for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign which will be spoken against. The description in Isaiah 53 of Jesus shows similarities to the unsaved's perception of tongues. "no form or comeliness," "no beauty that we should desire," "despised and rejected by men," "was despised," and "did not esteem." And even inside the church we find this attitude, thus, the other category - "uninformed." The "sign" confirms them in their unbelief.

Tongues are very peculiar, so much so that if an uninformed (about tongues) person comes in, or the unsaved, and hears everyone speaking what they would mockingly call "gibberish" they are going to think everyone is nuts. They will not be drawn to these people, but will criticize and mock them, and probably leave, never hearing the gospel. So in church, the other gifts are more important, and only the gift of diverse kinds of tongues is to be spoken - messages from God - which require interpretation, and then only 2 or 3, but certainly not everyone. There must be time for the prophets, for a psalm (song), and for instruction. These are needed for the unsaved and also to strengthen the body. They take precedence.

But, Paul does not want any to misunderstand what he is saying about tongues. The main purpose of tongues is for the individual. But in church, it takes second and even third place to those gifts and teachings that can be understood naturally. The idea that tongues was for the purpose of the unsaved to understand naturally in their own language is human reasoning, which would make vs. 23 contradictory, and an attempt to justify why they believe tongues are not for us today with the Bible written in so many languages. "despised and rejected by man" "not esteemed" But many will read Acts 2 with this fallacy mindset, that the disciples were speaking in human langues of those present, but that is not the case when read carefully. Each devout Jew HEARD all of them speaking in his own language. There were different languages present, but each HEARD in their own different language. Not only was the speaking supernatural, but the hearing also. Not all present were devout. There could have been Romans present also (the unsaved) and they mocked them (an abomination) Psalms 1:1.

The first and foremost use of tongues is for prayer and praise. "I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding*. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding. "praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit." Ephesians 6:18. It is part of the whole armor of God. Both of these are TO God, as 1 Corinthians 14:2 says, "For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him." Thus, they are NOT for the purpose of preaching to man in their own language. Prayer and praise/singing is to God, and not always necessary for us to understand, thus not a "requirement," but encouraged. So we are allowed to pray in the Spirit, and also with the interpretation*. (*1 Corinthians 14:13 Understanding in prayer needs to also be the will of God, and we do not always pray with our own understanding what is also the will of God. Paul encourages to pray in tongues and pray for the interpretation so our own prayer life can be more beneficial to us personally. Personally, besides praying in tongues, I use the gift of word of knowledge when praying in my natural language. I listen first, then speak what He tells me to pray.)

Paul's conclusion "desire earnestly to prophesy (which is also interpretation of tongues), and do not forbid to speak with tongues." The whole subject of this chapter is about tongues. Prayer language alone vs. prayer language with interpretation which is equal to prophecy.

 

[Dave L]

I'll just tell you what I'm getting at.

Therefore tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers;...23 Therefore if the whole church comes together in one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those who are uninformed or unbelievers, will they not say that you are out of your mind?

Jesus is the same type of sign to the unsaved world. Like tongues, only those who have the sign will rejoice, but those without the sign will mock. It is like the Pharisees vs. the disciples. Luke 2:34 " “Behold, this Child is destined for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign which will be spoken against. The description in Isaiah 53 of Jesus shows similarities to the unsaved's perception of tongues. "no form or comeliness," "no beauty that we should desire," "despised and rejected by men," "was despised," and "did not esteem." And even inside the church we find this attitude, thus, the other category - "uninformed."

Tongues are very peculiar, so much so that if an uninformed (about tongues) person comes in, or the unsaved, and hears everyone speaking what they would call "gibberish" they are going to think everyone is nuts. They will not be drawn to these people, but will criticize and mock them, and probably leave, never hearing the gospel. So in church, the other gifts are more important, and only the gift of diverse kinds of tongues is to be spoken - messages from God - which require interpretation, and then only 2 or 3, but certainly not everyone. There must be time for the prophets, for a psalm (song), and for instruction. These are needed for the unsaved and also to strengthen the body. They take precedence.

But, Paul does not want any to misunderstand what he is saying about tongues. The main purpose of tongues is for the individual. But in church, it takes second and even third place to those gifts and teachings that can be understood naturally. The idea that tongues was for the purpose of the unsaved to understand naturally in their own language is human reasoning, which would make vs. 23 contradictory, and an attempt to justify why they believe tongues are not for us today with the Bible written in so many languages. "despised and rejected by man" "not esteemed" But many will read Acts 2 with this fallacy mindset, that the disciples were speaking in human langues of those present, but that is not the case when read carefully. Each devout Jew HEARD all of them speaking in his own language. There were different languages present, but each HEARD in their own different language. Not only was the speaking supernatural, but the hearing also. Not all present were devout. There could have been Romans present also (the unsaved) and they mocked them (an abomination) Psalms 1:1.

The first and foremost use of tongues is for prayer and praise. "I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding*. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding. "praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit." Ephesians 6:18. It is part of the whole armor of God. Both of these are TO God, as 1 Corinthians 14:2 says, "For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him." Thus, they are NOT for the purpose of preaching to man in their own language. Prayer and praise/singing is to God, and not always necessary for us to understand, thus not a "requirement," but encouraged. So we are allowed to pray in the Spirit, and also with the interpretation*. (*1 Corinthians 14:13 Understanding in prayer needs to also be the will of God, and we do not always pray with our own understanding what is also the will of God. Paul encourages to pray in tongues and pray for the interpretation so our own prayer life can be more beneficial to us personally. Personally, besides praying in tongues, I use the gift of word of knowledge when praying in my natural language. I listen first, then speak what He tells me to pray.)

Paul's conclusion "desire earnestly to prophesy (which is also interpretation of tongues), and do not forbid to speak with tongues." The whole subject of this chapter is about tongues. Prayer language alone vs. prayer language with interpretation which is equal to prophecy.

I'm just saying strange tongues was a symbol of foreign occupation or exile in the OT. And being a sign to unbelievers in the NT = God's wrath on them too.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

I'm just saying strange tongues was a symbol of foreign occupation or exile in the OT. And being a sign to unbelievers in the NT = God's wrath on them too.

Yes, that is possible. I see vs. 21 more pointing to general unbelief in God. Jesus is God. And the destruction of those who come across the sign of Jesus. Then 22 points to this same TYPE of sign for the reasons I pointed out about Isa. 53.

 

[Enoch111]

And so you do not take into account 1 Corinthians 14:23??? What you believe is a common doctrine of man, based on human story telling and reasoning, and reading scripture out of context. The truth is recognized when you complete the thought by adding verse 23.

So let's look at verse 23 in context (with the understanding that chapter 14 is actually a rebuke to the Corinthians for abusing tongues):

If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?

1. Paul had already indicated that the Corinthians were carnal in chapters 1 & 2.
2. Now he was addressing their carnality as related to tongues.
3. They were using tongues to compete with each other and show how *spiritual* they were (which happens nowadays also). Therefore they had all been trying to speak in tongues at the same time.
4. So in this verse Paul tells them in no uncertain terms that a visitor would think they are all mad. Therefore they must CEASE AND DESIST.
5. The whole chapter was written to regulate the abuse and misuse of the gift of tongues.
6. What we must always remember is that those were genuine foreign languages SPOKEN SUPERNATURALLY (not babbling).

 

[1stCenturyLady]

6. What we must always remember is that those were genuine foreign languages SPOKEN SUPERNATURALLY (not babbling).

I agreed up until point 6. I would never mock a gift of God and call it "babbling." Psalms 1:1.That is a perfect example of why tongues is a sign to the uninformed. Read #49.

Let me ask you some questions. Do you believe, because the tongues were "genuine foreign languages," that the unsaved could understand naturally or supernaturally? If naturally, why would they say they were out of their minds if they could understand what was being said? If supernaturally, as in interpretation, why would it be necessary to stress that the tongues were genuine languages? Couldn't the language be such that only God understands it, an unknown tongue, as He is the creator of all languages anyway, even of angels?

 

[bbyrd009]

when i was a child i spoke like a child...
which encompasses "genuine foreign languages" too imo, in a sense anyway

I'm just saying strange tongues was a symbol of foreign occupation or exile in the OT.

zing!

Everything NT is a reflection of OT, right? Find SiT OT and it starts to clarify imo

 

[bbyrd009]

"Find SiT OT and it starts to clarify imo"


surely complete gibberish to most secular ppl i guess right

 

[bbyrd009]

 

[bbyrd009]

look this literal interp of SiT that you have, is it a foreign language or an angelic language, it's not funny anymore ok.
Bc our def of 'Church' has been warped we now misplace where SiT even occurs
i can perceive any reply to this as SiT, or i can interpret, or maybe someone else sometimes stands in the gap and interprets for me.

 

[bbyrd009]

where it occurs has even been obscured in Scripture, right--it's happening in crowds with no interpreter, it's happening in congregations with an interpreter, what the heck is going on here, it's happening in prayer closets; it's a flashing neon sign lol

 

[1stCenturyLady]

where it occurs has even been obscured in Scripture, right--it's happening in crowds with no interpreter, it's happening in congregations with an interpreter, what the heck is going on here, it's happening in prayer closets; it's a flashing neon sign lol

By "crowd" are your referring to Acts 2? There WAS interpretation. God sovereignly gave it to the devout Jews present. Each one HEARD all the disciples praising God in their own language. That is how the gift of interpretation of tongues works.

Say there are three disciples speaking in tongues. One speaks French, one speaks Spanish and one speaks German - all languages that those disciples didn't know. And a devout Japanese man hears all three speaking Japanese. An English man hears all of them speaking English. And a Russian only hears Russian. They are confused. Aren't these disciples all from the back-water section of Galilee? They talk among themselves and discover others understand what they are saying also. Peter must explain away the confusion.

 

[bbyrd009]

By "crowd" are your referring to Acts 2? There WAS interpretation. God sovereignly gave it to the devout Jews present. Each one HEARD all the disciples praising God in their own language. That is how the gift of interpretation of tongues works.

Say there are three disciples speaking in tongues. One speaks French, one speaks Spanish and one speaks German - all languages that those disciples didn't know. And a devout Japanese man hears all three speaking Japanese. An English man hears all of them speaking English. And a Russian only hears Russian. They are confused. Aren't these disciples all from the back-water section of Galilee? They talk among themselves and discover others understand what they are saying also. Peter must explain away the confusion.

Ha ya ol' Pete cleared it all up for us, huh.