The below conversation started after a pastor read my page on tongues not being a sign of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, also called the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.
I believe that you are missing the greatest distinction between the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and the Gifts of the Holy Spirit...
I guess that if you do not see that scripture clearly separates these two and it is clearly seen in the Acts that many spoke with tongues without interpretation, than you can make it sound how ever it makes you feel comfortable.
But the most important part is the Preach Jesus!
My response is in Green:
Give me that passage from Acts.
Every scripture reference in Acts.
Like this one?
Acts 2:29 "Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. [NIV]
Hum, sorry but that does not make your point. I found two references in Acts to tongues and you are right, neither mention an interpretation being given, but they also don't say there wasn't one given. So even if you meant those two references you are standing on passages which are silent and don't make your point. But replying "Every scripture reference in Acts" is just plain silly, since just like the one I quoted above says nothing about tongues or baptism of the Holy Spirit.
I don't mind getting corrected by anyone, nor do I mind hearing anyone's views, but if you are going to write as you did, at least take the time to butress your statements.
I am sorry that I didn't state the obvious, I meant to refer to every time someone received the baptism with the evidence of tongues...
I guess it isn't as obvious to me, since not every passage in Acts that speaks of the Holy Spirit coming on someone talks about them speaking in tongues. Like these two:
Acts 4:31 And when they had prayed, the place where they had gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak the word of God with boldness. [NASB-U]
Acts 8:14-17 Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent them Peter and John,  who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit.  For He had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.  Then they began laying their hands on them, and they were receiving the Holy Spirit. [NASB-U]
Speaking the word of God with boldness, is not the same thing as speaking in tongues. In the second passage it does not mention tongues either.
There are four verses in Acts that reference tongues. The first two are both one event (Pentecost). So actually there are only three references in Acts to tongues. And as I have already quoted there are two other places where the Holy Spirit came upon people and no tongues are referenced. So your obvious statement just doesn't seem to be so obvious to me.
Acts 2:3-4 They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them.  All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them. [NIV]
Acts 2:11 (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs--we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!" [NIV]
Acts 10:46 For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said, [NIV]
Acts 19:6 When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. [NIV]
As I said, I don't mind other people's opinions or even being corrected in my views, but it bothers me when people do a hit and run attack on my views and then can't or won't back up what they say.
I am not trying to be argumentative, but you wrote me and told me my views are wrong, I am just showing you that as now you have not proved your view at all.
This pastor, as of this posting, has not replied to my last e-mail. If he had, I would have pointed out something else that I should have pointed out in my last response to him. I should have pointed out that on the day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit was poured out on the believers they spoke in known languages which is shown in the passage above (Acts 2:11). This is not what is called evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit by speaking in tongues today in churches. Today the 'tongues' are an unknown 'language' to anyone listening to it, which means that the first two referrences both of which refer to Pentecost also do not support his view.
So the bottom line is that out of all of the book of Acts there are exactly two referrences of what this pastor is trying to claim as proof that my view is wrong, yet as I have shown there are also the same amount, two, that do not support his assertion. I don't really like to argue about points like this, but if you are going to tell me my views, which are expressed on my site, are wrong then please give me the evidence you have to prove your point.
E-Mail Ralph (whose comments are in green)
|911 - God's Help Line||Articles||Apologetics||Book Reviews|
|Contemplating Suicide?||Discipleship||Eternal Security||How to know Jesus|
|Help for the Cutter||In Memory||Marine Bloodstripes||Police Humor|
|Police Memorial||SiteMap||Statement of Faith||Testimonies|
|Thoughts to Ponder||True Life Stories||Vet's Memorial||Why I Have a Page|