Ask a pentecostal

[grace]

The gift is the HOly Spirit! .....the manifestations of that gift are...word of knowledge, word of wisdom, tongues, interpretation of tongues, prophesy, faith, healing, miracles, discerning of spirits..

If we are going to ask for the gift(Holy Spirit) and we are to ask our father. How is God our father before we ask for the Holy Spirit?

"Which of you fathers, if your son asks for a fish, will give him a snake instead? Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!" (Luke 11:11-13)

First you must be saved (at which point God becomes your heavenly Father - see John 1:12-13, Galatians 3:26, and 4:4-7), then you can ask for the Holy Spirit. But remember, when we become saved we automatically receive the indwelling Holy Spirit, we don't have to ask for Him (as we saw earlier)! Yet Jesus says that God will give the gift of the Holy Spirit to those who ask for it. This gift, therefore, is not salvation (because we do not become saved by asking God for the Holy Spirit), but instead this gift is what the Bible calls the "baptism" of the Holy Spirit for receiving spiritual empowerment:

[flapjacklambo]

i believe every christian must speak in tongue as a evidence of the baptism of the holy ghost because the early christians experienced it all were filled with the holy ghost and spoke in tongues.
I think all that is needed of us is to desire it. and our father in heaven, the giver of all good and perfect gift will give it to us.

[/color]
The reason I don't believe that is a requirement is simply because the Word of God does not tell us this.  I cannot believe that God would not have it written down if it were a requirement to speak in tongues. I would consider that adding to the bible for someone to claim that another doesn't have the Holy Spirit because they have not spoken in tongues. Paul clearly teaches that we will not all receive the same gifts. I do believe in the tongues and all of the other gifts although I think they are abused in some instances. I believe the evidence of the Holy Spirit is the fruit we bear, that is how we will be known. I cannot think of any scriptures that teach that Gods people will be known by their gifts.

God Bless

[stevehut]

i believe every christian must speak in tongue as a evidence of the baptism of the holy ghost because the early christians experienced it all were filled with the holy ghost and spoke in tongues.

Actually, Paul says in a couple of places that it was not a universal practice.  Some people have this gift, some have that.

[stevehut]

I would consider that adding to the bible for someone to claim that another doesn't have the Holy Spirit because they have not spoken in tongues.

Yup.   

Spirit is received in water baptism (Acts 2:38)

[grace]

I would consider that adding to the bible for someone to claim that another doesn't have the Holy Spirit because they have not spoken in tongues.

Yup.   

Spirit is received in water baptism (Acts 2:38)

Have you ever studied the journey of the Jews to the promise land?

[RAMS]

I just can't help it. Specially seeing as not many actually know what we believe.

So if you wanna know ask.

Other Pentecostal's are welcome to answer if they desire.

I have the true gift of "Tongues" - I speak fluently in English and Spanish. I can lead either type speakers to the Lord Jesus Christ. "Ratsach" is tongues which translates to recognized language and too, the people "heard" in their owen language.

So, why for the last 151 years the Pentecostal movement has been around,  why do they insist in this frothing at the mouth BS in the form of gibberish and think it some how is from God.

I saw this outfit once in an A of G 'church' , and got up and left after they started in,  as it was the darkest and most demonic thing I've ever seen in the name of "god" in my whole life.

God is not pleased.

Look forward to your explanation.

Thank you in advance,

Robert

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

I have the true gift of "Tongues" - I speak fluently in English and Spanish. I can lead either type speakers to the Lord Jesus Christ. "Ratsach" is tongues which translates to recognized language and too, the people "heard" in their owen language.

So, why for the last 151 years the Pentecostal movement has been around,  why do they insist in this frothing at the mouth BS in the form of gibberish and think it some how is from God.

I saw this outfit once in an A of G 'church' , and got up and left after they started in,  as it was the darkest and most demonic thing I've ever seen in the name of "god" in my whole life.

God is not pleased.

Look forward to your explanation.

Thank you in advance,

Robert

A qualifier: I'm not a Pentecostal, but I was raised in an A of G "church" as you like to say.  For several reasons, mainly doctrinal, I am not part of that organization.

The sort of battologeo you're talking about is not tongues, I agree.  It's ecstatic utterance, and yes, it is out of order as a major part of the service.

This however, does not make ecstatic experience necessarily an evil thing.  I doubt you could prove that Biblically.  I do think we could find a few ecstatic experiences in teh Bible, though, and some of them commended, and some condemned.  It's probably easy to condemn such things, because it's true that many cultures obtain ecstatic experiences through wrong means: substance abuse, ascetic self-abuse, and meditation, primarily.  I'll just appeal here for you to keep an open mind, and look to the fruits before judging anyone or thing too hastily.

I would also mention that confusion on their part does not nullify the reality of gifts of tongues, rare though they be.  I know a man who was given the gift of speaking Navajo.  He became a missionary to the Navajo.

Lastly, the A of G, despite quite a bit of bad doctrine (dispensationalism, pre-trib rapture, misunderstanding of tongues and other spiritual gifts) is basically in agreement on all of what I would consider essentials of the faith, namely who Jesus is and that He is Lord.  They deserve to be called brothers.  Okay, they may be weird Uncle Harold, but they're still family.

Jarrod

[RAMS]

Good sage response.

Paul intoned for us to do things in an orderly manner and intoned "not" to speak in tongues. In old English, Oxford, that says DO NOT SPEAK IN TONGUES UNKNOWN.

Linguistic fact.

The other base question under everything else known under Grace, what and who is glorified with a small sect of people jabbering away incoherently, replete with 'spiritual laughter', 'spiritual crying', and these new age demonic like 'revivals'......

In toto, it seems a form of vexation in collective madness and anything BUT Godly.

Consider, and very good response to me and thank you.

Robert

[llewksgood]

The History of your beginning? Just what movement did your church come from. What set your church at difference than others?

That is very difficult to answer. I am originally Assemblies of God. But due to some problems with our church we have begun to attend a Pentecostal Church of God. The Assemblies as most know started as a result of the Asuza Street Revival. PCOG I am not sure.

Pentecostalism came out of the great revivals around the world. Asuza Street is only one of them. I think it is Marie Ettingsworth [not sure if that name's right] who is called "the grandmother of pentecost". Speaking in other tongues was around before the pentecostal arm of the church was founded.

[llewksgood]

If I may ask a question of the non pentecostals here.

Why is everyone so hung up on accusing those who believe in speaking in tongues of having big egos when the opposite is so very apparent in what is written here? Those debating against tongues show great pride in what they assume as their superior learning and understanding (those poor ignorant pentecostals)

Go back and read... and you will see how you've missed the beam which is in your own eye.

[jessbuds]

If I may ask a question of the non pentecostals here.

Why is everyone so hung up on accusing those who believe in speaking in tongues of having big egos when the opposite is so very apparent in what is written here? Those debating against tongues show great pride in what they assume as their superior learning and understanding (those poor ignorant pentecostals)

Go back and read... and you will see how you've missed the beam which is in your own eye.

That is not true i guess. It is just that sometimes i see it too as like requirement or proof that an individual indeed received the Holy Spirit. I was converted and baptize in the baptist congregation but our pastor believed in speaking in tongue. He told me once that sometimes during his midnight prayers he suddenly speak in tongues. In his explanation, the Holy Spirit is helping him bring his prayers and petition to God that he cannot speak about. I do too believe in speaking of tongue but it should not be a requirement to determine wither i am spirit filled or not because not all people have this gift only very few i guess.

I attended various pentecostal congregation myself, oneness etc. they believe in baptism in the name of Jesus and i believe there is nothing wrong with that because it is mentioned in the bible too and we all are baptize in Jesus name since the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one so if we say in Jesus name that includes the Father and the Holy Spirit. The problem that i saw esp. in oneness is that they think that they are the only saved group in the world and that is so selfish kind of belief. 

[Tu Es Petrus]

If I may ask a question of the non pentecostals here.

Why is everyone so hung up on accusing those who believe in speaking in tongues of having big egos when the opposite is so very apparent in what is written here? Those debating against tongues show great pride in what they assume as their superior learning and understanding (those poor ignorant pentecostals)

Go back and read... and you will see how you've missed the beam which is in your own eye.

Well, since you are asking non-pentecostals, and since I'm a Catholic, I will toss in my 2 cents.

Speaking in tounges is "Biblical", so its hard not to believe in it. Therefore I would be suprised to see someone "accusing those who believe in speaking in tongues of having big egos." To not believe in it is to deny Biblical events.

That said, I think that most people who say they are speaking in tounges are just mumbling, and only think they are speaking in tounges. Please allow me to quote a few paragraphs from an article written by Jimmy Akin:

".....Some of the confusion concerns the nature of the gift. One idea is that tongues is a mode of utterance that can be understood by anyone regardless of his native language. Another is that tongues are a "private prayer language" that is uniquely created by the Holy Spirit for each tongues-speaker.

Neither idea is correct, and both stem from a failure to appreciate what the word "tongues" means. Contemporary English speakers often look on the term as if it were mysterious and hard to understand. It's not. When discussing speech, "tongues" has a simple and established meaning. It just means "languages." Obviously, the word tongue can refer to the physical organ in our mouths. This organ is part of human anatomy, and every language has a word for it. But because of the association the tongue has with our power of speech, the tongue is invariably used as a metaphor for the manner of speech. Thus in almost every language the word for tongue is the same as the word for language. We speak of "the Spanish tongue," "the French tongue," and so forth. Over time, this usage became less common in English, and the word "language" has become dominant. That is why the term "tongues" can sound mysterious. We don't use it to refer to languages most of the time anymore. Today, for English speakers, "tongue" more often will bring to mind the physical organ rather than the idea of a language.

Confusion is also caused by the fact that English Bibles switch back and forth between "tongue" and "language," even though they are translating the single Greek word glossa. It would be clearer if they were consistent in using the term "language," allowing us to talk about the gift of languages and to read in our Bibles of the apostles and the early Christians speaking in languages. By keeping in mind that this is what Scripture means, we more easily can understand what "tongues" is. It is an supernatural endowment by which one is able to speak in another language. One may not understand what one is saying (Paul suggests that people should pray to be able to interpret what is said in tongues; 1 Cor. 14:13-14). The content of one's speech is determined by the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:4), so one's own understanding is not essential, as it is in normal speech. This corrects the first misunderstanding of the gift: If tongues could be understood by all listeners, no matter what language they spoke, then Paul would not exhort people to pray for the gift of interpretation.

The second misunderstanding of the gift-that tongues is a spontaneous, Spirit-created "private prayer language"-is rebuffed by the text of Scripture. As the multinational crowd gathered on the day of Pentecost showed, the languages in which the apostles spoke were real human languages that could be understood by anyone who spoke them (Acts 2:11). This has prompted some Pentecostals and charismatics to assert that the gift of tongues in Acts is different from the gift of tongues mentioned by Paul, but there is no basis for that. The claim would appear to be rooted in many Pentecostals' and charismatics' awareness that what they are speaking in is not a real language (not to say that the gift of tongues doesn't occur; it does, just not as frequently as some claim). Paul nowhere hints that the phenomenon he refers to as "speaking in languages" (Greek, glossais lalon, from which we get "glossalalia") is different from the phenomenon his companion Luke referred to by the same name when writing Acts.

Paul speculates that a person might be given the superlative gift of speaking a language used by angels (1 Cor. 13:1). But, in context, it is not clear that Paul thinks it a real possibility. He posits it as the greatest imaginable kind of tongues, parallel to knowing all mysteries and knowledge (the greatest imaginable extent of prophecy, 13:2a), having faith that can move mountains (the greatest imaginable gift of faith, 13:2b), and giving away all one's possessions and delivering one's body to be burned (the greatest imaginable expression of selflessness, 13:3). Paul isn't saying that speaking in angelic languages occurs (or even that angels have languages). He is using Middle Eastern hyperbole to say, "Even if I could speak in the tongues of angels, that would not profit me if I did not have love."

He portrays speaking in languages of angels as something that would be extreme and rare, if it occurs at all. That means tongues normally will be ordinary human languages. They certainly would not be unique, divinely-invented languages for the believer and God alone-something that would be even more special than angelic languages."

[3AM]

I just can't help it. Specially seeing as not many actually know what we believe.

So if you wanna know ask.

Other Pentecostal's are welcome to answer if they desire.

Why do pentecostals observe Sunday, as the day for worship, when the Bible clearly states that the 7th day sabbath is God's appointed day for worship.

[88]

I just can't help it. Specially seeing as not many actually know what we believe.

So if you wanna know ask.

Other Pentecostal's are welcome to answer if they desire.

Yeah, I have a few questions considering I was in the Pentecostal church for a decade.

Why is it when people speak in "tongues", they repeat over and over the same nonsensical syllables?  For eg, "shakormallandashakorbishaportashakorbrimrimberllimdashakor......"

Why is the church service extended so long with singing?  Typically, you are singing at the beginning of the service for the best part of an hour about 5-6 songs, then another song or two in the middle between sermons and then another couple at the end of the service.  A cynical person would say that it is to wear a person down to make them suggestive. 

Why is it that nothing brings about the blessings of God Almighty like giving him money?  In all my years in the Pentecostal church, I learnt that if you really want to be blessed, forget goodness, kindness, righteousness etc.  Just give money and plenty of it.

Oh yeah, this one really irks me.  Why do Pentecostal "pastors" rant and rave in a loud, aggressive tone of voice all the time?  They never seem to speak to people in a normal tone of voice during their sermons but always loud and dramatic unlike the majority of pastors in other denominations.

Why do Pentecostal churches operate differently from all other denominations?  A Pentecostal pastor has almost complete autonomy and can do what he/she likes in his/her congregation.  Each church can set their own wages for their pastors, set their own statement of beliefs, set their own programs without submitting to a central governing authority like other denominations.  In other churches for eg, it doesn't matter if your church has 10 people or       10, 000 people.  A pastor gets paid the same amount regardless, which is set not by the pastor but by a central authority.  But in a Pentecostal church, each pastor sets their own wage indepedantly.  This is why the wages of Pentecostal pastors fluctuates wildly, from a meagre earnings in tiny congregations to mega earnings in mega churches.

Btw, do you think that this lack of central command and the fact that Pentecostals pastors set their own wages according to the size of their congregations and the amount of monies received has anything to do with my 3rd question?  You know, about why nothing seems to bring about the blessings of God like giving money?  A cynical person may think that if a Pentecostal pastor gets more money as the church gets more monies (whether by being a larger church or the same amount of people giving more), then it stands to reason to be preaching constantly "give give give" in order for the church to get more which means more for the pastor. 

Oh yeah, also regarding "miracles".  For all the healings (supposedly) of diseases, and all the raisings of dead people in remote missionary places that I heard about (but was never validated) and all the other grandiose miraculous manifestations, why don't amputees ever have their limbs grow back?  And better still, how come all the healing in Pentecostal churches are for symptoms that you cannot see?  You know, a person has a bad back or a headache or some generalised pain.  It's never a person crippled in a wheelchair that can suddenly walk.  Real miracles like in the Bible.

I'm sure I have other questions.  I'll think of them and post them later.   

[zoonance]

Perhaps if it could be proved, it wouldn't be a miracle of faith but of sight?   Limbs growing back, spinal cords fused, Poked out eyes reappear.   Those would make the front page news and God would get some serious credit.  Maybe He isn't interested in getting any credit and leaves all that for the miracle workers?