Free Will-- A Slave

Sorry for the long delay, but my OTR job, and priorities when home, can put FR way down the list.

I will try and cover all of your assertions, which I’ve heard numerous times before, and even used myself, when I was a Calvinist over 30 yrs ago. It would be nice to have a $100 for each time I’ve answered points like these over the years. I’ve even answered many of those points on FR, but it’s been quite some time, so I’m not going to try and find them.

**1Co_12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.**

No man filled with His Spirit is going to deny Him. And only a man filled with the Holy Ghost can say that Jesus is Lord of his life.

First and foremost:
ANY scriptures taken from the epistles are to be read with this understanding: The epistles were written to the churches; the saints, whether they be pastors, elders, or other born again members. Most of the introductions point this out, with the most common being, “to the saints..”. Those people had already been born again. There are a few passages alluding to that experience, but not mentioned regularly since they had already ‘been there’. Paul makes a parallel example, comparing the disobedient behavior of the church in Corinth with the disobedient Israelites of the exodus, alluding to a rebirth: ..”our fathers were under the cloud, and ALL passed through the sea; And were ALL baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and did ALL eat that same spiritual meat; And did ALL drink that same spiritual drink...”. 1Cor. 10:1-4

The Corinthians were even focusing on which mighty preacher baptized them, instead of the name of the one into whom they were baptized. Which led Paul to scold them, saying that it was fortunate that he personally had only baptized a few in that assembly.

I quoted: “But what saith Jesus Christ?........”..how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ASK him.” Luke 11:13

To which you replied:
**How does that contradict the sovereign will of the Holy Spirit? In these verses, Christ is encouraging, presumably, believers to ask freely of God whatsoever they want, including the blessings of the Holy Spirit. It does not mean that the Holy Spirit does not quicken you to believe in the first place, so that you should desire to be filled with the Spirit.**

Paul came across some in Ephesus that had not received the Holy Ghost since they believed. That was quickly corrected. Until that baptism in the name of Jesus, and the subsequent filling of the Holy Ghost, those ‘certain disciples’ were not born again. Just like Calvinists teaching a new life in Jesus, without obeying Acts 2:38, so were those ‘certain disciples’ before meeting Paul.

My quote: “The Lord said there would be a SOUND, and He said that that would be the case for EVERY ONE that is born of the Spirit.”

**This sounds like something from one of the Charismatic groups, as they emphasize miraculous gifts. It seems to suggest that tongues is necessary to prove that one is saved. However, tongues is not a universal gift given in the scripture.**

I gave you three examples of the ‘sound’ (tougues) in actual rebirth circumstances, with a fourth occurance astonishing a big time magician of the day. Do the other conversions in Acts have to be spelled out in the same detail? If so, then shouldn’t other examples of God’s ordinances have the same repetitiveness, such as the details in the setting up of the tabernacle at every location where the Israelites camped.

The detailed accounts have witnesses to the fact, my favorite being Peter’s response:
“Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?” Acts 10:47. And his account to the brethern in Jerusalem: “..the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us AT THE BEGINNING.” 11:17 (caps to remind that the beginning of the church is that initial outpouring).

**1Co 12:29-30 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? (30) Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?”. If a believer must make a “SOUND,” presumably of the “diversity of tongues” variety, then Paul wouldn’t ask “do all speak with tongues?” Since it is a given, speaking to Christians, that they would all do so, if what you say is true.**

That’s from a letter to the church. Those folks have already been born again. The gifts of the Spirit are not to be confused with the initial infilling.

**The real witness of the Holy Spirit within us is not tongue speak, but fruits that make us better persons.
Gal 5:22-24 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, (23) Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. (24) And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.**

And that is how people, who are taught ‘accept the Lord as your personal saviour’ (but have no biblical born again experience), go about ‘proving’ they have the Spirit. A good friend of mine from years ago had nearly all of the ‘fruit of the Spirit’ by man’s definition. He had all of those, EXCEPT the gift of faith. One of the kindest people I have ever known, but an aetheist. God’s definitions of the fruit are to be proven in the actions of saints in the routine things, and the extremely difficult tests of faith.

**Jas_2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.**

But without the actual rebirth experience, people unwittingly resort to doing works to ‘prove’ they have faith.

**Eph 1:4-5 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: (5) Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, Joh_15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.**
**But more important than all of these visible manifestations was the fruit of the Spirit, that is, of a changed and moral life. James does not ask them to speak in tongues for him, but asks them to “shew their faith by their works.”**

The Lord has never called anyone to disobey Acts 2:38. Any church organization that disregards that command is even in the race yet.

**The purpose of salvation isn’t just so we can speak in tongues or sit around and rot. He ordains us to “bring forth fruit,” and “to be holy and without blame.” That is not to say that we can be perfect, but the true Christian covets perfection (at least, in spirit, if not in the members of his flesh that wars against him) and to do the will of God.**

No argument there.

**But the real problem is that Christ never actually said that the sign of salvation would be glossolalia. You didn’t attempt to justify any of the assertions I objected you to making, nor did you really explain why not all the Christians of Corinth spoke in tongues. Though you did write:
“e Oneness Pentecostals teach it to be the initial sign of Holy Ghost baptism, which with some converts, may be their only experience with tongues.”**
**On what biblical basis would you assert that someone who once spoke in tongues, can do so no longer?**

He said there would be a sound, and there was in every DETAILED account in Acts of souls receiving the Spirit. The Christians at Corinth had already been born again. The ‘gifts of the Spirit’ are given as the Lord so wills, but only to those already born again.

**Nor were tongues (and this is real language, not glossolia) in the book of acts the only visible manifestations of the Spirit. He came over the Apostles, and presumably everywhere else (since it was visible enough that even Simon Magus noticed it, though no tongues or miracles were mentioned) as a “cloven fire” over the believers. Along with tongues, they also spoke prophecy:
Act_19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.**

They also were said to ‘magnify God’ (Cornelius’ household). The key is they were speaking in a language that they previously were alien to. A sound that the witnesses were astounded to hear, knowing it was from God. Of course they would glorify God in the infilling experience. Speaking in another language about the best deals down at the market place would seem a little unspiritual, wouldn’t you agree?

**Having once been in the Pentecostal movement (though not the ONENESS Pentecostals, who are Modalists I believe, and not Trinitarian), and seeing an emphasis on spiritual manifestations over scripture truth, I realized some time ago that the reason why tongues were always emphasized to such a high degree was because they were the easiest to fake. It’s quite difficult for someone to fake the gift of prophecy, at least for predicting events. (Most of them gave “prophecy” that was as vague as possible).**

I have witnessed such lame behavior in Charismatic churches (my sister belongs to one). Those that haven’t obeyed Acts 2:38 are going to show up at the ‘wedding feast’ without a garment (bad end to that parable). Oneness with unspiritual leadership can fall for carnal mistakes as well (as 1 Corinthians testifies to)

**So then, what is a real means to see if someone is saved or not? Not through supposed spiritual manifestations, of which we do not know the origin beyond all doubt, but through the Gospel they preach (the most important aspect) and the fruit in their lives.**

Obey Acts 2:38

“Paul came across some in Ephesus that had not received the Holy Ghost since they believed.”

And who were these people you claim did not have the Holy Spirit and were believers? Book, chapter and verse?

“Until that baptism in the name of Jesus, and the subsequent filling of the Holy Ghost,”

Just to clarify, baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. (Matt 28:19) When Peter commanded them to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, he did not do so to the exclusion of the Father and the Holy Spirit. He emphasized Christ since it was He whom the Jews had rejected.

“I gave you three examples of the ‘sound’ (tougues)”

You’re moving on with this ridiculous point without actually answering any of my objections to your assertion that the “sound” is glossolalia, and not, say, prophecy, or praise, or the Gospel message. Or that the “sound” is even in reference to something the believers would make. As it does not say that believers would MAKE an “uncertain sound”, or that they would MOVE like the “wind” that blows where it listith, but rather that, these people would be born of the Spirit in like manner to the metaphors employed. You’ve built a theology on a single word, and on your own preconceptions. The foundation of your argument you have not even attempted to prove, and this will be the third time I asked you to.

“And his account to the brethern in Jerusalem: “..the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us AT THE BEGINNING.”

So then it follows that tongues are not “uncertain” glossolalia, but are actual “certain” foreign languages that people understood who spoke them. (Acts 2:6)

Even if you claim it is some angelic language that you spoke, or some language from some obscure African tribe, it at least had syntax, a grammar, and definite meaning. It wasn’t this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOHlTnOxS8A&list=PL71D524DEE837365A

Notice she even goes into convulsions. This is no different than anything, say, Marjoe Gortner could cause in any of his victims. And he even has a documentary where he exposes his own fraud, talking about his emotional manipulation of people as he goes about causing people to speak in tongues, be “baptized in the Holy Spirit,” all at the power of his unbelieving touch. I’ve seen stage hypnotists cause the same reactions, under similar circumstances. Heck, even the early Mormons behaved in that manner. Nor is this strange even for those within the occult outside of a semi-Christian context. Many a “psychic vampire,” or shaman, or Druid Priestess, marvels at their ability, supposedly, to make a person fall at their touch, or fall into esctatic utterances. And most cases of Demonic possession themselves involve even worse behavior, though even the Demons are able to speak German, or Italian, or Hebrew, instead of the mere babble that is more common. That’s probably the difference between Demonic influence and self-hypnosis, as self-hypnosis cannot give itself knowledge of a foreign language.

Furthermore, if it is like “at the beginning,” then it follows that there was a shaking, and cloven tongues of fire hovering over them. Yet, in that video, all I saw was a chubby woman having a fit in a bathtub, with the loud music drowning out her glossolalia.

I myself was involved with all of these poor people. I used to traffic in tongues, speaking them and having them interpreted. Visions and dreams were a dime a’dozen, as were mysterious flowings of power, and of fire, and of ecstasy. Yet, not one vision from even the most powerful of Prophets, not one word, could ever touch upon or repair that inner restlessness in my heart. As it was not true faith that I had, even when hearing all these different prophecies, only a show-faith, and a show-power. You yourself can’t even tell the difference between an Atheist and a Christian! So I imagine that you, also, do not know the difference between show-power and real power. I did not truly experience the power of God, until after I had fallen so low, to the depths of the Earth, nearly to my death, and God pulled me out of it... not with the signs and wonders of the Penteocostals, or the signs and wonders of the heretical Oneness cults, but through an education of who and what He really is... and when I had finally received faith, it was not the faith that produces tongue or visions. It was a faith that moved mountains, with real power, in a way that I had never experienced before in my life. Not so flashy as the infidels, but answers to prayer that were specific, mighty, wonderful, and not so that I would believe... but because I believed already, and therefore they were answered.

To me, all this nonsense over tongues, which would render every believer for almost 2,000 years, till Seymour at Azuza, actually DAMNED, is nothing more than a reversion to an unsanctified and carnal anticipation over the real fruit of the Spirit, which moves with a far greater power than all your gibberish and chantings and false visions.

**And who were these people you claim did not have the Holy Spirit and were believers? Book, chapter and verse?**

Acts 19:1-3 “..Paul..came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples; He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, unto John’s baptism.”

Note that these were apparently disciples of John the baptist, who taught all that came to him that he was simply the messenger coming ahead of the Messiah. How many he baptized, and how long a time had passed, before baptizing the Lord Jesus is a bit of a guess. At which point we know he specifically declared Jesus Christ as the promised one. We do know that he continued baptizing until his arrest by Herod, and that Jesus had his disciples performing the same baptism as John. Paul continues:

4 “..John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6.....the Holy Ghost came upon them; and they spake with tongues and prophesied.”

Note there was no indication that John’s message had not gotten to through to these disciples, for Paul, after getting acquainted in vss 1&2, asked “have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?”. That’s hardly the type of question one would ask to the completely uninformed. Paul realized that they believed in something pertaining the the Lord, or he most likely wouldn’t have asked them: ‘since ye believed’.

**Just to clarify, baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. (Matt 28:19) When Peter commanded them to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, he did not do so to the exclusion of the Father and the Holy Spirit. He emphasized Christ since it was He whom the Jews had rejected.**

‘Just to clarify’? You should have worded that ‘Just to personally interpret’. Because that is what you are doing, to satisfy your tradition. Here’s some ‘plain reading’:

John 5:43. “I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another come in his own name, him ye will receive”. The Christ just testified that his name is not his own.

Heb. 1:4. “Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath BY INHERITANCE obtained a more excellent name then they.” That verse is witness that the Son inheritted his name. And we know that the name of the Son is Jesus (Matt. 1:21; Luke 2:21). Not his own? Inheritted the name? Yes, it appears that the name of Jesus belonged to the Father originally (one of his many names).

John 14:26 “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in MY name..” (that would be Jesus).

The fulness of the Godhead dwells in Jesus Christ. This is made plain by the Lord’s words in Matt 28:18, saying: “ALL power is GIVEN me in heaven and in earth”.

In vs 19, the Lord says to baptize in the ‘name’ (singular). By this time, his disciples knew that the Son had come in his Father’s name, and that the Holy Ghost was to sent in Jesus’s name. That is why they used the name of Jesus in EVERY detailed baptism in the book of Acts:

Acts 2:38 “Repent, and be baptized in the name of JESUS Christ for the REMISSION of sins.......”.

8:16 (For as yet he was fallen on none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord JESUS.) Note that those Samaritans ‘believed’ and were baptized four verses earlier, with Simon believing and being baptized in the following verse.

10:48 “And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord..”. Peter made it clear who the ‘Lord’ is in vs 36: “..preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:)”

And the afore mentioned 19:5; “..baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus”.

Paul, scolding the Corinthians over whose name is applied to water baptism, and not who baptized them, said: “Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” 1Cor 1:13.

I’m a father, son, and husband, but those are titles, not my name. My boss could address his workers in this way: “Go and tell our customers in the name of your company founder, CEO, and fellow worker, that we will provide the best service possible. I know his name; he doesn’t have to tell me WHO he is.

The fulness of the Godhead is in Jesus Christ. You omit no power of the Godhead by using the name of Jesus in water baptism.

Concerning Holy Ghost baptism with the evidence of speaking in tongues, you said:

**You’re moving on with this ridiculous point without actually answering any of my objections to your assertion that the “sound” is glossolalia, and not, say, prophecy, or praise, or the Gospel message. Or that the “sound” is even in reference to something the believers would make. As it does not say that believers would MAKE an “uncertain sound”, or that they would MOVE like the “wind” that blows where it listith, but rather that, these people would be born of the Spirit in like manner to the metaphors employed. You’ve built a theology on a single word, and on your own preconceptions. The foundation of your argument you have not even attempted to prove, and this will be the third time I asked you to.**

I believe that the witnesses, including the receiver KNOW that they have spoken in tongues. As far as ‘tie my tie, tie my tie, tie my tie’, yeah there are people wanting to become ‘part of the club’ instead of yielding to God.

When describing the wind, Jesus said that the ONE aspect you could be CERTAIN of is the ‘sound’ of the wind. Maybe you live in a drafty house, or drive a car with a broken window, but I can be in my house or car, or even walking in a deep valley, hear the wind, but not feel it at all, and KNOW there is wind because of the sound. “..so is EVERY ONE that is born of the Spirit”.

**Even if you claim it is some angelic language that you spoke, or some language from some obscure African tribe, it at least had syntax, a grammar, and definite meaning. It wasn’t this:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOHlTnOxS8A&list=PL71D524DEE837365A**

**Notice she even goes into convulsions.**

Do you think that the observers, on the day of Pentecost, thought that the recipients of the Holy Ghost were drunk just because they were speaking in other languages? In the video they didn’t hold a mike up to her so I could hear, so I certainly am NOT going to say she did not receive the Holy Ghost evidenced by tongues. If you choose to say God had no part in that, then that’s your decision. But, from my own past experience of denying the power of God, I recommend that you don’t forget to buckle your seatbelt, etc.

I told you before that I agree that there are fakers out there. Equally bad are those that deny that baptism in the name of Jesus is for the remission of sins. If you don’t believe that, then you best get your black marker and blot those words out.

**Furthermore, if it is like “at the beginning,” then it follows that there was a shaking, and cloven tongues of fire hovering over them. Yet, in that video, all I saw was a chubby woman having a fit in a bathtub, with the loud music drowning out her glossolalia.**

(Wow! picking on people with a weight problem. Let’s see....which fruit of your spirit led you to say that? And personally I have told pastors they really should tone down the drums. It drowns out voices in all parts of the service). No, there is no mention of cloven tongues of fire, or an earthquake at Cornelius house. Peter, giving account back in Jerusalem, said, “And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning”. 11:15. Peter didn’t seem concerned about other signs, only the sign that came out of the receivers mouths, which he, and those of the circumcision, were witness to.

Your argument is with Peter. Good luck with that.

**I myself was involved with all of these poor people**

“these poor people”. Are your their Judge? I hope not. Or are you expressing a sorrow for them? (if so, you need to express that. Your screen name seems to once again come to mind). After reading your experiences, I am reminded of the many that ARE only intersted in the ‘loaves and fishes’ and not real conversion. I did not first visit a Oneness church because I wanted to see supernatural things. I saw the astounding transformation of my stepmother, that only grew stronger for the last 33 yrs of her life. She didn’t harp on tongues, just the joy that she had received through the Holy Ghost, and the washing away of her sins (she was quite worldly wild). I said that I agree that there are fakers. God sorts them out though his word, sometimes using leaders that are spiritually minded, and hear his voice.
Even before obeying Acts 2:38 (think Rom. 6:17), I can’t imagine sitting through one service of the charismatic church you once attended. I don’t think the one my sister attends is THAT crazy. I visited it once, because we were there on vacation, but will not drop in that assembly again (unless they want to be baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins).

**You yourself can’t even tell the difference between an Atheist and a Christian!**

Well, there’s a lie, since I told you that the person I made mention of had no faith in God, and therefore wasn’t going to have such tests of faith. But he could certainly (by many mainline denominatioal standards) pass the love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, meekness, temperance, test. The faith part just ain’t there (but it seems to short supply in many churches around here, so he possibly justifies himself accordingly)

**To me, all this nonsense over tongues, which would render every believer for almost 2,000 years, till Seymour at Azuza, actually DAMNED**

IMO, not only do you seem to judge of men’s souls, you seem to have connections from every corner of the world, from every decade since the writing of the book of Acts, and seem proclaim that there were no tongues for almost 2,000 years. Personally, I use supplemental oxygen when elevated over 16,000 ft (10,000 ft, when pilot-in-command).

“Note that these were apparently disciples of John the baptist, who taught all that came to him that he was simply the messenger coming ahead of the Messiah.”

And so these were not Christian believers at all, but simply disciples of John who “had not so much as heard of the Holy Ghost,” and who converted when they heard the Messiah was Jesus Christ, as John had prepared them to expect:

Act 19:4-5 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. (5) When they heard THIS, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Since John did preach that Jesus Christ would baptize with the Holy Spirit, and with fire, (Matt 3:11, Luke 3:16), and therefore, if they were present, they would have heard of the Holy Ghost; and since they converted when Paul said that John prepared them to believe “on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus,” we can conclude that they had not yet become believers in the Christian religion.

Therefore, your conclusion that these were Christians walking around without the Holy Spirit are all false.

“‘Just to clarify’? You should have worded that ‘Just to personally interpret’.”

How do you “personally interpret” this some other way?

Mat_28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

” That is why they used the name of Jesus in EVERY detailed baptism in the book of Acts:”

Those are merely commands, emphasizing Christ since it is the Christian religion they were being baptized into. It wasn’t the actual baptism scene described, which is never described in detail, since all believers would probably be aware of the Baptismal formula.

“John 14:26 “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in MY name..” (that would be Jesus).”

Jesus Christ is not the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit hovered over Him at John’s Baptism (Luke 3:22). Nor is He the Father, as He prays to the Father, and submits to the Father as the Son, which proves the Father and the Son are not the same person. And they are always differentiated in the New Testament in the following way: The Father elects, the Son Redeems, the Holy Spirit applies.

“When describing the wind, Jesus said that the ONE aspect you could be CERTAIN of is the ‘sound’ of the wind.”

This is merely a re-assertion of what you said before, without actually replying to anything I wrote. Your description here of what Christ said is also false. He never said “one aspect you could be certain of is the sound.” There was no emphasis on the sound at all, or any idea that the sound is separate from the metaphor of the wind. You haven’t even explained how any other aspect of the sentence supports you, or even the context, nor are you even using the wording of the verse to defend your position. In the context of how men would be born again, He states that “the wind bloweth where it listith, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, or where it goeth.” He is doing nothing more than describing the sound of wind, which is all a metaphorical answer to Nicodemus’ question “How can a man be born when he is old?”

The meaning, being simply, that the Holy Spirit is a Free Agent (He moves where He listith), that His working is as powerful as the force of the wind (for he describes the Spirit like wind), and yet it is subtle and as mysterious as the wind (you cannot tell where it cometh or where it goeth), completely unknowable to the natural man (1 Co 2:14).

“Do you think that the observers, on the day of Pentecost, thought that the recipients of the Holy Ghost were drunk just because they were speaking in other languages?”

Yes, as that is exactly what it says. Though those who spoke those languages and therefore understood them, did not accuse them of being drunk. The idea that the Apostles were stumbling around, flopping like fish on the ground, is simply ridiculous, and if it was so, then everyone would have thought them drunk, even if they were speaking their languages while flopping about on the floor.

“But, from my own past experience of denying the power of God, I recommend that you don’t forget to buckle your seatbelt, etc.”

Of all the threats I have ever received from my former brethren in the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement, not one has ever come true. I’ve been told that I would face “judgment,” that God would strike me down, that God would do this or that. But it’s never happened, and, in fact, my faith has become a living faith, moreso than it ever was before. What a wrathful God, who punishes me with freedom and blessings that I never had when I was with those miracle-mongers! So, I think I’m A-OK in denying all your experiences, especially those of the Oneness Pentecostals, as I can’t imagine the Holy Spirit would work through someone who denies His identity.

“No, there is no mention of cloven tongues of fire, or an earthquake at Cornelius house.”

By your logic, they wouldn’t have to, since you explained earlier that the reason why tongues are not always mentioned when people were filled/baptized by the Holy Spirit was because it was not worth repeating all the time. Since Peter said “as it fell on us as in the beginning,” I can only conclude it was exactly the same, since I’m using your logic to do so. It is only your illogical assumption that tongues is the end all and the be all, and that everyone was obsessed with them and thought only of them.

“IMO, not only do you seem to judge of men’s souls, you seem to have connections from every corner of the world, from every decade since the writing of the book of Acts, and seem proclaim that there were no tongues for almost 2,000 years.”

I’ve read a great deal of church history, from the ancient times to the reformation. And though the Reformists, especially those in Scotland, did indeed move with the Spirit, with prayers that toppled mountains, with words from God on very specific issues, yet not one ever spoke of babbling, or shaking, or falling over “drunk in the Spirit.” And so you would regard them damned. Not to mention, none of them were “Oneness.” Probably a double strike on them. So, who, exactly, has the judgmental opinion here? You with your exclusive club of babblers? Or me who owns these Christians for what they are?

**Since John did preach that Jesus Christ would baptize with the Holy Spirit, and with fire, (Matt 3:11, Luke 3:16), and therefore, if they were present, they would have heard of the Holy Ghost; and since they converted when Paul said that John prepared them to believe “on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus,” we can conclude that they had not yet become believers in the Christian religion.**

You want it both ways. You want them to be followers of John, yet not knowing about Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost baptism that John taught and prophesied about. Which would make one wonder how they would have even known about John’s baptism.

**How do you “personally interpret” this some other way? Mat_28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:**

Well, the apostles certainly knew how to follow through with that command, rather than simply repeat words. They knew the NAME (singular).

**Jesus Christ is not the Holy Spirit.**

Jesus Christ is the administrator of Holy Ghost baptism. He said it would be sent in his NAME. What name do you use since you seem to prefer to contradict him?

**The Holy Spirit hovered over Him at John’s Baptism (Luke 3:22). Nor is He the Father, as He prays to the Father, and submits to the Father as the Son, which proves the Father and the Son are not the same person. And they are always differentiated in the New Testament in the following way: The Father elects, the Son Redeems, the Holy Spirit applies.**

If you want to continue the Godhead debate, we can resume that back where there are still the 7 or so questions at the end of about 5 posts that you still haven’t answered:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3018091/posts?page=1245#1245

**This is merely a re-assertion of what you said before, without actually replying to anything I wrote. Your description here of what Christ said is also false. He never said “one aspect you could be certain of is the sound.”**

He said you don’t know where it comes from or where it’s going. But you WILL hear the sound (provided you aren’t deaf). That sounds pretty certain to me. And that it would be so for EVERY ONE that is born of the Spirit.

**You haven’t even explained how any other aspect of the sentence supports you, or even the context, nor are you even using the wording of the verse to defend your position. In the context of how men would be born again, He states that “the wind bloweth where it listith, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, or where it goeth**

You accuse me of not putting things in context, and then you leave off the rest of that verse as though the Lord has completely changed the subject at that point.

And the drunken issue?

**Yes, as that is exactly what it says. Though those who spoke those languages and therefore understood them, did not accuse them of being drunk.**

The ones that said “..these men are full of new wine.” are not accused of not knowing the languages the converts were speaking. Peter even clarified it for all present: “For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is the third hour of the day.” Peter didn’t deny an appearance of drunken behavior.

Flopping like fish? You certainly like to go the extreme. My wife will admit to getting drunk several times before I met her (in a bar). But, she says she never was down on the floor.

**Of all the threats I have ever received from my former brethren in the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement, not one has ever come true.**

I intended it as a caution, hardly a threat. But, call what you want. From your testimony about that madhouse church you attended, I guess I wouldn’t lose any sleep over any supposed threats from them either. I just know what happened to me when I dissed the Acts 2:38 message. Some are more noble than others in receiving the whole gospel, such as Cornelius, Apollos, and the certain disciples in Ephesus.

**By your logic, they wouldn’t have to, since you explained earlier that the reason why tongues are not always mentioned when people were filled/baptized by the Holy Spirit was because it was not worth repeating all the time. Since Peter said “as it fell on us as in the beginning,” I can only conclude it was exactly the same, since I’m using your logic to do so. It is only your illogical assumption that tongues is the end all and the be all, and that everyone was obsessed with them and thought only of them.**

“I can only conclude..” that Peter was testifying of the infilling of the Holy Ghost. Signs that were coming from elsewhere (rushing mighty wind, cloven tongues of fire) were just that: signs that something was going to happen. They were not the infilling of the Holy Ghost. THAT is the promise of the Father.

**I’ve read a great deal of church history, from the ancient times to the reformation. And though the Reformists, especially those in Scotland, did indeed move with the Spirit, with prayers that toppled mountains, with words from God on very specific issues, yet not one ever spoke of babbling, or shaking, or falling over “drunk in the Spirit.” And so you would regard them damned. Not to mention, none of them were “Oneness.” Probably a double strike on them. So, who, exactly, has the judgmental opinion here? You with your exclusive club of babblers? Or me who owns these Christians for what they are?

So, you’ve got their room numbers in heaven already. I judge no man. Here’s a question for you:

Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the REMISSION of SINS: Is it of heaven, or of men?

“You want it both ways. You want them to be followers of John, yet not knowing about Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost baptism that John taught and prophesied about.”

I want it the way it’s written, as they themselves say “we’ve not so much as even heard that there is a Holy Ghost.” So, they must not have heard him teach on the subject, since John says:

Mat_3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

“Well, the apostles certainly knew how to follow through with that command, rather than simply repeat words. They knew the NAME (singular).”

You’re actually correct in a way, since by “be ye baptized in the name of Jesus,” which is understood as “converting to the Christian religion,” as that is what Baptism signifies, implies being baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as that is the baptismal formula established by Christ Himself.

Mat_28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

And so it has always been practiced:

Didache (40AD-120AD) (Translation by Dr. Lightfoot)
7:1 But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize.
7:2 Having first recited all these things, baptize {in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit} in living (running) water.

“Jesus Christ is the administrator of Holy Ghost baptism. He said it would be sent in his NAME.”

You seem to say this as if it proves that the Holy Ghost is Jesus Christ. However, to be sent “in His name” only means “by His request, intercession, etc.” You admit this yourself, because you wrote “Jesus Christ is the administrator of the Holy Ghost baptism,” though obviously you mean it in an entirely different sense.

“If you want to continue the Godhead debate, we can resume that back where there are still the 7 or so questions at the end of about 5 posts that you still haven’t answered:”

The reverse is true. The only thing you have going for you is persistence in repeating your arguments again and again, while ignoring everything else others say to you. You’re more than welcome to try it again here, but I affirm my right to ignore repetitions of previously refuted arguments.

“He said you don’t know where it comes from or where it’s going. But you WILL hear the sound (provided you aren’t deaf). That sounds pretty certain to me.”

The word “will” and the emphasis on sound doesn’t actually exist in that scripture, so I don’t know how it can sound “certain’ to you when all you’re doing is wresting one word out of a sentence and putting it into a new one. And, for a 4th time, you didn’t answer any of my original objections to this to begin with, nor any of my new objections. Nor did you even attempt to refute the reasonable interpretation already given, though you keep capitalizing words and trying to build a theology around a single word. And then you don’t even explain how, in your universe, the “sound” is tongues, instead of, for example, praise, or prayer, or prophecy, or preaching the Gospel, which are all “sounds,” unless you use telepathy.

Since I don’t think you’re going to come up with anything new on this one, I will ignore any further comments on this matter unless something new or interesting comes up on your end.

“Peter didn’t deny an appearance of drunken behavior.”

He denied that they were drunk, and the only evidence of “drunken behavior’ was speaking in a foreign language by those who likely didn’t understand, or didn’t appreciate what they heard. No other behavior of shaking, convulsing, or an inability to stand on their own, is described. Nor did anyone who for sure understood the languages accuse them of drunkenness.

If Peter was shaking around and unable to stand, “drunk’ in the Spirit, as you would assume, he certainly could not claim that he wasn’t drunk at all. Just not drunk on wine. You also would expect this behavior to be mentioned, and justified, since it is so incredibly embarrassing to behold.

“From your testimony about that madhouse church you attended,”

I never claimed it was a madhouse. And since your only complaint about the video was the loudness of the drums, it seems you’re madhouse was worse than mine. Tongues were actually not focused on in my church at all, though they were a part of it. It was mostly in incredibly vague visions. It was in other churches where tongues had more of an emphasis, which I also witnessed, and not at all different from your average Oneness Pentecostal meeting as seen on YouTube. I would say they are identical, actually. Same loud music, same chubby lady convulsing on stage, etc.

““I can only conclude..” that Peter was testifying of the infilling of the Holy Ghost. Signs that were coming from elsewhere (rushing mighty wind, cloven tongues of fire) were just that: signs that something was going to happen. They were not the infilling of the Holy Ghost. THAT is the promise of the Father.”

Indeed, the promise of Jesus Christ is the infilling of the Holy Ghost, and not any particular sign or wonder that historically came along with it, such as tongues, and prophecy, and cloven tongues of fire.

1Co_12:30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?

“So, you’ve got their room numbers in heaven already. I judge no man. Here’s a question for you:”

Except that you’ve already judged every human being that has not convulsed like a Oneness Pentecostal and spouted gibberish as not having the Holy Spirit. This is the teaching of your religion that unless one has spoken in gibberish, then they do not possess the Holy Spirit.

Unless you really do have something new or interesting to say, this will be my last reply to these repetitive posts of yours.

**If Peter was shaking around and unable to stand, “drunk’ in the Spirit, as you would assume**

Have you ever been drunk? you don’t have to be unable to stand. Peter said that they weren’t “drunk as ye SUPPOSE seeing it is the third hour of the day”. You’re treating those observers as idiots that don’t know what SEEMED to be drunken behavior. But, that condescension appears to be an addiction.

**The only thing you have going for you is persistence in repeating your arguments again and again, while ignoring everything else others say to you. You’re more than welcome to try it again here, but I affirm my right to ignore repetitions of previously refuted arguments.**

Spin, dodge, “I affirm my right to ignore..”. If you had specifically answered my 7 questions on the Godhead, I would have no argument there. You throw your opinions up pretty fast it seems. So why are those too hard?

**I never claimed it was a madhouse. And since your only complaint about the video was the loudness of the drums, it seems you’re madhouse was worse than mine. Tongues were actually not focused on in my church at all, though they were a part of it. It was mostly in incredibly vague visions. It was in other churches where tongues had more of an emphasis, which I also witnessed, and not at all different from your average Oneness Pentecostal meeting as seen on YouTube. I would say they are identical, actually. Same loud music, same chubby lady convulsing on stage, etc.**

I don’t make a habit of tearing apart church assemblies I have never personally attended. You were dissing your old assembly, so I condensed your description to a madhouse. You do seem to have a disdain for those that are overweight. Classy. (I’m almost 59, and am right where I’ve been most of my life; 6’ 1”, 180 lbs. I been blessed with good health, some aren’t, and some can’t help that, for example, a thyroid that has thown their system out of whack).

I said: **“So, you’ve got their room numbers in heaven already. I judge no man. Here’s a question for you:”**

Which you didn’t answer. Here it is again: Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins: It it fom heaven or of men?

You won’t answer it. Just like the Godhead questions; if you can’t answer them, you just claim you did, and make condescending remarks. (I even asked by freepmail if you would just answer the question about John 17:1-3 where Jesus is praying to the Father and calling him “the ONLY TRUE GOD, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent”).

**Unless you really do have something new or interesting to say, this will be my last reply to these repetitive posts of yours.**

That as good of a repetitive dodge as any of your others.

Obey Acts 2:38 and you can lay claim to Romans 6:17.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.