will faith still be here?

Some people are frightened by an experience that somebody else has. I don't personally believe that everyone should have a "Prayer Language" in Tongues.

But I certainly believe in "Speaking in Tongues," since it is biblical. Pentecostals teach that to be Baptized in the Holy Spirit one must speak in tongues, or perhaps *should* speak in tongues. I think this hurts their cause. There is no such doctrine spelled out in the Bible.

I don't speak in tongues and am Baptized in the Holy Spirit. I'm Baptized in the Holy Spirit because that is the Baptism Jesus came to bring all Christians--not just those who Speak in Tongues!

I think someone added doctrine that isn't explicitly taught in the Scriptures. There is nothing in the Bible about a "Prayer Language in Tongues." On the contrary, the Bible teaches that the Spirit gives gifts *as He wills"--not as *we will!*

If we confess Jesus as Lord and have received the New Birth we have the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. We may not understand the working of the Holy Spirit completely, and thus seriously limit our Christian experience. But if we're truly walking in the Lord, we have the Spirit and are Baptized as such.

In my experience, being raised Lutheran, my Christian experience was severely limited. I turned away from walking a life of righteousness in my adolescence, but came under severe guilt. So I returned to the Lord, and later read from the Scriptures, "I give my Spirit to those who obey Me." And I instantly realized the power of the Spirit was with me, if I continue to walk in righteousness.

But to claim those who do have the gift of Speaking in Tongues are "Demon-possessed" exposes a real problem. Why not just think that people are producing gibberish? Why "demonic?" Sounds like an area that the Lord will have to deal with. The Spirit is with us not just to give some supernatural gifts, but also to build in us good character, producing the "fruits of the Spirit."

 

I don't have enough numbers on my calendar to circle all of the dates!

 

I can accept that. The problem wasn't mine, though, and you should owe up to it. You said, definitively, the Lord is coming back within 20 years. How would you know that? You don't.

You said, " it will not be more than 20 years, before Jesus Returns to commence His Millennium reign." Again, I accept that you are modifying this to mean it is a "guess."

 

No correction necessary. I've considered myself a Pentecostal (of sorts) since I joined the Charismatic Movement, and have attended a variety of Pentecostal churches since the early 70s. I know what they believe--they believe we *should* have a Prayer Language, aka Speaking in Tongues. As the "initial evidence" of the Baptism, it means that without it who can know if you've really been Spirit Baptized, right?

And I do know, and have heard a thousand times, where Spirit Baptism, as defined by Pentecostals, is derived from. As I've been saying, there is no *explicit theology or teaching* that Speaking in Tongues is to be the standard evidence that Spirit Baptism has been received. It was a "Proof by Example," which is a fallacious way of proving biblical theology. At best, it is proof that that is what happened in the beginning--it is not evidence that it is to be standard for the Church throughout the ages.

That being said, the fact it happened and Paul taught tongues as one of several gifts of the Spirit makes me conclude that biblical theology sanctions and encourages Tongues. But as I said, it does *not* teach Tongues is the norm for all. On the contrary, we are taught that the Spirit reserves the right to pour out this gift as He sees fit, to individuals or to entire groups. He poured out Tongues on an entire group on Pentecost. And sometimes it happens in groups in that way. But theologically, the regular practice of Tongues is something the Holy Spirit determines, as I see it. I can be corrected on this, though.

I'm not a cessationist, and I do believe that their position is basically correct. Where Pentecostalism becomes important is in pointing out the danger of becoming a lifeless, perfunctory, lutrigical, external Christianity. That's what I experienced growing up, and it took those more spiritual than my group to show me that there was an "abundant life" I should be experiencing along with my righteousness. I didn't realize how "spiritual" my righteousness was supposed to be. I didn't see any difference between walking in the 10 Commandments and following the Spirit.

When I became conscious that God wanted all of me, I got it. I began to associate being "Spirit-filled" with obedience to the Lord's word inside my conscience.

It's a little difficult for me to read the various times Jesus poured out the Spirit on his Disciples and know how the theology of Spirit Baptism relates to it. Currently, I believe that spiritual anointing existed even while the Law was in effect. For example, John the Baptist was "filled with the Spirit."

However, the Baptism of Jesus that John the Baptist mentioned is NT Baptism, which is the pouring out of the Spirit to apply the work of Christ on the cross. Before Jesus, the Spirit could only apply the Law to those in covenant under that system.

I'm not clear enough on all of the prepositions to discuss it intelligently. My view is as above. The particular covenant under which the Spirit was poured out determines what kind of Baptism it was. The Baptism John spoke of as "Jesus' Baptism" is given to all believers. But many believers become, like me, spiritually dead for the most part, coming and going out of the Spirit with no sense of it. Your walk is only as deep as your attention to what you understand.

No, I don't ignore the fact Tongues is a form of prayer! I think it sounds like a great gift.

I can't answer this part. Sorry!

 

Okay, I'm coming back to this part, which I hadn't answered yet. I had to think about it. I don't teach cessationism in any form whatsoever, and I think you're completely missing the boat on this one. You are so prejudiced against those who don't believe in a "glossolalia for all" that you even think those who believe in "glssolalia for some" are cessationists? I don't think so--not even remotely. That defies the definition of cessationism.

To say that even "glossolalia for some" is not Full Gospel also defies the meaning of "Full Gospel." Pentecostals use the term to indicate belief that the gifts of the Spirit remain functioning today. I believe that--I just don't believe all Christians should have all the gifts of the Spirit.

1 Cor 12.7 Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. 8 To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, 10 to 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. 11 All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines...
14 Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many...
29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret?

A simple reading of this should tell you that we are not all the same, don't all have the same gifts, and certainly do not each have all the gifts! But Pentecostals will be Pentecostals!

Yes, I've heard these kinds of distinctions since Bible School in the early 70s! Never allowed me to form a systematic theology on it, because it seemed highly suspect. It was subjective, and not very cohesive as a theology across the entire New Testament.

But if we begin with the notion that Jesus' Baptism was the basis for Christianity, as John the Baptist suggested, then we can fit all of these divergent passages together cohesively. And we shouldn't be put off by those who claim to be Christians but don't experience the fulness of it simply because like Apollos they hadn't had it completely explained to them yet. Acts 18.26

We are clothed with Christ when we get saved. We do *not* get clothed with the Spirit Baptism. Pentecostals twist these words around to make them say what they want to hear, in accordance with their presumed theology.

Rom 13.14 Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the flesh.

Being "filled with the Spirit" is no different from being "clothed with Christ" except that one explains that the Spirit is to fully reside in us, dominating our whole being, and the other expresses that by being clothed with Christ we put on the righteousness of Christ which has come to dwell within us.

They are not different stages in Salvation. They are different truths with respect to our one Salvation.

Salvation is by one Jesus Christ and by one Holy Spirit. We may lack the full expression of that if we aren't taught to remain *exclusively* in the Spirit. But it is the same Salvation whether we walk in and out of it or remain completely within it.

I don't espouse cessationism, as I indicated above. This seems more like an emotional reaction than a well thought-out accusation?

My point was that the brother instantly knee-jerk reacted to something he didn't believe in and claimed Christians were acting in a demonic way. My suggestion was that when considering Christians, ask if perhaps they are deceived and may just be indulging in a meaningless exercise before accusing them of having bad or even evil motives?