Conference yukon::christian_v7

    1 Corinthians 14
    
    it edifies nobody but the speaker and is not recommended by God through
    the writing of Paul.
    
    Mike

    Is it wrong to give thanks and praise to God speaking in tounges
    corporately?
    Our Church does this on two occassions during the mass. People are
    truly edifying God from there hearts. Some in tounges some not in 
    tounges. It is a wonderful movement of the Holy Spirit.
    Sometimes it is soft sometimes it is loud. The whole congregation
    almost in complete unison. Over 800 people opening there hearts to
    Jesus.
    
    Steve.

>    Is it wrong to give thanks and praise to God speaking in tounges
>    corporately?
    
    Do you have a Book-Chapter-Verse reference for congregational tongues?
    
    thanks,
    Mike

    hi,
       i am currently attending an assemblies of God pentecostal church
    where they believe speaking in tongues is the initial evidence of the
    "baptism" of the holy spirit. i do not share this belief and all who
    believe that share that tunnel vision. God cannot be put in a box and
    works many different ways. i have questioned  tongues for many years.
                       thomas

      Hi Thomas,
    
        I am pretty sure that the most important evidence of any
        indwelling of the Holy Spirit is the change in heart
        (character) that it produces.
    
    						Tony

 Amen, Tony.





 Jim

Yup.

    Agreed!
    
    Mike (an ex-Assemblies of God member)

    i agree
    

    Speaking in tongues is a spiritual gift, which Jesus first mentioned in
    Mark 16:17 as one of the signs which would follow those who believe
    "These signs will follow them which believe. In my name they will cast
    out devils, they will speak with new tongues,..."
    
    The pouring out of the holy spirit occured often in Acts, the initial
    outpouring being on Pentecost (Acts 2). Peter says, "Repent, and be
    baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins and
    you will receive the gift of the holy spirit. For the promise is to
    you, and your children, and all who are far off, as many as the Lord
    our God shall call. 
    
    It is therefore clear that it was not intended only for the church in
    the first century, but to all whom the Lord our God shall call.
    
    In Acts 8:15:
    "These(Peter and John) came and brayed for them, that they might
    receive the holy spirit, for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but
    they were only baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid
    their hands on them, and they received the holy spirit. As Simon saw,
    that through the laying on of the apostles hands the holy spirit was
    given, he brought money and said, 'give me this authority, that, on
    whom I lay my hands, they would receive the holy spirit.'
    
     we see clearly that receiving the spirit is not automatic
    at baptism. It often happens the same day. But in the case with Philip
    it happened a few days after their baptism. The spirit of God was
    with Philip. There were also great miracles happening and great joy in
    the city, even though they had not yet received the holy spirit.
    However, when the apostles laid their hands on the people, the spirit
    of God fell upon the people in such a strong way that Simon wanted also
    such a power, that on whomsoever he would lay his hands on, they would
    receive the holy spirit.
    
    In Acts 10:44:
    "As Peter was speaking these words, the holy spirit fell on all, who
    heard the Word. And the believers from the Circumcision as many as came
    with Peter, were amazed, that the gift of the holy spirit had been
    poured out upon the gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues
    and and highly praising God. Then Peter answered, "Can anyone refuse
    them water, that these not be baptized, who have received the Holy
    Spirit, just as we? And he commanded, that they be baptized in the name
    of the Lord."
    
    We see clearly that Peter saw the sign of speaking in tongues as proof
    that they had received the holy spirit. It was God's sign, that he had
    accepted the gentiles. Who then was Peter or the others to refuse them
    being baptized into Christ's church, if God had in such an evident way
    received them. As Peter repeats this with the others at Jerusalem in
    Acts 11:15
    "As I began to speak, the holy spirit fell on them, just as on us in the
    beginning... When now God has given them the same Gift as he gave us,
    after they believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I, that I should
    stop God."
    
    There is a clear "falling (pouring) of the Holy Spirit -" which is
    normal for all who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Just as Joel
    wrote, "And after these things I will pour out my Spirit on all
    flesh".Joel 3:1) If you read the previous verses about Israel turning
    to the Lord and a huge, most powerful army being distroyed by God
    himself, it is clear that it is not speaking about Pentecost, but
    something which we have not yet seen happen. "After these things" is
    talking about something in the future. But the beginning of this began
    in Jerusalem with Peter and the apostles. The Spirit was poured out in
    Jerusalem. But there is a 'later rain' comming, where the Spirit of God
    will be poured out upon all flesh. This prophecied time is of great
    importance to the plan of God. But ever since Pentecost, the spirit of
    God is being poured out on those who believe the Gospel.
    
    In Acts 19:2-6 Paul asks:
    "Have you received the holy spirit as you believed? They answered, We
    haven't even heard one time, that there is holy spirit. And he spoke
    to them. "Unto what were you then baptized? They said: "Onto the
    baptism of John. Then Paul spoke: John has baptized with the baptism of
    repentance and spoke to the people saying that they should believe on
    him, who is to come after him, that is on the messiah Jesus. As they
    heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And as
    Paul laid hands on them, the holy spirit came upon them, and they spoke
    in tongues and prophicied."
    
    First, Paul realized that these disciples had not yet received the holy
    spirit. His first question was if they received the holy spirit as they
    believed. For Paul, this was the normal time of receiving the holy
    spirit, as we believe. He made it clear that it was something separate
    from believing, but which happens at about the same time. Then, as they
    said they don't even know if there be holy spirit, he asked them to
    what they were baptized. This shows that for Paul, the receiving of the
    Holy Spirit was in some way connected to being baptized. As he realized
    that they were disciples of John and had only been baptized by him,
    then he understood. So he did that which was STANDARD amongst
    Christians, he baptized them because they believed, and as he laid
    hands on them (ALSO STANDARD) they received the holy spirit, speaking
    in tongues and prophecying.
    
    Paul's baptism was exactly the same. All that Jesus said to Ananias was
    that Paul had a vision of him laying the hand on Paul that he could see
    again, and that he was to go to him. But Ananias knew the STANDARD of
    what is to happen when someone believes. Jesus didn't have to tell him
    what to do, he knew already, and he was not an apostel, simply a
    disciple, in fact ALL of the early christians were disciples! This is
    also a STANDARD. So in Acts 9:17:
    "So went Ananias and entered the house. and he layed the hand on him
    and spoke, "brother Paul, the Lord has sent me, Jesus, who appeared to
    you on the way, that you came, that you would see and be filled with
    the holy spirit! Immediately fell from his eyes as scales, and he could
    again see and stood up and was baptized."
    
    These examples in Acts are not meant to be exceptions, they are the
    rule, the standard. They were given to us, that we, as disciples of
    Jesus Christ, would follow them. Becomming a christian(disciple) was
    understood by the early church as believing on Jesus, being baptized
    and receiving the holy spirit. This is the standard and our only
    example from the scriptures. Anything else is a deviation from what
    Jesus and the Father planned, in fact, the Holy Spirit is THE PROMISE
    OF THE FATHER (Acts 2:39)
    
    As I started following these examples with those who believed on Jesus
    through me sharing the Gospel, I began experiencing acts in my own
    life. The Spirit falls on them. By one of the most recent baptisms, I
    laid my hands on an english women just before she entered the water to
    be baptized and she had a vision where she saw words which she never
    spoke before. I told here, again from the prompting of the holy spirit,
    not knowing that she was at that very moment having this vision, that
    if she saw any words, she should try to say them. So she began
    pronouncing these words and thereby received the gift of speaking in
    tongues. 
    
    The assemblies of God experienced a great outpouring of the holy spirit
    in its beginnings. Through this outpouring the teaching was
    established, which is also right, that the holy spirit is poured out on
    those who believe, with speaking in tongues being a sign(no different
    than in Acts!) But, just as many movements of God, an organisation was
    formed, a christian organization. The spirit of God moves where he
    will, and cannot be confined in our structures. Those who are lead by
    the spirit of God are the children of God. Those who are born of the
    Spirit and water are the church, regardless whether they have a name,
    belong to an organization or not, etc. And the church is where 2 or
    more gather in the name of Jesus Christ, with the partaking of
    communion by those who have already believed and been baptized as the
    substance of the church, us being all partakers of one bread, of one
    body (1.Cor.12:13,1.Cor.10:17). There is where the Spirit of God is,
    there is where Jesus is. The main fruit and sign that we are his
    disciples being the love we have for one another.
    The authority is not from a heirarchy or organisational structure, but
    gifts which Jesus has given to his church of apostles, prophets,
    evantelists, pastors and teachers. The organisations in rule have great
    problems receiving from apostles, changing their beliefs, being led by
    the holy spirit. If they could, then their organisations would become
    less important and we could see Jesus' church as one church, built on
    the foundation of the apostles and prophets.
    
    Again and again I have seen movements of God which end in 'maintenance
    organisations'. The organisations are like stadiums built for a huge
    gathering of people, God's people. But as the spirit moves onwards, the
    organisation remains and many people think it is 'faithfulness and
    service to Jesus' in continuing and maintaining these stadiums. But if 
    the spirit of God is no longer working in the stadium, then leave it.
    There is nothing sacred about any christian denomination or group!!!
    They didn't exist in the early church and they are not the example
    given us from Acts of the church, even though they all say they are
    examples of the church, they are man-made structures. 
    
    I wrote this to try to explain how what at one time was truth and alive
    through the working of the holy spirit can become something negative.
    Just because you belong to a group that believes in the outpouring of
    the holy spirit, this is not enough. We cannot force the holy spirit to
    be in our organisations. The holy spirit works best outside of the
    organisations, as in Acts, but works also in some of them. But the
    organisation does in no way have rights over the holy spirit or church,
    and often organisational earthquakes occur when believers in
    organisations begin following the leading of the holy spirit, which
    often finds these man-made structures limiting.
    
    Rodger Dusatko 

    God's eternal purpose and will is that Jesus be the head of his church.
    The head of every man is Jesus. The bishops(elders) of the local church
    are those who care for the flock, God's people in a certain locality.
    They were never intended to try to get followers, or members of their
    church. They were not intended to be organisation leaders, to try to
    find people to take over activities and be active in the church.
    
    Recently a friend of ours had a vision. He saw a lot of tents where the
    people were very busy, so busy that there was dust rising. Then a ways
    separated from these tents he saw the tabernacle (like that of Moses,
    David). But it laid waiste, nobody in the tents were aware of how
    waisted it looked, and its priests were beggers, not getting any
    support from the tents.
    
    The tents are our own christian structures we build. I worked building
    one for 20 years. What an outpouring happened in my life when I left
    the tent and became fully committed to the tabernacle of the Lord. When
    the tabernacle of Moses was completed, the spirit of God came upon it,
    visible by day and night, and did not depart from it for the full time
    they were in the wilderness. Whenever the spirit began moving, the
    whole camp of millions of the descendants of Abraham would rise, leave
    the place they were at, and follow the cloud. That is why the
    tabernacle was not a house, a big structure. A big structure cannot be
    taken and moved as soon as the spirit goes on. The feast of the
    tabernacles is exactly the same. They are not houses which are built
    during the days of this feast, but tabernacles which can easily be
    moved. As the tablernacle of David contained the ark, it is spoken of
    by jewish literature that the people in Jerusalem could see the Lord
    upon Mount Zion. As Solomon finished the temple, built according to the
    plan of the tablernacle, and placed the ark in the temple, it was
    filled with the presence of the Lord so that the priests could no
    longer do their service.
    
    John the baptist came and began the true tablernacle, placing the water
    basin for the cleansing of the priests of the Lord. Jesus made this
    baptism the gate into his kingdom for those who would believe, also
    building clear walls separating the church which was to come from the
    world. His sacrificial death for sins was the alter and the holiest of 
    holies in heaven. The commandments in stone on the tablets reflect the
    writing of the holy spirit in the hearts of men, the incense the
    prayers of the saints (my house shall be called a house of prayer
    amongst all nations), the show bread the body of christ, inkl.
    communion. The candelsticks showing the light given by the holy spirit.
    The tablernacle was also mentioned as the tent of the congregation. 
    
    Just as the shadow of the heavenly tablernacle was completed at the
    time of Moses and the spirit of God fell upon it, so it is with the
    heavenly tablernacle, not made with hands. As Jesus died and rose he
    told his disciples to wait in Jerusalem for the promise of the holy
    spirit. They were as one soul in prayer, the tabernacle was complete,
    and the holy spirit fell on this from God's hands built tablernacle,
    his church. If we want to again see the spirit working as in acts, we
    need again to lift up our eyes above any man made tents, sanctify our
    lives to the lordship of Jesus in our lives, be doers of his Word,
    listen to Jesus and do what he says. Then the callings of God will be
    revealed in all of us, the ancient foundations will be restored,
    baptism, the receiving of the holy spirit, the restoration of the
    offices of the church, etc. The new foundation of the church will only
    be a restoring of the foundation which Jesus and the apostles had
    already laid, all deviations of this being more a hinderance than a
    help. Baptisms as in acts, the receiving of the spirit as in acts,
    communion as in acts, healings as in acts, the reality of Christ's
    lordship as in acts, the office of apostle as in acts, etc. The church
    of Jesus Christ being restored as the tablernacle, not structures with
    members, names, etc. is the key to the pouring out of the holy spirit
    on all flesh. This will make acts look like a drop in a bucket. The
    heavens will open and the harvest of the earth will be gathered.
    
    Our present condition as Christ's church is not full, but will be soon
    
    
    R

    >    Speaking in tongues is a spiritual gift, which Jesus first mentioned in
    
    WRONG.  The word "gift" never appears in manuscripts for 1 Corinthians
    12.  The gifts of the Holy Spirit are in Romans 12.  1 Corinthians 12
    lists the manifestations of the Holy Spirit in the lives of the
    believer as God wills it for His purpose.  If it was a gift, all believers 
    would experience it, and not all believers do.  Conversely, all believers
    have at least 1 of the gifts of the Holy Spirit in Romans 12.
    
>     we see clearly that receiving the spirit is not automatic
>    at baptism. It often happens the same day. But in the case with Philip
    
    Receiving the Holy Spirit happens upon repentance and salvation.  Each
    believer is sealed with the Holy Spirit.  You're confusing the
    manifestations of the Holy Spirit with this.
    
>    We see clearly that Peter saw the sign of speaking in tongues as proof
>    that they had received the holy spirit. It was God's sign, that he had
    
    This isn't always the case.  Tongues are not always a result of being
    empowered with the Holy Spirit according to Acts 1:8.
    
    Mike

	Who interprets tongues on the human level?

    Re: .11 & the Tabernacle
    
    Rodger, I agree with you here.  If you stacked the books written on the
    Tabernacle/Temple, it would be several feet high.  Every single inch of
    it, down to the ropes holding down the fenceposts, is chock full of
    typology all pointing to and fulfilled by Jesus Christ.
    
    It's no coincidence that the Tabernacle/Temple disappeared after
    Christ's atonement.  As the prophets Ezekiel and Jeremiah spoke, the
    new covenant has been set up in God's people and they've been given a
    heart of flesh.  God indwelling in our hearts is the new Temple "not
    made by human hands."
    
    Mike

    >	Who interprets tongues on the human level?
    
    Glen, only those who know the language/dialect.

	Mike, have you ever been able to determine what they were saying?


Glen

RE: .0
    
|   What do you think the Bible says about speaking in tounges corporately
|   without interpretation.

** "Let all things be done unto edifying. If any man speak in an unknown
   tongue, let it be by two, or at most by three, and that by course; and let
   one interpret. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the
   church; and let him speak to himself, and to God...For God is not the author
   of confusion (tumult or unquietness), but of peace, as in all churches of
   the saints...Let all things be done decently and in order." (1Co.14:26b-28,
   33&40, KJV)
    
|   Please use scripture to backup your argument.

** What argument?  No interpretation, then no speaking in public.  Furthermore,
   no man speaks and interprets by himself.  There will be no more than three
   speakers of the same tongue, one of whom must interpret, and they will
   speak in order, not simultaneously.

   What do I think?  The whole process is much more ordered than random, much
   more planned than spontaneous.  The best purpose of speaking in tongues is
   edification; therefore, both the speakers and the hearers must understand.
   In other words, manifestation of tongues is NOT the focus, rather the truth
   revealed through the spoken word to edify the church.

RE: .5

** Amen and Amen!  "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-
   suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such
   there is no law." (Ga.5:22&23, KJV)

   "For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as
   children of light: (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and
   righteousness and truth;) Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord."
   (Ep.5:8-10, KJV)

   Again, the Spirit is given to reveal the Word of God, to make God known.
   The fruit of the Spirit is observable EVIDENCE of God's work in a
   believer, much more reliable than speaking/interpreting an unknown tongue.

RE: .13

|   Who interprets tongues on the human level?

** One who understands what was said.  Of course, the problem with tongues is
   how to verify both the words spoken and their interpretation.  A sure test
   is:  Did the process follow the Scriptural pattern, and does the content
   agree with Scripture in revealing Jesus?

    >	Mike, have you ever been able to determine what they were saying?
    
    Only when the Holy Spirit moves and supplies an interpretation.  My
    wife understands a few different languages and has been able to
    confirm/reject some interpretations.
    
    Mike

RE: .0 & .1

|   1 Corinthians 14
    
|   it edifies nobody but the speaker and is not recommended by God through
|   the writing of Paul.

** "He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that
   prophesieth edifieth the church." (1Co.14:4, KJV)

   I understand what Mike's saying here, but I thought some clarification might
   be appropriate in the context of corporate worship:  Speaking in tongues
   edifies no one but the speaker WITHOUT INTERPRETATION.  Tongues can edify
   others, but only if understood.  "...seek that ye may excel to the edifying
   of the church." (1Co.14:12b, KJV)  Prophesy is best for edifying the church.
   As is the case in any physical manifestation of the spiritual, the "letter"
   is NOT the focus, rather the "spirit" (intent or purpose).

   "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. 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? But if all
   prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is
   convinced of all, he is judged of all: And thus are the secrets of his
   heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God,
   and report that God is in you of a truth." (1Co.14:22-25, KJV)

   I think this passage deals with tongues and prophesy in terms of best
   purpose.  Tongues primarily edify the speaker; therefore, for those coming
   out of unbelief to faith in Jesus Christ, speaking in tongues might be a
   (very personal) sign that the Holy Spirit now indwells them.  But for those
   attending a church meeting with need to hear specific revelation of God's
   Word, the predominance of believers speaking in unknown tongues might be
   seen as confusion, or even madness, for lack of understanding.

   On the other hand, if an unlearned or unbelieving person comes into a church
   meeting where the truth of God in Jesus Christ is being proclaimed with
   understandable words, then he or she might see God, worship Him and affirm
   Him in the church.

   So, tongues are good for confirming the Holy Spirit's presence particularly
   in the heart of one who recently came out of darkness, while prophesy is
   best for opening the Word of God to an unbelieving heart or to one needing
   to grow in grace and knowledge.  In other words, tongues can convince
   believers that the Holy Spirit resides IN them, whereas prophesy can reveal
   God to unbelievers THROUGH them.

/Wayne

    Can anyone explain to me that on the first manifestation of tongues, it
    was in languages for the folks to understand salvation, but in all
    other discussions its for man's edification?

    RE: .20
    
    I might be willing to take a shot, Nancy, if you specify what you deem
    "the first manifestation of tongues" to be.  Was it Acts 2:1-4, or Acts
    2:6-41? :-)
    
    /Wayne

	Thanks, Mike.

    RE: .20               
    
    Okay, I'll make myself vulnerable by offering my explanation, even
    though you didn't take the bait in .21. :-)
    
    The first manifestation of tongues is recorded in Acts 2:2-4.  Before
    Jesus was taken up, He told the disciples that they would "be baptized
    with the Holy Ghost not many days hence" and that they would "be
    witnesses unto Him..."
    
    Baptism with the Holy Spirit would be a new experience not previously
    seen or recorded.  The disciples were being brought from darkness into
    light, if you will.  How would they know the Holy Spirit had come upon
    them?  Jesus they could see, His Spirit they could not.
    
    Well, sound "as of a rushing mighty wind", appearance of "cloven
    tongues like as of fire" which "sat upon each of them", and then "they
    were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other
    tongues."  I think the disciples knew the Holy Spirit had come--this
    was unlike anything they had ever seen or heard before--and they were
    edified/empowered!
    
    Word began to spread in Jerusalem about this event.  Devout Jews from
    "every nation under heaven" who were dwelling in Jerusalem came to
    check things out.  They were troubled because each of them heard the
    disciples speaking "in his own language."  "The wonderful works of God"
    were spoken by the disciples, and everyone understood in their own
    language.  Who was interpreting?  Was the Holy Spirit enabling the
    disciples to speak other languages or was He enabling people to hear
    their own language spoken?  Need we necessarily assume that Peter was
    speaking in language other than his own?  I think not.  My point:  We
    need not conclude that SPEAKING in tongues was the means by which the
    gospel was proclaimed when HEARING YOUR OWN LANGUAGE is at least as
    likely.  Regardless, the Bible does not say, I think because the
    content was far more important than the process.
    
    The disciples knew the Holy Spirit had come unto them because they were
    speaking languages other than their own.  The devout Jews who heard
    them did not know what was going on, other than the fact that they
    understood what the disciples were saying because they heard spoken
    words in their own language.  The devout Jews did NOT understand that
    the Holy Spirit had come, and some, in fact, suggested that the disciples
    were drunk.
    
    Peter then stood up to explain what was happening and to proclaim Jesus
    the Christ of God.  In what language did Peter speak?  That was not
    recorded because that was not important.  The focus was on proclaiming
    Jesus Christ, the prophesy, if you will, with words understood by all
    who heard.
    
    So, I believe the Holy Spirit's first manifestation of speaking in
    tongues did, in fact, come to the disciples for their edification, to
    confirm that the Comforter had come as promised by Jesus whom they
    could no longer see.
    
    Did speaking in tongues come as a sign to the devout Jews who heard the
    disciples?  No.  They asked "What meanest this?"  Tongues neither
    revealed God in Jesus Christ nor the coming of the Holy Spirit to the
    crowd gathered to check things out.  God's work was revealed to the
    crowd by Peter's prophesy, or proclamation, of Jesus the Christ of God.
    Tongues edified the disciples, prophesy edified the church.
    
    Now, how would new believers coming out of darkness know that the Holy
    Spirit had come, not just to the disciples, but to all who believed?
    Many who believed and were baptized spoke in tongues to confirm the
    presence of the Holy Spirit whom they could not see.  The need for the
    Holy Spirit's particular manifestation of speaking in tongues would
    seem to diminish as more and more people came to understand that the
    Holy Spirit comes to all who believe in Jesus Christ, and the Holy
    Spirit Himself bore witness in more and more hearts that they were
    the children of God.
    
    "How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? and
    how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? and how
    shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except
    they be sent?" (Ro.10:14&15b, KJV)
    
    "Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with
    tongues. Let all things be done decently and in order." (1Co.14:39&40,
    KJV)
    
    /Wayne

    Why would we not rather ask God to let people understand what we say
    in our own language than let us speak in other languages?

    not a grenade...
    
    more a 'side-track' ;')
    
    Wayne mentions that Acts 2 is the first manifestation of tongues as a
    sign of the 'baptism of the HS'.
    
    An interesting 'splitting of hairs' is that many in Charismatic and
    Pentecostal circles refer to this as 'receiving the Holy Spirit', and
    that this 'receiving' is manfest by tongues.
    
    However, John 20:22, after the Resurrection, but prior to the
    Ascension, Jesus says to the disciples (behind locked doors where they
    were meeting) "Receive the Holy Spirit" and He breathed on them
    (actually, the order is the reverse in that verse, but you get the idea
    ;').
    
    The point is, Christians receive the Holy Spirit when Jesus 'breathes'
    upon them (which I believe is when they surrended to the Lordship Of
    Christ). Any empowerment of the Holy Spirit is a separate thing, and
    may (or may not, I haven't come to a conclusion yet ;') be a necessary
    thing for proper spiritual growth.
    
    H

    Okay Okay Okay!
    
    I didn't take your bait, cuz I haven't had the time to give to this
    subject that I'd like to!
    
    Not very good anglish is that?
    
    Questions that arise from your writing Wayne:
    
    1.  If we as Christians are told that we can "know" things by their
    fruit, what fruit is there in a group of people speaking in an unknown
    language to the majority of the other people there. 
    
    2. How often is there an interpretation of these tongues? 
    
    3. And if there aren't any interpretations of these congregational
    tongues being uttered, is it from God?
    
    4.  Are there times when tongues do not get interpreted when uttered
    congregationally?
    
    

    RE: .26
    
    Nancy, are you asking me to answer those questions? :-)
    
    How did those questions arise from my writing?
    
    I shared my understanding of Scripture.  I do not feel qualified to
    address your questions from experience.  Based on my understanding of
    Scripture, I have not sought to speak in tongues.
    
    /Wayne

    Yes, I was asking you!!!!!! :-) :-)
    
    But if anyone else wishes to "jump in" and utter a comprehensible
    answer, I'd be interested as well.

RE: .26 & .28

Very well, then, given my qualifers in .27:    
    
|    1.  If we as Christians are told that we can "know" things by their
|    fruit, what fruit is there in a group of people speaking in an unknown
|    language to the majority of the other people there.

** Assuming all followed the Scriptural pattern, i.e., there was interpretation
   of all tongues spoken, then fruit might be seen in the lives of those
   edified by the word spoken.  Perhaps the hearers would be "provoked unto
   love and to good works." (Heb.10:24)
    
|    2. How often is there an interpretation of these tongues?

** As often as the tongues are spoken, in order.
    
|    3. And if there aren't any interpretations of these congregational
|    tongues being uttered, is it from God?

** Can't know.  If someone speaks and no interpretation follows, then he
   should keep silent in the church and speak to himself and to God.  I guess
   that implies that tongues could be manifested for personal edification not
   meant for the congregation.
    
|    4.  Are there times when tongues do not get interpreted when uttered
|    congregationally?

** Probably.  But the Scriptural pattern is clearly broken, and that seems
   dangerous, at best.
    
/Wayne    

    Nancy,
    
    I have an appointment in a few minutes so I have to make it short.
    (Also I usually work at home whereby it isn't so quick that I respond).
    
    First, I appreciate the way you share and see it as a great benefit in
    being able to receive and for others to receive from you. 
    
    When the holy spirit comes upon us, thinks often happen we may not
    understand. In Acts 2, they all had on their heads cloven tongues and
    because the holy spirit was so strong upon them, the speaking was very
    clear in languages they didn't know. Certainly, they were not forced to
    speak in these other languages, but they already had some experience
    with the holy spirit while they were with Jesus.
    
    The holy spirit could have done many other things, but it needs to be
    the holy spirit that leads us, and not the reverse. Sometimes our
    understanding may question what the holy spirit does, but the more we
    know how great God is, and how ourselves in comparison to him, it
    becomes easy to follow the holy spirit without always understanding or
    agreeing mentally. 
    
    When I read about Samson, who learned to be moved by the holy spirit.
    He did many things even his parents didn't understand, in fact they
    appeared to be wrong (marrying a Philistine woman) but Samson knew that
    it was from the Lord because of the Spirit. 
    
    Anyway, not everything that happens today in churches is from the holy
    spirit. The value and importance of tongues cannot be lessened by this.
    When told to seek after spiritual gifts, but especially prophesy
    (1.Cor.14), or tongues with the interpretation, I believe if we begin
    to see the spirit move strongly in these supernatural gifts we will see
    a freedom of the holy spirit working amongst us.
    
    
    Rodger Dusatko

      Wayne,
    
        I really got a lot out of .23.  I especially likes the phrase
    	"the content was far more important than the process."
    
    						Thanks,
    
    						Tony

    RE: .31
    
    You're welcome, Tony.  And thanks for the encouragement.  Spiritual 
    gifts and manifestations of the Holy Spirit will continue to be the
    subject of discussion and debate until believers' faith becomes sight
    to see Jesus as He is.
    
    To me, the faith versus sight struggle is the crux of this issue.  In
    different areas perhaps I think we all at some time desire that God
    "show Himself" before we "trust and obey."  God is merciful, gracious
    and patient, and does "show Himself" to move us forward.
    
    Jesus said unto Thomas "because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed:
    blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." (Jn.20:29,
    KJV)
    
    "And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of His disiples,
    which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye
    might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that
    believing ye might have life through His name." (Jn.20:30&31, KJV)
    
    Jesus did, does and will meet us at the point of our need.
    
    /Wayne

	re: .30:

	Just a side nit, since I have a last name like "Samson"...
I really don't know whether Samson was listening to the Holy Spirit,
or to his own lustful desires, when he consorted with Philistine
women, and tried to marry one.  Certainly God brought some good out
of the predicaments that Samson's actions placed himself in.  But,
I do wonder whether God would have shone thru Samson's life much more
brightly, if he had been more completely obedient.

						Bob Sampson

Judges 14:4, on Samson's fixation on a Philistine woman says in 
parentheses:

   "His parents didn't know that this was from the LORD, who was seeking an
    occasion to confront the Philistines, for at that time they were ruling
    over Israel."

The LORD can use very odd aspects of our human nature at times!  I don't
think Samson was in rebellion here, even though we might naturally douibt
his guidance ... ;-) 

								Andrew

    Congregational tongues are discouraged within my church (Calvary
    Chapel) per 1 Corinthians 14.  However, there are "Afterglow" services
    after the regular Sunday evening service for those that are so
    inclined.
    
    Mike

      Score me as one who believes that Sampson's was in rebellion
      (sin).  I see this as analogous to Rahab who hid the spies
      by lieing.  She was faithful, as recorded in Hebrews 11, but
      I believe her experience was "Lord I believe, help Thou mine
      unbelief."
    
      She was faithful in that she chose to help the spies.  She
      demonstrated a less than perfect faith in that she resorted
      to a method that is a transgression of the law of God.  Had she
      had perfect faith, I believe, she would not have lied.
    
    						Tony

�      Score me as one who believes that Sampson's was in rebellion (sin).  

I presume you're refering to the Biblical figure, Samson, rather than to 
Sampson, as in Bob-the-noter here!  And your conclusion is in spite of 
scripture?  Tony! You surprise me! ;-)

								&

      Well, at least I surprised you!!!   ;-)

	.25 was absolutely right.

	There are two experiences/aspects of the one Spirit. 

	1) Receiving (John 20:22). This receiving is breathing Him in.
	   It is essential, intrinsic, internal. This aspect of the Spirit
	   is for our growth in the divine life. By believing you are
	   receiving and God comes into you. This is the essential Spirit.

	2) Poured upon. This outpouring of the Spirit *upon* the believer
	   is like clothing. It is for empowerment, most closely associated
	   with the preaching the gospel as occured with Peter and the 120
	   in the Acts 2. When we are baptized in water, we are baptized
	   into the Spirit. There is not a separate baptism. However, we
	   may not experience this empowering if we are not aware of this
	   fact.  This is the economical Spirit, extrinsic, external.

	The emphasis some christians place on tongues is unbalanced. If you
consider the moral condition of some of promoters of tongues speaking you
will realize that tongues could not save them from their flesh (I won't
mention names). On the other hand, if someone wants to speak in tongues
they should not be forbidden from speaking. Unfortunately those who promote
tongues usually get offended if you won't join in the practice. 

Ace 
	

    .40  Well blow me down the appalachian trail!  It's ACE ACE, the
    hardware man!
    
    HI HI HI HI HI! :-)
    
    I actually had been thinking of you over the last two weeks.  It's so
    awesome to see you.
    
    Nancy

Ace!  _Great_ to see you around!

Expanding from .40, type 2 was the only form available in the Old Testament
(eg 1 Samuel 10:10), though sometimes this seems to be a long-term anointing
(eg 1 Samuel 16:13, Judges 13:25).  Type 1 only became available through 
the specific work of the LORD Jesus on the cross, as He indicated in John 
16:7, and is the new-birth right of all Christians (Ephesians 1:13-14).

						God bless
								Andrew

RE last few.

Absolutely Andrew.

BTW Nancy, I'm in Redwood City next week. If it's close we may do lunch?

regards,
ace

    Awesome you're in my neighborhood!!! Call me DTN 521-4418!!

 Redwood City??  Ace, the next town to the north, San Carlos, is where I
 spent much of my wild and misspent youth..say hello to my mom for me!




 Jim