[ Post a Response | Community Chapel Gathering ]
Posted by SH
on 6/28/2009, 8:46 am, in reply to "Can you be spirit fulled and not speak in tongues?"
174.21.101.247
The key verses being misinterpreted are:
Acts 10:45-46: "And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God.
1Co 14:22 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.
Consider now that Peter made an affirmative statement. He knew they were filled (like as we) because he heard them speak in tongues. The inverse of this can not be demanded -- one can not say, "He ISN'T filled because I didn't hear him speak in tongues." The opposite (negative) statement was never made - he didn't say, "I know they were not filled because I did not hear them speak in tongues."
Allow me to make the argument with an example. If we are driving and turn onto a dead end street... and we see that the street is clearly marked with a road sign, "DEAD END" -- we don't have to drive further. We know the road is a dead end without further proof because we saw the sign.
But the inverse of this can not be demanded. We can not rightly say, "I know this isn't a dead end street because I didn't see that sign."
It might be safe to assume that it isn't a dead end street because you didn't see the sign, but to go further and state that it can not be a dead end would only require a single example to refute the logical syllogism that we can discuss further.
A logical syllogism is a three step formal, deductive argument. It is comprised of a Major Premise, a Minor Premise and a Conclusion.
A simple example:
1. Major Premise: All men are mortal.
2. Minor Premise: Socrates is a man.
3. Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.
Another example:
1. Major Premise: All kittens are playful.
2. Minor Premise: Some pets are kittens.
3. Conclusion: Some pets are playful.
Syllogisms are useful only if they can be falsified. To falsify a properly formed logical syllogism all one needs to do is to disprove one of the premises.
The truth seen in Acts 10:45-46 can be expressed in the following:
1. All those who speak in tongues are filled.
2. Some Gentiles spoke in tongues.
3. Some Gentiles were indeed filled.
This is the only logical principle that can be derived by Peter's statements. Switching the Major and Minor premise creates a subtle, specious, flawed, invalid, unsound deductive argument because it involves fallacious reasoning.
Changing the affirmative statement into a negative and demanding the conclusion refuted by the rule, "The inverse is not necessarily true."
For example (going back to our "dead end" sign example:
Properly constructed syllogism:
1. All roads marked with 'Dead End' signs are in fact dead ends.
2. 'Road A' is marked with a 'Dead End' sign.
3. Therefor 'Road A' is a dead end.
Improperly constructed "inverse" of the "Dead End" syllogism:
1. All roads marked with 'Dead End' signs are in fact dead ends.
2. 'Road B' is NOT marked with a 'Dead End' sign.
3. No conclusion can properly be drawn about 'Road B' because the Major Premise does not address unmarked roads (or roads without a sign).
In other words, although it is true that Peter properly concluded that the Gentiles he saw were filled with the Holy Spirit because he heard them speak in tongues, Peter was making an affirmative statement which holds true today.
We can not deduce the negative nor can we demand it. A single example (for which there are many) of any individual who is spirit filled but does not speak in tongues is sufficient to answer the question, "Can you be Spirit filled and not speak in tongues."
Taking the argument to extremes (again to make a point) would be the analysis presented here:
1. A born-again Christian is seeking the Holy Spirit.
2. At some point in time he is baptized in the Spirit but the born-again Christian is mute and does not speak in tongues.
3. The Lord does not (at this time) heal him and he remains mute.
Can we say we "KNOW" he is not filled because we didn't hear him speak in tongues? Am I the only one trained at CC&BTC who can see this?
I first presented my argument (in rudimentary form) to Scott while attending a Holy Spirit Imparted I class. His response was to ask the class to refute it. My classmates didn't even understand it and failed to refute it.
Cordially,
SH
Message Thread | Skip to this response ↓
« Back to index