I am a frequent poster on the regular metal detecting topic sections. This is my first post on this sub-section forum. I have a question for anyone here who is within denominations of the Pentecostal, charismatic, etc... venues of Christian doctrinal persuasion/thought:
My particular Church is a "non-denominational" church by title, and our pastors do not take an official position on these things, thus we have persons from all persuasions within our body. We have various mid-week small groups. The particular small group I'm a member of, is currently studying Ist Corinthians. We are now around chapters 12 to 14. It turns out that there is quite the spectrum of thought on these passages amongst our study group, which invariably lead to oodles of cross-references (Acts, etc...) as well.
My question is, for those that hold to the line of thought that tongues is a necessary proof of the filling (or indwelling, or baptism, or whatever you want to call it) of the Holy Spirit, How do they square this with I Cor. 12:30? The obvious implication of I Cor. 12:30 that all believers will not necessarily speak in tongues. So if that's the case, how then, is it said to be a prescriptive qualifier, amongst some denominations, that this is *the* sign of the Holy Spirit in a person's life?
If ....... in order to comment on this question, you turn to passages in Acts or eleswhere (which might lead to a "descriptive" verses "prescriptive" conversation anyhow), please anticipate that whatever answer you give, still needs to be non-contradictory with I Cor. 12:30. How can any verses and interpretation of passages you cross-reference, also not contradict I Cor. 12:30.
My particular Church is a "non-denominational" church by title, and our pastors do not take an official position on these things, thus we have persons from all persuasions within our body. We have various mid-week small groups. The particular small group I'm a member of, is currently studying Ist Corinthians. We are now around chapters 12 to 14. It turns out that there is quite the spectrum of thought on these passages amongst our study group, which invariably lead to oodles of cross-references (Acts, etc...) as well.
My question is, for those that hold to the line of thought that tongues is a necessary proof of the filling (or indwelling, or baptism, or whatever you want to call it) of the Holy Spirit, How do they square this with I Cor. 12:30? The obvious implication of I Cor. 12:30 that all believers will not necessarily speak in tongues. So if that's the case, how then, is it said to be a prescriptive qualifier, amongst some denominations, that this is *the* sign of the Holy Spirit in a person's life?
If ....... in order to comment on this question, you turn to passages in Acts or eleswhere (which might lead to a "descriptive" verses "prescriptive" conversation anyhow), please anticipate that whatever answer you give, still needs to be non-contradictory with I Cor. 12:30. How can any verses and interpretation of passages you cross-reference, also not contradict I Cor. 12:30.