The Gift of Tongues [Archive] - Walter Martin Ministries Forum

Norrin Radd

03-11-2009, 02:44 AM

Norrin: On the other hand, the ***umption that *some* form of inspired utterance -- usually "tongues," but sometimes prophecy -- is not normative for all makes it impossible to understand Acts 2, 10:46, 19:6; 1 Cor. 14:5, 23, 26.

How so? Some speak in tongues, and some don't. How does that conflict with any of the verses you mention above?

Acts 2 -- At Pentecost, all upon whom the Spirit fell spoke in "tongues." In explaining/defending this to the gathered crowd, Peter invoked Joel's words about the outpoured Spirit of the Last Days. Peter and Joel (and Luke who recorded the words) listed several "signs," twice specifically mentioning "prophecy" (or the verb "prophesy"). It's apparent they (Peter and Luke, at least) intended "tongues" to fall under the general heading of "inspired prophetic utterance." After an evangelistic sermon, Peter returned to the topic of the coming of the Spirit, and said that "the promise" -- i.e. the promise spoke of by Joel, where "all who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved," and will receive the Spirit and so "prophesy" -- was intended not only for those present there, but also their descendants, and ALL, whether near or far.

Acts 10 -- ALL those who heard the message received the Spirit, and ALL those who received the Spirit spoke in tongues.

Acts 19 -- All those upon whom Paul laid hands received the Holy Spirit, and all who received the Spirit spoke in tongues and/or prophesied.

Those are the three strongest pieces of evidence. They are also the most disturbing, because like it or not, they make a strong case for the idea that believers should be "expected" to either speak in tongues or prophesy when the Spirit comes upon them. From Luke's perspective, it seems clear that the Apostles did not regard a person as a genuine believer unless they had received the Spirit, and (again, from Luke's perspective) tongues or prophecy demonstrated that coming of the Spirit.

1 Cor. 14:5 -- In divinely-inspired Scripture, Paul expresses his wish that "all" would speak in tongues and prophesy; whether that represents ONLY the wish of Paul, or the desire of both Paul and God, depends to some extent on how one views the nature of "inspiration" of Scripture.

1 Cor. 23 and 26 -- In looking at these again, I see I probably should not have included 26 the way I did. V. 23 suggests at least the theoretical possibility that "all" might speak in tongues. Indeed, something close to that was probably part of what had been going on, and which Paul wished to correct. The problem was not "speaking in tongues" per se, but doing so in the ***embly, in a way that was disorderly and confusing to unlearned visitors.

jean

03-16-2009, 03:48 PM

We speak in tongues as led by our Lord. He and he alone gives us his Spirit and wemay get it as the finishing act of his work or before we finish what we have been commanded as seen in ACTS 8,10 AND 19.

ALL MUST AND WILL SPEAK IN TONGUES IF SAVED, if not, a person is a pretender and liar.
You will be lost and split hell wide open and eventually be cast into the Lake of Fire for not being saved and speaking in tongues as the Spirit gives the utterance.

1 CO. 12:30 This is speaking of a Gift of The Spirit which God gives severally (singularly) as he wills and is not the Spirit baptism promised and given to all and in the same way of speaking in tongues 1 CO. 12;13, MARK 16:16, ACTS 2:38-39
read those and don't just skirt them.

buck,
Then you reject the word of God which tells us we are saved by grace through faith. Eph.2:8-9Rom.5:1-5 Justifoed by faith, not tongues.

Your p***ages above do not refer to speaking in tongues.
Acts 2:38, when we believe and accept the message which Peter gave by faith, the Holy Spirit takes up residence in our hearts. No tongues required.
Acts 4;4 No tongues, verse 31, no tongues.

The book of Acts is an historical book which reveals the coming of the Holy Spirit which Jesus Christ said he would send. Jn.15:26-27 Jesus didn't mention tongues.
If you are saved by speaking in tongues what did Jesus do for you?
Are you saving yourself or did Jesus die for you on the cross?

jean, p2

jean

03-16-2009, 03:57 PM

jean is p2, which is bluelake a fradulent person over there who cannot answer oneness, but can ask questions.

buck,
thank you for reminding me who I am.
So now you are aware of who I am. Please answer the questions.
Were you saved before or after you spoke in tongues? ;)

All believers are saved by grace first, then the Holy Spirit gives His gifts, but not to all. See 1Cor.12:30 have you read this yet? .
Unbelievers do not receive the gift of tongues or any other gifts, they are given as the Holy Spirit determines. 1Cor.12:11

God bless,
Jean

jean

03-17-2009, 10:09 PM

jean

03-17-2009, 10:18 PM

On the other hand, the ***umption that *some* form of inspired utterance -- usually "tongues," but sometimes prophecy -- is not normative for all makes it impossible to understand Acts 2, 10:46, 19:6; 1 Cor. 14:5, 23, 26.

I'm not "Oneness," but this topic, as addressed in this post, moves into the larger Pentecostal/Charismatic realm.

Hello norrin,
Tongues are one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. The Jesus Only folks have chosen this gift as a salvation issue. They teach that a person must speak in tongues to be saved. There is no scriptural support for this teaching.
Folks do speak in tongues, but they are already saved, God doesn't give his gifts to unbelievers. :)
The Bible also teaches tongues are the least of the gifts of the Spirit.`
Paul said in 1Cor.14:1 Phophecy was the greater gift. It's strange oneness haven't opted this gift for salvation, although the Bible teaches we are saved by grace though faith. :) Eph.2:8-9

God bless,
jean

jean

03-25-2009, 09:25 PM

Wait a minute here, this question was asked the same way over on carm. I dont think it was asked by jean, but I might be mistaken. If it wasnt then jean is someone else over on carm.

non trinnie,
Yes, it was me. :)
I'm having a difficult time getting an answer.
Can you answer the question? When were you saved? Before or after you spoke in tongues?

jean

Kat

04-06-2009, 07:40 PM

John 3 vs 5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water<--(Baptism) and of the Spirit<---(HolyGhost), he cannot enter into the kingdom of God
I got the Holyghost after my baptism

NIRV. 5 Jesus answered, "What I'm about to tell you is true. No one can enter God's kingdom without being born through water and the Holy Spirit.

I don't want to argue about Gods Word because it is set plain and simple...and why argue its the truth... Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God
Faith without works is dead.... If Gods word says to Repent<--- we need to repent ...If it says we need to be filled with Gods spirit <---is that so hard to do.....If it says we need to be baptized in the name of Jesus....<----Do It
Because we need to be sure then regret it later on....Ok if you are right and baptism in the name of the father...Son...Holghost....is the formula for being saved.....and if you are right in saying we don't need Gods Holyghost Spirit to get to Heaven.....And if you are right to say all we need to do is believe and we are saved.....then you have nothing to worry about...BUT.. If you are wrong... you have alot to be worried about because it says in

Matt 7 vs 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

19Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

and yes there are alot of good people out there but remember
Ephesians 2 vs 8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9Not of works, lest any man should boast.

10For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them

God bless Sister Kat

kentuckypreacher

04-06-2009, 08:34 PM

I would be glad to affirm that NO ONE is "speaking in tongues" today.

Norrin Radd

04-21-2009, 03:23 AM

Hello norrin,
Tongues are one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. The Jesus Only folks have chosen this gift as a salvation issue. They teach that a person must speak in tongues to be saved.

Query: Do they teach that salvation is a result of tongues-speaking, or that tongues-speaking is necessary evidence that one IS saved?

There is no scriptural support for this teaching.

While it's not exactly a position that I hold, there is Scriptural support for the idea that tongues and/or prophecy cons***ute normative evidence of the presence of the Spirit.

Folks do speak in tongues, but they are already saved, God doesn't give his gifts to unbelievers. :)
The Bible also teaches tongues are the least of the gifts of the Spirit.

No it doesn't.

John Carr

04-21-2009, 11:46 AM

We teach that one gets tongues as a sign and that the Baptism with the Holy Spirit has one get the evidence and sign of tongues in their life as a outward showing of what has gone on inwardly.

The sign that is seen over and over is tongue speaking, it is shown by example in Acts 2 and 10 and 19 and is clear by context in Acts 8 as well.
Paul spoke in tongues and it was a promise for all from the Father.

JC

John Carr

04-21-2009, 12:01 PM

Funny I have spoken in tongues as I was baptized with the Holy Ghost like the Apostles and Disciples and saints in the Bible.
I also have spoken in the Gift of Tongues and Interpreted and as well seen and heard the same from others and other Gifts of the Spirit.
So why would there be no tongues today? what makes you make such a statement?

JC

Trinitas

04-21-2009, 07:02 PM

Hey... got yourself a new name, huh, RJC? :cool:

You and your false "religion" can teach whatever you want... what really matters is what the Bible says, and there is not a single verse in the entire Bible that says ALL will speak in tongues as "proof" of their receiving the Holy Spirit. There are a few instances in the Bible where tongues does accompany the coming of the Spirit, but there are just as many where tongues does not. I know you Oneness types like to argue the "outward" showing angle, but it just doesn't fly. It doesn't fly because the Bible does not support it. There is nothing in the Bible to indicate that there will be some universal "sign" to definitively prove someone received the Holy Spirit... it's just not there.

The Holy Spirit is a promise for all believers, but that promise doesn't include tongues. The point is we DON'T see your supposed "sign" "over and over"... we see it just a few times. In fact, from the first time we see it (the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2) to the next time we see it (Acts 10 when Cornelius and friends speak in tongues) there is a huge gap of 11 years. 11 years where not a soul speaks in tongues. Of course, you will probably say this is an "argument from silence", but the real argument from silence is your own. Since there isn't a verse in the Bible that says we should expect something TO happen, making the ridiculous argument that something DID happen in Acts 8 and Acts 9 is purely the argument from silence... which is what we get when the Pentecostalists attempt to prove their false "doctrine". I'm not making an "argument from silence". Silence is all there is in Acts 8 and Acts 9... not a single mention of tongues.

Maybe you do have the GIFT of tongues, and maybe you have the GIFT of interpretation... that's certainly possible. But what you don't have is the "initial evidence" of anything. That doesn't exist. I believe tongues exist today... there is no reason to think the Spiritual gifts have ceased. But, "initial evidence" of tongues hasn't ceased... it NEVER existed!

John Carr

04-22-2009, 04:19 PM

We are given a rpomise of the Father, we are to be baptized with the Holy Ghost, we are told this is a promise for all, even those afar off and as many as the Lord our God shall call.
We see the Biblicl doctrine of witnessess fulfilled with Acts 2:1-4 and the preaching of Peter regarding the Baptism, we see also the Gentiles as well as the Jews and John's followers in Acts 10: and 19: as recieving the same like Gift as Peter speaks of in Acts 11:14-18.
We see the Samaritans according to scholars had received speaking in tongues in Acts 8:, since the context of the p***age clearly shows something occured enough for Simon to want to receive this gifting in his life of laying on of hands and men getting the Holy Ghost.
So I would say you are dead wrong and enough Biblical evidence is against your position as to show me that you don't have the truth on the subject.

It does fly, because men continued to speak in tongues and those of your church deny them.

We also see that according to Mark 16:17 the sign was tongues and thus we know men today get the same thing as in times of old.

Plenty of proof is given to warrant that the Samaritans and Paul got the same gift as Peter and those on Pentecost.

In 1 Cor. 12:13 WE SEE THAT ALL ARE BAPTIZED WITH THE SAME SPIRIT, and I would claim would get the universal evidence and sign of tongues as the scripture say and show men got.

Paul stated he spoke in tongue more than all, and if he got the Holy Ghost as I beleive, then he got the same like gift as Peter and the Gentiles and the rest got.

Poor trinity churches don't have these, they don't even fake them well.
They deny One God and deny the name of Jesus and reject the Biblical standards of Holiness, we cannot then expect that they got the real experience in their lives.

JC

Trinitas

04-23-2009, 04:55 PM

We are given a promise from the Father... the promise of the Holy Spirit. But that's where it ends. There is nothing in this "promise", or in any verse in the entire Bible, that says we ALL speak in tongues as "proof" of our having received that promise”! Nope... not a single verse in the Bible supports the absurd false "doctrine" of Pentecostalists that ALL will speak in tongues as the "initial evidence" of anything.

Your "doctrine of witnesses" is about as funny as your belief in "initial evidence" of tongues! If you want to resort to this trite argument, I will just throw it right back in your face: I have as many Biblical "witnesses" that refute your false "doctrine" as you have "witnesses" to support it. There are three times in the Bible that individuals speak in tongues upon receiving the Holy Spirit (the 12 apostles on the Day of Pentecost; Cornelius and group in Acts 10; and John's disciples in Acts 19) and there are three times that it doesn't happen (later in Acts 2 when the 3,000 are added; in Acts 8 with the Samaritans; and in Acts 9 when Paul receives the Holy Spirit). So, my "witnesses" cancel out your "witnesses"... Got anything better? Naw… didn’t think so! ;)

I don’t give a hoot about your so called "scholars"... I care about what the Bible says, and there is not a word in the Bible about the Samaritans speaking in tongues when they received the Holy Spirit. So don't bore me with your meaningless "context". This event happens smack dab in the middle of an 11 year "drought" where there is not a single mention of tongues in the Book of Acts! “Context”… what rubbish! There is NO “context” to be had, since we haven’t seen a case of tongues in almost 7 chapters! So you have no "context"; you have no "paradigm"... what you got is a bunch of NOTHING, a bunch of uneducated Pentecostal "ministers" making up some fool "doctrine" that the Bible never teaches. That's all you got. NOTHING!

Say anything you want... I think you're dead wrong, and the Bible proves it. You can't point to a single verse that supports your false beliefs about tongues. No one ever taught such a stupid "doctrine" before January 1, 1901 when a bunch of illiterate Bible "students" dreamed it up as a homework ***ignment. And the student who first spoke in tongues, Agnes Ozman, later recanted. Yep... you got a bunch of wishful thinking, but you haven't got support from the Bible.

You’re getting messed up like always... I believe that tongues exist today! I have no reason to believe that the GIFT of tongues ceased operation. There's nothing in the Bible to support such a view. But what doesn't exist... what NEVER existed... is the Pentecostal rubbish about "initial evidence" of tongues.

Mark says tongues is a "sign", but Mark also lists a bunch of other similar "signs". Do ALL of those "signs" follow ALL believers? Of course not! So you can't argue one sign (tongues) does, when you can't prove it to be true about all of the "signs" listed in Mark. So give it up... Mark does nothing to support the Pentecostalists’ false "doctrine" of "initial evidence" of tongues.

I Corinthians does say all are baptized with the same Spirit, but that same book also says that NOT all will speak in tongues, so there is no support for any "universal evidence" or that tongues IS that "evidence". More defeat from the Bible, huh? :D

Paul made the statement about speaking in tongues in the middle of his discussion about the GIFT of tongues. Paul also says in I Corinthians 12:30 that he doesn't believe all will speak in tongues! So, there's no proof that Paul began speaking in tongues in Acts 9 when he received the Holy Spirit. And, in fact, the Bible shows that he DIDN'T! No proof... just a bunch of useless opinions from another misguided Pentecostalists...

Poor old backward Pentecostalists... so ignorant of Scripture that they have to make up false "signs" to bolster their weak, non-existent "faith". After all, that's what Paul says, doesn't he? Tongues are a "sign" for UNbelievers... guess that's just what the Pentecostalists are... UNbelievers...

Trinitas

04-23-2009, 04:58 PM

I don't need a "new song"... I got the Bible, Buck! I have proof in God's Word that your "doctrine" is a bunch of RUBBISH! What have you got? NOTHING!

Once again... the only one speaking from "silence" here is you Pentecostalists... making up things that never happened and that the Bible doesn't support. While the Bible says nothing, you have to run around, make up what the Bible never says, all in order to support your false beliefs. That's the true "argument from silence". Silence is all Pentecostalsts have!

Hey... is your "banning" up at CARM yet, Schmitty? :D

John Carr

04-24-2009, 05:21 PM

You don't follow the Bible sir, you reject One God and follow a trumped up trinity idea that has no support , save a lying Pope and false followers.

Several people are show as the example for us baptized with the Holy Ghost, just like Jesus was being baptized in water as the initial person, then the Apostles and those they baptized .

One must follow what the Bible says and shows, not what post writers say and people like yourself that have no such truth.

Trinitas

04-24-2009, 06:54 PM

If you think I "don't follow the Bible", then prove it! Show me the verse in the Bible that says ALL will speak in tongues as PROOF of their receiving the Holy Spirit. It's really that "simple"... prove it by quoting the Bible, or admit that your "doctrine" is false and unBiblical.

Sorry... your pointless Oneness "propaganda" is a waste of time... and a waste of your breath. I do not "reject" One God... All Trinitarians believe in ONE GOD! If you say otherwise, you're bearing false witness. I have never met a Trinitarian who believed in "three gods"... that's a LIE that Oneness propagate... but that's all it is... A LIE.

There are several examples where people speak in tongues as part of their receiving the Holy Spirit... but there are as many others that do NOT speak in tongues. So three for, and three against... and not a single verse in the entire Bible that says ALL will speak in tongues as the definitive "proof" of Spirit baptism. So, until you show me that verse, I will NOT believe the Pentecostalists' false teachings about tongues. I will believe the Bible. I will follow the Bible and the Bible doesn't say anything in support of your false "doctrine" of "initial evidence" of tongues. The one who has no truth is YOU... you're the one who rejects the teachings of Scripture over the man-made LIES of Oneness...

Sorry, RJC, but that's just the way it is...

PostTribber

05-05-2009, 09:03 PM

ALL MUST AND WILL SPEAK IN TONGUES IF SAVED, if not, a person is a pretender and liar.
You will be lost and split hell wide open and eventually be cast into the Lake of Fire for not being saved and speaking in tongues as the Spirit gives the utterance.

you must have the King Buck Version. :rolleyes:

jean

05-11-2009, 11:37 PM

jean

05-11-2009, 11:41 PM

Wait a minute here, this question was asked the same way over on carm. I dont think it was asked by jean, but I might be mistaken. If it wasnt then jean is someone else over on carm.

Have you answered the question yet?

God bless,
jean

jeanmarie

09-08-2009, 10:26 PM

Get a new song, you are wearing this out and cannot prove anyone ever got Baptized with the Holy Ghost with NOTHING!

You wish to speak from the evidence from silence, we speak what we know and what we see and that is the doctrine of witnesses that make up a doctrine and that refute you here.

ALL ARE TO BE BAPTIZED WITH THE HOLY GHOST, you Catholic mongrels are not and nor is the Protestants who pretend they are.

buck,
Are you judging other christians again? :)
See Mt.7:1-5 It will tell you why you shoudn't.
All christians are baptized by the Holy Spirit at the moment of their faith. 'No one can Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.' Are you aware of this?
It's called being Born Again. John.3:5 God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever beleives in him shall not perish but have eternal life." This includes you. However, you must stop judging others. The reason being, you will be jugded with the same measure that you use on others. Please read this in Mt:7:1-5
God shows no favoritism.

God bless ,
jean

PS. there are many other christians that speak in tongues . they can be found in many christian churches. I'm one of them. :)

jeanmarie

09-08-2009, 10:36 PM

jeanmarie

09-15-2009, 09:06 PM

I would be glad to affirm that NO ONE is "speaking in tongues" today.

hello kentucky preacher, :)

Are you referring to glossolalia or real languages?
Many churches today believe in the charismatic gifts. Oneness Pentecostals seem to go to extremes. This is the main topic of debate. Oneness do love the Lord. They spend a lot of time seeking gifts. The Bible teaches we are freely given gifts. it also reads we have different gifts. 1Cor.12;30

God bless,
jean

jeanmarie

09-29-2009, 11:15 PM

famousbum

11-25-2009, 09:46 PM

Either the Bible is wrong or the upc is wrong. The Bible is not wrong.
My friends at Biola have torn the upc "proofs" to shreds by using the Greek and Hebrew. But you won't have any upcs asking for the details. At least not sincerely asking.
Y

kentuckypreacher

12-01-2009, 01:53 PM

And, Buck, YOU ARE NOT BAPTIZED in the Holy Ghost either.

Case closed.

12-16-2009, 10:40 AM

Faith without works is dead.... If Gods word says to Repent<--- we need to repent ...If it says we need to be filled with Gods spirit <---is that so hard to do.....If it says we need to be baptized in the name of Jesus....<----Do It
Because we need to be sure then regret it later on

God bless Sister Kat

The idea of "faith without works" comes from James 2. Kat, if you read James 2, especially verses 14-26, you will see that the works it is referring to are not works toward salvation, but works toward other people, namely loving your neighbor as yourself. So using the faith without works argument as proof that you have to repent or be baptized or speak in another tongue is not using this scripture in context.

kentuckypreacher

12-16-2009, 12:56 PM

I'm talking about "tongues" as they are described and defined in the New Testament. NO ONE IS SPEAKING WITH OTHER TONGUES today. So of the "tongues advocates" have enough trouble with English.

jyajoe

07-02-2010, 11:23 PM

I just wonder, but cannot prove it or prove against it but I feel that GOD and satan had a counsel meeting as they did in the day of ***. satan "ASKED" God if he could put one word in the Bible. And of the whole Bible that one word would deceive ALL of Jesus Christs teachings. And would bring his church against him. That word was UNKNOWN italicized before the word tongues in the Bible.

Jean Chauvin

11-01-2010, 03:47 PM

Hello,

I know a little German. So yes I do speak in tongues.

Your understanding of tongues is UnBiblical. And tongues and prophesy, they have ceased (I Corinthians 13:8).

I know Walter was a pentecostal of sorts. That's fine. He use to refer in p***ing to the Montonists (he never mentioned their name though) as people in Church history still doing tongues.

But since I Cor was written in 56 AD. and since the council of God was not complete in writ yet (see Acts 20:27, I Cor 13:10), then tongues were needed as a means of revelation.

But since we have all our revelation, then the gifts of revelation are no longer needed.

And those who spoke tongues, did so via a language that was interpreted. An earthly language for the sake of understanding.

But I don't usually discuss this issue with Oneness folks. They have bigger problems to fry.

Their god is one that looks in a mirror and talks to himself. Jesus prays to himself, thus being somewhat schizophrenic.

It's like what about Bob,

"Roses are red, violets are blue, I'm a schizophrenic, and so am I."

So, I like talking about that more then Tongues. And it's more comical to talk about their Jesus.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Jill

02-15-2011, 12:41 AM

MacG

02-15-2011, 10:46 PM

The gifts did not cease...why should the church today be any different or have any less power than the early church? Church History shows us that the gifts were talked about and used for centuries--remember Martin Luther? "The spirit and the gifts are ours through him who with us sideth." This isn't something we should fight about, though. Some will believe and some will not.

I know they exist today because I've experienced them, and I cannot deny the power of God. My father also experienced them, and they changed his life. Many other Christians can testify to this, so...sorry, I strongly disagree with the very weak argument that we have no need of the gifts today. As for interpreting tongues, yes, it is true that many have interpreted a foreign language that they never learned--but there is also the verse that says, "If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels..." so there you go--Paul said it was possible to speak in the language of the angels, too. Why? Think on that one for a bit.

Jean, you might also want to pray about the last part of that verse, "and have not love, I am nothing." Love does not mock other people's thoughts or feelings. "Love is patient and kind..."
1 Corinthians 13

Jean seems to have given up on us. However the next 2 verses past his reference helps out here:
8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will p*** away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears.

If what Jean and Harold Camping say is true then we ought to read verse 10 "but when completeness comes" as "but when the canon is complete" for the full reading like this:

? 8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will p*** away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when the canon is complete, what is in part disappears. ?

The follow up verses put even more light on the subject.

"When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. "

Who now knows fully? Who sees the real and not the reflection? Too bad for Paul he never saw the full canon ;)

MacG

tdidymas

08-12-2011, 11:12 AM

So then, were the original questions answered? I saw some whirlwind of responses, but not much substance. One person answered the question "What happens if other christians don't receive this gift?" - split hell and be cast into the lake of fire. One person said "ALL" must do it. Well, in my understanding, this is what Oneness Pentecostals teach regarding tongues:

1. Anyone and all who receive the Holy Spirit speaks in tongues
2. If you haven't spoken in tongues, you don't have the Holy Spirit
3. Anyone not having the Holy Spirit goes to hell
4. No one can speak in tongues by the Holy Spirit prior to salvation
5. A person who gets saved and speaks in tongues can be lost again

I do not imply that any of this is Biblical teaching. Someone might ask why I wouldn't agree with #3, but not in the context of UPC teaching. I am not saying that Pentecostals are not authentic Christians. The criteria for evaluating someone's life is not by doctrine, but by lifestyle. Not to say that some doctrines are not essential to the Christian faith, but Jesus said "by their fruit you shall know them."

It is unfortunate that many Christians do not properly interpret the scriptures. This is the reason why there are so many different denominations. It does not mean that Christ is divided (in reality), although it certainly appears so from a social point of view. However, as it goes, there are many who believe themselves to be Christian that will have a rude awakening in the day of judgment.

In regard to the subject of tongues, I say that it is a stretch of the imagination to say that the common practice of speaking in tongues today measures up to the teaching about tongues in the NT. If anyone sincerely wants to know how I come up with this conclusion, I would be happy to explain it, and show by which hermeneutical principles I am interpreting the scripture. I am not one to give an opinion without having extensive study as well as experience in the matter.

I am not saying that my opinion here is worth much, as compared to the opinion of Christ and the apostles. I am only trying to say that I make every effort that my opinion does not deviate from the writers of the NT. In addition, I have experience with this subject, in which God has corrected me because I was boldly erring in it. I am willing to explain this if anyone wants to know.

Let me know if this thread needs to be under a different category, if it does not fall under "Oneness Pentecostalism".

Adelphos

09-16-2011, 11:33 AM

Oneness folks.
Did you speak in tongues before or after you were saved? Please include scripture.
How do you interpret 1 Cor.12:30?
Do you teach all must speak in tongues? If so, why?
What happens if other christians don't receive this gift?

God bless,
p2

Hello Jean,

I do not belong to any Oneness group, but I would like to answer these points.

*I spoke in tongues after conversion (Acts 19).

*I could write an entire page in answer to this, let me not overwhelm those reading (in other words, if we had our own place to debate this thoroughly, I would write it completely). 1 Cor. 12:30 is dealing with the Gift of Speaking in Tongues, not with all kinds of speaking in tongues. The verse asks the question, "Do all speak in tongues?" The answer is no. However, it is addressing one kind of tongue. For example, if I were to ask "Do all have faith?" within the same chapter context, the answer would still be no. Why? Because there is a vast difference between saving faith and the gift of faith.

*I teach that all believers who receive the Gift of the Holy Spirit will speak in tongues (Acts 2, 8, 10, 19, and others)

*Christians who do not receive the Gift of the Holy Spirit with tongues are still Christians.

One question for you:

When does one receive the Gift of the Holy Spirit according to the preponderance of Scriptural evidence? At conversion, at water baptism, or post conversion? Show Scriptures please

Respectfully,

Adelphos

tdidymas

09-16-2011, 02:28 PM

Hello Jean,

I do not belong to any Oneness group, but I would like to answer these points.

*I spoke in tongues after conversion (Acts 19).

*I could write an entire page in answer to this, let me not overwhelm those reading (in other words, if we had our own place to debate this thoroughly, I would write it completely). 1 Cor. 12:30 is dealing with the Gift of Speaking in Tongues, not with all kinds of speaking in tongues. The verse asks the question, "Do all speak in tongues?" The answer is no. However, it is addressing one kind of tongue. For example, if I were to ask "Do all have faith?" within the same chapter context, the answer would still be no. Why? Because there is a vast difference between saving faith and the gift of faith.

*I teach that all believers who receive the Gift of the Holy Spirit will speak in tongues (Acts 2, 8, 10, 19, and others)

*Christians who do not receive the Gift of the Holy Spirit with tongues are still Christians.

One question for you:

When does one receive the Gift of the Holy Spirit according to the preponderance of Scriptural evidence? At conversion, at water baptism, or post conversion? Show Scriptures please

Respectfully,

Adelphos

Adelphos, according to 2 statements you make about all who receive the gift speak in tongues, and about those who don't are still Christians, are you suggesting that there are Christians who will go to heaven who do not have the gift?

Are you suggesting that the "Gift of the Holy Spirit" is something different than the gift a believer who is given, the Holy Spirit as a guarantee of inheritance in the Kingdom (Eph. 1:13-14)?

OK, so let me ***ume that you are not suggesting that a believer can go to heaven without the Holy Spirit!! (let me know if I am wrong here) (Rom. 8:9).

***uming we are on the same page here, then, in answer to your question "When does one receive the Gift of the Holy Spirit according to the preponderance of Scriptural evidence? At conversion, at water baptism, or post conversion?" My answer here is, it is not so cut-and-dry. There were times in the transitional period between the end of the old covenant and the start of the new covenant (overlapping period) when believers were believers prior to receiving the Spirit (as in Acts 2 and 8:15). However, later in the epistles, the apostles clearly teach that the Holy Spirit indwells all believers. Rom. 8:9, 1 Cor. 12:13, Eph. 1:13; 2:18, 1 Jn. 2:20; 4:4,13.

Obviously, these few verses might not be proof if they are taken out of context. You have to read them not only in their immediate context, but also in the context of the whole NT.

There is a sense in which the NT teaches that all believers have the indwelling Spirit (Rom 8:15), but not necessarily filled to the fullness thereof (Eph. 5:18). The power of the Spirit given (as clearly miraculous events) in Acts was for the purpose of empowerment of the early church for evangelism, as well as authenticate the gospel as being from God. We experience (and observe) only a small taste of its likeness in today's church - when we are filled with the Spirit, we experience an anointing for ministry (such anointing is not a feeling one gets, but rather a supernatural power which causes other people to receive the Word). This is why the apostles exhort all Christians to be filled with the Spirit.

So then, if you follow the logic of the scriptural teaching, then all believers have the indwelling Holy Spirit at conversion, and then later are empowered by infilling for service.
:)TD

Adelphos

09-16-2011, 04:16 PM

Adelphos, according to 2 statements you make about all who receive the gift speak in tongues, and about those who don't are still Christians, are you suggesting that there are Christians who will go to heaven who do not have the gift?

From my perspective, true believers are justified by faith throughout Scripture, apart from receiving the Gift of the Holy Spirit - especially since the Gift of the Holy Spirit was not available until the day of Pentecost.

Are you suggesting that the "Gift of the Holy Spirit" is something different than the gift a believer who is given, the Holy Spirit as a guarantee of inheritance in the Kingdom (Eph. 1:13-14)?

It appears that you have presented an interpretation of Ephesians that you have not exegeted for me. Please explain your position on that verse.

OK, so let me ***ume that you are not suggesting that a believer can go to heaven without the Holy Spirit!! (let me know if I am wrong here) (Rom. 8:9).

I believe Scripture teaches that believers are converted apart from receiving the Gift of the Holy Spirit.

***uming we are on the same page here, then, in answer to your question "When does one receive the Gift of the Holy Spirit according to the preponderance of Scriptural evidence? At conversion, at water baptism, or post conversion?" My answer here is, it is not so cut-and-dry. There were times in the transitional period between the end of the old covenant and the start of the new covenant (overlapping period) when believers were believers prior to receiving the Spirit (as in Acts 2 and 8:15). However, later in the epistles, the apostles clearly teach that the Holy Spirit indwells all believers. Rom. 8:9, 1 Cor. 12:13, Eph. 1:13; 2:18, 1 Jn. 2:20; 4:4,13.

I understand what you are saying. From my perspective, the majority of Scripture was in a "transitional period." This, therefore, in and of itself, is not a reason to claim that there is not pure agreement, and consistency, between Acts and the Epistles. I think the burder of proof is on those who would use "transition" as a means of discontinuity between the two. My personal perspective is that "transitional period" is used as an excuse for theologians that struggle with the essential unity of Acts and the Epistles. Of course, it could be nothing more that an a priori mindset that refuses to allow for other possibilities. None the less, I think that Acts and the Epistles agree 100 percent in this regard, and when looked at as a composite whole will present a clear picture of post conversion reception of the Gift of the Holy Spirit.

I will confess, this position is rarely taught, and both Oneness Pentecostals, and those who are not, will disagree vehemently against it. From my perspective (which of course could be wrong like anyone elses), the position I hold is the most consistent, though unpopular.

Obviously, these few verses might not be proof if they are taken out of context. You have to read them not only in their immediate context, but also in the context of the whole NT.

I have read each verse, and believe the way they are presented here, they are out of context, but I am sure we will discuss that some more later. Just as I am sure you will struggle with what I share as well.

There is a sense in which the NT teaches that all believers have the indwelling Spirit (Rom 8:15), but not necessarily filled to the fullness thereof (Eph. 5:18).

I believe that the Romans p***ages is one of the most mis-quoted verses on this topic out there, and I will share about that later.

I see Ephesians 5:18 as a mere metaphor suggesting continual submission the the Holy Spirit that has been given to those who have already received the Gift of the Holy Spirit.

So then, if you follow the logic of the scriptural teaching, then all believers have the indwelling Holy Spirit at conversion, and then later are empowered by infilling for service.

I understand your position fully. It is probably close to the view I held for years. I hope we can dialog with love and respect on this matter.

Respectfully

Adelphos

jeanmarie

09-17-2011, 11:02 PM

Get a new song, you are wearing this out and cannot prove anyone ever got Baptized with the Holy Ghost with NOTHING!

You wish to speak from the evidence from silence, we speak what we know and what we see and that is the doctrine of witnesses that make up a doctrine and that refute you here.

ALL ARE TO BE BAPTIZED WITH THE HOLY GHOST, you Catholic mongrels are not and nor is the Protestants who pretend they are.

buck,
I am going to give you one of the scariest p***ages in the Bible. I hope you will remember it.
"If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of truth, no sacrifice for sins left."
The reason I'm reminding you of this p***age is, you keep judging other Christians.
We are told by Christ in Mt.7:1-2 "Do not judge, or you too will be judged
.2. For the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the same measure you use , it will be measured to you."
We are commanded by Christ to love one another. See Mt 22:36-39

God bless you as you read his word.
jeanmarie

jeanmarie

09-17-2011, 11:12 PM

Adelphos

09-18-2011, 12:03 AM

My comment concerning the gift of tongues was aimed for our pentecostal friends.
They teach, speaking in tongues is required to be saved. (Oneness Pentecostals) the Bible does not teach this tongues are required to be saved.
We are saved by grace!
Oneness folks do love the Lord, however they have a strong judgmental at***ude of those who have not received this gift. Judging others
is a sin also.

God bless,
jeanmarie Formally p2 and jeanM

Hello,

Well, I would definately consider myself Pentecostal. I am just not in the Oneness camp. I do not teach that speaking in tongues is required for salvation. I do think that many in the Oneness camp tend toward a critical spirit, but I do not believe that judging others is sin. That is too much of a general statement.

Respectfully,

Adelphs

tdidymas

09-19-2011, 11:05 AM

From my perspective, true believers are justified by faith throughout Scripture, apart from receiving the Gift of the Holy Spirit - especially since the Gift of the Holy Spirit was not available until the day of Pentecost.

It appears that you have presented an interpretation of Ephesians that you have not exegeted for me. Please explain your position on that verse.

I believe Scripture teaches that believers are converted apart from receiving the Gift of the Holy Spirit.

I understand what you are saying. From my perspective, the majority of Scripture was in a "transitional period." This, therefore, in and of itself, is not a reason to claim that there is not pure agreement, and consistency, between Acts and the Epistles. I think the burder of proof is on those who would use "transition" as a means of discontinuity between the two. My personal perspective is that "transitional period" is used as an excuse for theologians that struggle with the essential unity of Acts and the Epistles. Of course, it could be nothing more that an a priori mindset that refuses to allow for other possibilities. None the less, I think that Acts and the Epistles agree 100 percent in this regard, and when looked at as a composite whole will present a clear picture of post conversion reception of the Gift of the Holy Spirit.

I will confess, this position is rarely taught, and both Oneness Pentecostals, and those who are not, will disagree vehemently against it. From my perspective (which of course could be wrong like anyone elses), the position I hold is the most consistent, though unpopular.

I have read each verse, and believe the way they are presented here, they are out of context, but I am sure we will discuss that some more later. Just as I am sure you will struggle with what I share as well.

I believe that the Romans p***ages is one of the most mis-quoted verses on this topic out there, and I will share about that later.

I see Ephesians 5:18 as a mere metaphor suggesting continual submission the the Holy Spirit that has been given to those who have already received the Gift of the Holy Spirit.

I understand your position fully. It is probably close to the view I held for years. I hope we can dialog with love and respect on this matter.

Respectfully

Adelphos

Adelphos: we might debate concerning whether I am taking scripture out of context or not. I think the essential disagreement is on the basic question about does every believer have the Spirit or not? Concerning your two statements:

"It appears that you have presented an interpretation of Ephesians that you have not exegeted for me. Please explain your position on that verse.

I believe Scripture teaches that believers are converted apart from receiving the Gift of the Holy Spirit."

this is the crux of the issue. I think if you read Rom 8:9 carefully, it is not out of context in the way I have presented it. I firmly believe the whole of the scripture teaches that all true believers have the Spirit. The ramifications of any person not having the Spirit are:
1. 1 Cor. 2:12 - anyone not receiving the Spirit cannot have the wisdom to understand and receive the gospel.
2. Rom. 8:9 - anyone not having the Spirit does not belong to Christ.
3. Rom. 8:14 - anyone not having the Spirit cannot be led by Him.
4. Rom. 8:16 - the Spirit cannot testify (***ure) the person without Him.
5. Rom. 8:26 - the Spirit cannot help the weakness of the one without Him.
6. Gal. 5:22 - without the Spirit there can be no fruit of the Spirit.
7. John 3:5 - without the Spirit there is no Spirit-birth, and such a person cannot be in the kingdom of God.
8. 2 Cor. 5:17 - without the Spirit, there cannot be a new creation, and thus no Biblical worldview in which to see the light of Christ.
9. ***us 3:5-6 - without the Spirit, there can be no regeneration (coupled with John 3:5), and subsequently no renewal.
10. Eph. 1:14 - without the Spirit there is no guarantee (earnest) of inheritance in the kingdom.
11. Eph. 2:18 - without the Spirit there is no access to the Father.
12. Eph. 2:22 - without the Spirit there is no dwelling of God.

These are only a few of the scriptures, I could spend hours showing one after another, in which the entire NT is filled with proof that all true believers have the Holy Spirit. Again, you have to take each scripture within its immediate context, as well as the whole of the NT. Anyone can nitpick apart each verse and interpretation into something different, if taken out of context.

Incidentally, Eph. 1:14 states very clearly that the believer (the people Paul is writing to) is given the Holy Spirit by God as the "earnest" of inheritance among the saints, i.e. the guarantee. The promise from God of eternal life is not guaranteed to just anyone, only to those who receive the Spirit. Therefore, no one who has not yet received the Spirit can have any ***urance of salvation. Only those who actually have the Spirit can have any ***urance at all. And conversely, those who have the Spirit have full ***urance, since God's promise is as good as done (Heb. 6:19).

"I see Ephesians 5:18 as a mere metaphor suggesting continual submission the the Holy Spirit that has been given to those who have already received the Gift of the Holy Spirit." - I agree with your concept here, except there is a comparison in this verse between the worldly way and the spiritual way - the statement is not metaphorical.
:)TD

Adelphos

09-19-2011, 01:03 PM

Sorry for long post...

Adelphos: we might debate concerning whether I am taking scripture out of context or not. I think the essential disagreement is on the basic question about does every believer have the Spirit or not?

Sure, I would agree. However, context is very important regarding this matter.

Concerning your two statements:

"It appears that you have presented an interpretation of Ephesians that you have not exegeted for me. Please explain your position on that verse.

I believe Scripture teaches that believers are converted apart from receiving the Gift of the Holy Spirit."

this is the crux of the issue.

Yes, I agree this is the crux of the issue.

I think if you read Rom 8:9 carefully, it is not out of context in the way I have presented it.

For space sake, allow me to summarize a few thoughts concerning the context:

Romans 8:9-11:

But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if the Spirit of God dwelleth in you. Now if any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is not his. And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of him that raised Jesus from the dead dwelleth in you, he that raised Christ from the dead will also revive your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

1. Paul is addressing Spirit Filled believers (Romans 5:5).

2. This chapter is not primarily about "saved vs. unsaved" or "filled vs. unfilled," but rather "the spirit-led life vs. the flesh-led life" (see verse 4).

3. The word “dwelleth – oikeo” is referring to the Holy Spirit “having a home in them so as to possess the house”, inferring an everyday, ongoing walk with Him.

4. The Greek verb “oikei” is present, active, indicative, and confirms the idea that this text is referring to allowing the Holy Spirit continuous, ongoing and complete control if one is already filled with the Holy Spirit.

The Concordant Literal translation says, "if so be that God's Spirit IS MAKING (HIS) HOME in you”.

5. If a person is “None of His” (KJV) until the Holy Spirit “takes up residence” in him (which is what you are teaching), then the 120, the Samaritans, Saul, and the Ephesians were NONE OF HIS until after they had received the Holy Spirit. However, the texts clearly demonstrate that these were all true believers before they had received the Holy Spirit!

How verse 9 should be understood from a contextual interpretation:

But ye are not (walking) in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if the Spirit of God dwelleth (is continuously making His home) in you. Now if any man hath not the Spirit of Christ (continually making His home in you – for you already have the Holy Spirit/Romans 5:5), he is not his.

Furthermore, if one were to take these verses out of context, it creates a ver unusual problem in verse 9:

Verse 9 says "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit"

Does this verse teach that because one is a believer, one is automatically NOT IN THE FLESH? Anyone who has been around church life for a day knows that this cannot be the case! Besides, this contradicts Paul's admonition to "walk in the Spirit" (Gal. 5:16, 25). Why would Paul tell believers to walk in the Spirit if one automatically walks in the Spirit?

Then verse 9 says, "if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you".

So, if this verse is telling us that "if" the Spirit of God dwells in a believer they no longer walk in the flesh and automatically walk in the Spirit, this would fly in the face of all Biblical teaching on Christian living - I wish it were this simple!

Conclusion: The fact is that this verse is not referring to the mere indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It is referring to believers who have already been filled with the Holy Spirit (Romans 5:5) being admonished to allow the Spirit of God to make His home in one who claims to be filled with the Holy Spirit. This is not only in agreement with the entirely of the Book of Acts, it also agrees with Pauls admonitions to live out one's daily life "in the Spirit"!

Using out of context verses to form theology has brought great confusion to the body of Christ!

6. Why would Paul teach a doctrine that would contradict his own experience? Scripture shows quite clearly when He received the Gift of the Holy Spirit, and it wasn't as conversion!

7. Why would Paul teach a doctrine that would contradict his very practice. After he clarified the truth to the Ephesian believers, and after those believers were rebaptized, only then, did he lay hands on them to receive the Gift of the Holy Spirit. If Paul believed that the Gift of the Spirit was given at conversion, this seems like a strange practice indeed.

I firmly believe the whole of the scripture teaches that all true believers have the Spirit. The ramifications of any person not having the Spirit are:

1. 1 Cor. 2:12 - anyone not receiving the Spirit cannot have the wisdom to understand and receive the gospel.

1 Co 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

This p***age does not teach one cannot have the wisdom to understand and receive the gospel. It simple says that those who have received the Spirit MIGHT know the things that are freely given to us of God. I really do not understand how you got anything more out of this p***age. In other words, one of the blessings of receiving the Spirit is coming to a deeper knowledge of those things God has given to us - but that isn't even automatic as I see it presently, for he uses the term "might."

2. Rom. 8:9 - anyone not having the Spirit does not belong to Christ.

I explained some of my thoughts about this above. I believe that this is out of context.

3. Rom. 8:14 - anyone not having the Spirit cannot be led by Him.

Out of context with Romans 8 and the rest of the Bible. This view would eliminate the entire list of Old Testament believers who never had the opportunity to receive the Gift of the Holy Spirit.

4. Rom. 8:16 - the Spirit cannot testify (***ure) the person without Him.

This is also out of context...

5. Rom. 8:26 - the Spirit cannot help the weakness of the one without Him.

Out of context...

[quote]6. Gal. 5:22 - without the Spirit there can be no fruit of the Spirit.

Scripture affirms that many Old Covenant believers had the fruit of the Spirit pre Gift days.

7. John 3:5 - without the Spirit there is no Spirit-birth, and such a person cannot be in the kingdom of God.[quote]

The fact is, I never said that the Holy Spirit isn't involved, for He obviously is involved. I merely pointed out that one is not indwelt by the Holy Spirit until (sarcasm) one is indwelt.

[quote]8. 2 Cor. 5:17 - without the Spirit, there cannot be a new creation, and thus no Biblical worldview in which to see the light of Christ.

The Spirit being involved is not the same as the indwelling of the Spirit.

9. ***us 3:5-6 - without the Spirit, there can be no regeneration (coupled with John 3:5), and subsequently no renewal.

Again, I have never claimed that the Holy Spirit was not involved with our conversion.

[qutoe]10. Eph. 1:14 - without the Spirit there is no guarantee (earnest) of inheritance in the kingdom.

The Greek along with Paul's example to the Ephesians demonstrates that this is speaking directly about a post conversion truth.

[qutoe]11. Eph. 2:18 - without the Spirit there is no access to the Father./quote]

This is actually reading into the text here. It merely says that our access to the Father is through the Holy Spirit.

12. Eph. 2:22 - without the Spirit there is no dwelling of God.

This is speaking of a a corporate indwelling not a personal one.

These are only a few of the scriptures, I could spend hours showing one after another, in which the entire NT is filled with proof that all true believers have the Holy Spirit. Again, you have to take each scripture within its immediate context, as well as the whole of the NT. Anyone can nitpick apart each verse and interpretation into something different, if taken out of context.

I am willing to discuss each one together as a whole or individually.

Respectfully

Adelphos

tdidymas

09-20-2011, 12:15 PM

Adelphos: we could debate about these things all day and night... Your interpretation of these p***ages are obviously skewed by your bias.

Example: in Rom 8 Paul states "if you live according to the flesh you shall die..." Do you think this is something other than eternal death? Do you think "die" refers to some difference between maturity and immaturity? Just as 1 John contains a basic theme of discernment between those who are actually born of God and those not, in the same way Paul in Rom 8 is distinguishing between those actually born of God and those who are not.

Another example: (Rom 8:9) "Does this verse teach that because one is a believer, one is automatically NOT IN THE FLESH? Anyone who has been around church life for a day knows that this cannot be the case! Besides, this contradicts Paul's admonition to "walk in the Spirit" (Gal. 5:16, 25). Why would Paul tell believers to walk in the Spirit if one automatically walks in the Spirit?" Here again, you are interpreting scripture eisegetically - i.e. taking your subjective experience, in which you interpret subjectively, and imposing a pretextual idea on the scripture, in order to make it fit your paradigm. No one said anything about walking in the Spirit was "automatic" (except you, jumping to this conclusion). Paul is expressing a spiritual truth here, and those who understand it and live by it are the ones to whom God has given this wisdom.

Rightly dividing the word does not mean to bring out all the Greek terms and nitpick at them until you get the interpretation you want. It means to take the whole of scripture and extract the original intent of it.

How many times have you read Romans? How much of it have you memorized? How many times have you outlined it? How have you extracted the major themes written in it? Or are you shortcutting your study by going directly to commentaries written by people who are favorable to your ideas?

I know that most Protestant denominations like to make getting saved a simplistic matter. To be sure, it is simple, but not simplistic. It is simple enough that a child can understand the gospel and believe (1 John 5:1), but it is not simplistic in that many denominations have made up many doctrines concerning it. Paul's 1 Cor. rebuke that they are living "as carnal" does not mean that they were "carnal Christians," and that we can apply the "carnal Christian" idea to the church today. Everyone who continues sinning must be rebuked, since this is the process to maturity and discernment that has been ordained by God (Gal 6:1-4, 2 Tim 3:16, 1 Jn 3:10). If they repent, they are to be forgiven. If they don't repent, they are to be regarded as "an outcast and a sinner." Mat. 18 - and the entire process is to be followed.

All the warnings of the scripture which are written to "believers" are to be heeded as real warnings. God is not playing a game, and those who "profess Jesus" are not the "winners of the game". God is not playing this game. There will be a real judgment, and a real separation between "sheep" and "goats," "wheat" and "tares." "If you live according to the flesh you shall die." Anyone claiming to be a Christian, but does not live accordingly, shall be judged in the day of judgment as a "goat" or "tare" and thrown into the fire. This is something the whole NT warns over and over again.

If you interpret scripture based on your personal subjective experience, then you will err accordingly. Just because you find people in your church who say they are Christian, and speak in tongues, but their behavior does not support proof that they are actually following Christ; you cannot decide that there is such a thing as people who actually have the Spirit of God who are living a fleshly life because they aren't mature enough yet (and thus interpret Rom 8:9 according to your subjective opinion). This is not to say there is not an immaturity among Christians, yes there is. But the proof is in the rebuke. If they submit as the scripture commands, then they are proving themselves worthy of being deemed a child of God. But if they are defiant and rebellious, they are proving they don't belong to God.

So then, this naturally leads to the question, "is speaking in tongues proof of having received the Holy Spirit?" The Biblical answer is an emphatic NO!! Only in Acts - in the transition period between the beginning of the New Covenant around AD 30 (i.e. the Day of Pentecost) to the end of the Old Covenant in AD 70 (the destruction of the temple) was "speaking in tongues and prophesying" held as some proof that the Holy Spirit was given. This is because the Jews needed the sign, and even the Jewish Christians needed the sign in regard to the Gentiles receiving the gift. This is why Paul states clearly - "tongues are a sign not for believers, but for unbelievers." Any time we ask the question why something is written in the scripture, we have to go to scripture for the answer (in addition to historic truth). We cannot use our subjective experience for the answer, otherwise you get all kinds of errant doctrine which is produced in all the separate denominations.

The only proof that the Bible gives that someone has received the gift of the Holy Spirit is the fruit of the Spirit. Does their life portray a subjection to the commands of Christ? "A tree is known by its fruit." Mat 7:17-19. Mat. 12:33. Gal. 5:22. 1 Jn. 2 Pet. Jude. Rom 1-3. 2 Cor. 13:5. The whole NT is filled with statements of discerning between the godly and the ungodly, and with such do we learn to discern ourselves as well as others.

Then this eventually leads to the question, what about those people who are defiant and rebellious, who refuse to repent from their gossipping, slandering, prideful, and arrogant ways, and even hating and disrespecting the brethren, but who speak in tongues? Does their tongues prove they have the Holy Spirit? Or does it prove that their tongues is a fraudulent "gift" (i.e. not authentic from the Spirit of God)? Or does it prove that some people are so desperate to participate in God's kingdom, that they are easily and readily convinced to fabricate an unknown language, much like a toddler fabricates his own language when he can't talk yet, but desperately wants to participate in the conversation?

It doesn't take a scholar to see that what is regularly practiced in many churches that is called "speaking in tongues" does not measure up to the description of this gift in the NT. At best, one single scripture (which is taken out of context) and made to fit this experience (and called a "prayer language" which is not a Biblical term), is used to support that practice. This is at best. At worst, and what we actually see in many churches, is all kinds of violations of scriptural instruction in its usage. It doesn't take a mature Christian to discern that there is something seriously wrong with this picture.

Are you willing to honestly consider what I am saying here, and to test it with the scriptures? If not, then any further suggestion I make, or testimony I give, will not be effective for you.
:)TD

Adelphos

09-20-2011, 04:19 PM

Adelphos: we could debate about these things all day and night... Your interpretation of these p***ages are obviously skewed by your bias.

Perhaps! Yet, yours is not?

Example: in Rom 8 Paul states "if you live according to the flesh you shall die..." Do you think this is something other than eternal death? Do you think "die" refers to some difference between maturity and immaturity? Just as 1 John contains a basic theme of discernment between those who are actually born of God and those not, in the same way Paul in Rom 8 is distinguishing between those actually born of God and those who are not.

Context, which is a core sound hermeneutical principle, doesn't suggest this anywhere in the text. Please use the context to express what you are suggesting, thank you. BTW, I do not think that die means anything other than eternal death.

Another example: (Rom 8:9) "Does this verse teach that because one is a believer, one is automatically NOT IN THE FLESH? Anyone who has been around church life for a day knows that this cannot be the case! Besides, this contradicts Paul's admonition to "walk in the Spirit" (Gal. 5:16, 25). Why would Paul tell believers to walk in the Spirit if one automatically walks in the Spirit?" Here again, you are interpreting scripture eisegetically - i.e. taking your subjective experience, in which you interpret subjectively, and imposing a pretextual idea on the scripture, in order to make it fit your paradigm. No one said anything about walking in the Spirit was "automatic" (except you, jumping to this conclusion). Paul is expressing a spiritual truth here, and those who understand it and live by it are the ones to whom God has given this wisdom.

Actually, I am merely pointing out that "literalism" will confuse the text. The literal interpretation, using sound hermeneutical principles, will clarify the text. The claim that is being made here is that I am using "eisegetics," which by your definition is taking your subjective experience, in which you interpret subjectively, and imposing a pretextual idea on the Scripture, in order to fit your paradigm." Yet, I do not see you respond with any kind of exegesis. I am rather baffled!

Furthermore, you suggest that I said that I was accusing someone of teaching walking in the Spirit was "automatic". Well, it is possible I didn't make myself clear enough, but the the point I was merely making was one of example, and interpretive consistency.

[qutoe]Rightly dividing the word does not mean to bring out all the Greek terms and nitpick at them until you get the interpretation you want. It means to take the whole of scripture and extract the original intent of it.

I agree, but so far you have not interacted with the exegesis I presented. This tends to mean that the teaching presented cannot be contended with. If, on the other hand, I am in error, demonstrate by interacting specifically with each concept I presented. If you cannot, or will not do that, I will understand. Sometime we just don't have the time!

How many times have you read Romans? How much of it have you memorized? How many times have you outlined it? How have you extracted the major themes written in it? Or are you shortcutting your study by going directly to commentaries written by people who are favorable to your ideas?

It is really hard to say how many times I have read Romans... my goodness, I have been a believer over 35 years, and I actively attempt to read Scriptures twice a day. Who knows? I have memorized quite a bit over the years, but I must confess, I forget, and need to rememorize. As far as shortcuts, well, I don't know. I did translation work when I was in Seminary, and attempt to use my Greek skills often. Oh, btw, I have read many commentaries on Romans as well. Even thought of writing my own. Good students compare what other teachers have taught in order to remain teachable, don't you think?

I know that most Protestant denominations like to make getting saved a simplistic matter. To be sure, it is simple, but not simplistic. It is simple enough that a child can understand the gospel and believe (1 John 5:1), but it is not simplistic in that many denominations have made up many doctrines concerning it. Paul's 1 Cor. rebuke that they are living "as carnal" does not mean that they were "carnal Christians," and that we can apply the "carnal Christian" idea to the church today. Everyone who continues sinning must be rebuked, since this is the process to maturity and discernment that has been ordained by God (Gal 6:1-4, 2 Tim 3:16, 1 Jn 3:10). If they repent, they are to be forgiven. If they don't repent, they are to be regarded as "an outcast and a sinner." Mat. 18 - and the entire process is to be followed.

ok, don't really know your point, however.

All the warnings of the scripture which are written to "believers" are to be heeded as real warnings. God is not playing a game, and those who "profess Jesus" are not the "winners of the game". God is not playing this game. There will be a real judgment, and a real separation between "sheep" and "goats," "wheat" and "tares." "If you live according to the flesh you shall die." Anyone claiming to be a Christian, but does not live accordingly, shall be judged in the day of judgment as a "goat" or "tare" and thrown into the fire. This is something the whole NT warns over and over again.

ok

If you interpret scripture based on your personal subjective experience, then you will err accordingly. Just because you find people in your church who say they are Christian, and speak in tongues, but their behavior does not support proof that they are actually following Christ; you cannot decide that there is such a thing as people who actually have the Spirit of God who are living a fleshly life because they aren't mature enough yet (and thus interpret Rom 8:9 according to your subjective opinion). This is not to say there is not an immaturity among Christians, yes there is. But the proof is in the rebuke. If they submit as the scripture commands, then they are proving themselves worthy of being deemed a child of God. But if they are defiant and rebellious, they are proving they don't belong to God.

So then, this naturally leads to the question, "is speaking in tongues proof of having received the Holy Spirit?" The Biblical answer is an emphatic NO!!

It is definitively the initial evidence of receiving the Gift of the Holy Spirit.

Only in Acts - in the transition period between the beginning of the New Covenant around AD 30 (i.e. the Day of Pentecost) to the end of the Old Covenant in AD 70 (the destruction of the temple) was "speaking in tongues and prophesying" held as some proof that the Holy Spirit was given.

Unscriptural!

This is because the Jews needed the sign, and even the Jewish Christians needed the sign in regard to the Gentiles receiving the gift. This is why Paul states clearly - "tongues are a sign not for believers, but for unbelievers." Any time we ask the question why something is written in the scripture, we have to go to scripture for the answer (in addition to historic truth). We cannot use our subjective experience for the answer, otherwise you get all kinds of errant doctrine which is produced in all the separate denominations.

All I have done is presented Scripture. Perhaps the subjective experience that is being referred to is the experience that tells one that since I have not experienced speaking in tongues, therefore, it is not available? What do you think?

The only proof that the Bible gives that someone has received the gift of the Holy Spirit is the fruit of the Spirit.

That doesn't make sense. How does one explain the fruit of the Spirit in the lives of Old Testament saints then who obviously lived before the impartation of the Gift of the Holy Spirit?

Does their life portray a subjection to the commands of Christ? "A tree is known by its fruit." Mat 7:17-19. Mat. 12:33. Gal. 5:22. 1 Jn. 2 Pet. Jude. Rom 1-3. 2 Cor. 13:5. The whole NT is filled with statements of discerning between the godly and the ungodly, and with such do we learn to discern ourselves as well as others.

Scripture suggests that even after one is filled with the Holy Spirit, they may choose to walk in the flesh. Hence, the exhoration for continual infilling in Ephesians 5:18, so I am not sure what you are trying to teach! Is it possible for one filled with the Holy Spirit to backslide?

Then this eventually leads to the question, what about those people who are defiant and rebellious, who refuse to repent from their gossipping, slandering, prideful, and arrogant ways, and even hating and disrespecting the brethren, but who speak in tongues? Does their tongues prove they have the Holy Spirit?

It may prove that they were filled at one time. Afterall, it is the initial evidence of receiving the Gift of the Holy Spirit.

Or does it prove that their tongues is a fraudulent "gift" (i.e. not authentic from the Spirit of God)? Or does it prove that some people are so desperate to participate in God's kingdom, that they are easily and readily convinced to fabricate an unknown language, much like a toddler fabricates his own language when he can't talk yet, but desperately wants to participate in the conversation?

There are counterfeit conversions, tongues, leaders, etc... but it does not take away the truth that their are real conversions, real tongues, and real leaders. Once a person has received the Gift of the Holy Spirit, he has the responsibility to be led by the same Spirit.

Respectfully

Adelphos

Adelphos

09-20-2011, 04:20 PM

It doesn't take a scholar to see that what is regularly practiced in many churches that is called "speaking in tongues" does not measure up to the description of this gift in the NT.

Sounds like this criticism is based on subjective experience, not the Word.

At best, one single scripture (which is taken out of context) and made to fit this experience (and called a "prayer language" which is not a Biblical term), is used to support that practice.

Neither is Trinity a Biblical term, so this argument is moot. The fact of the matter is this - tongues are clearly prayer (1 Cor. 14).

This is at best. At worst, and what we actually see in many churches, is all kinds of violations of scriptural instruction in its usage. It doesn't take a mature Christian to discern that there is something seriously wrong with this picture.

Are you willing to honestly consider what I am saying here, and to test it with the scriptures? If not, then any further suggestion I make, or testimony I give, will not be effective for you.

I am 100 per cent for Scriptures.

Respectfully

Adelphos

tdidymas

09-26-2011, 03:26 PM

Adelphos, I will try to answer your arguments one by one:

Quote:
It doesn't take a scholar to see that what is regularly practiced in many churches that is called "speaking in tongues" does not measure up to the description of this gift in the NT.

Sounds like this criticism is based on subjective experience, not the Word.

The fact that you speak in tongues, and this skews your interpretation of the scriptures by means of your experience - this is subjective experience. The fact that I observe that what is taught and practiced today as such does not measure up to the Biblical standard - this is objective experience. The fact that we are to objectively test everything in comparison to God's word is taught by the Bible. "Test all things." "Anyone who goes beyond and does not adhere to our teaching..."

So then, let us make some comparison between what is taught today with Biblical text concerning speaking in tongues:
1. People speak in tongues in churches all the time without interpretation, in direct contradiction to what Paul commanded in 1 Cor 14:28.
2. Pentecostal/Charismatic leaders teach quite frequently that the gift of tongues is for believers (to observe as "initial evidence"), but Paul explicitly states that tongues is for unbelievers (as evidence to them), 1 Cor 14:22.
3. Pentecostal/Charismatic leaders teach quite frequently that everyone who receives the Holy Spirit speaks in tongues, but Paul's teaching is contrary to this, 1 Cor 12:30, saying that not everyone speaks it.
4. No one understands speaking in tongues today, which is contrary to what actually happened in Acts. In Acts 2 there were many people who understood the languages being spoken. Although the subsequent places in Acts do not specifically state such, we must use the same pattern of thought to interpret it. Whenever the Samaritans, Gentiles, and John's followers spoke in tongues, it had to be authenticated by one who understood the languages being spoken. Otherwise, how could they have known it was a miraculous act, and that they also prophesied? To say that the other subsequent tongues speaking did not require understanding of what was said is an eisegetic and subjective interpretation that does not fit within the contextual intent.
5. Does modern "speaking in tongues" edify the person speaking it? Edification in the context of the NT does not mean "feel good." It means built up in faith and the fruit of the Spirit. Not once have I observed (in 12 years of fellowshipping with P/Cs) that speaking in tongues edified anyone. The only edification I have actually observed in churches was based on scriptural knowledge and understanding. I have not observed any edification that was based on tongues speaking. (Other than "it makes me feel good" at***ude, which is unscriptural).
6. P/C leaders quite frequently teach people how to speak in tongues. This is contrary to Biblical principle, which teaches that the Holy Spirit "gave utterance." Not once in the scripture has any of the apostles ever implied that human instruction on "how to speak in tongues" ever accompanied the gift. If a person needs to be taught how to speak in tongues, the ramifications are:
a. The teacher does not believe the Holy Spirit is able to give utterance apart from human instruction.
b. The person "receiving the gift" cannot be given utterance from the Holy Spirit without being taught how to do it by a man.
c. The "gift" is tainted with fleshly human instruction, which is not a Biblical principle, and the result is likely not an authentic miraculous gift from the Spirit of God.
7. The only place in scripture where speaking in tongues is mentioned outside of the historical context in Acts (i.e. where the principle of it is taught), is in 1 Cor where Paul is correcting what they are doing wrong. Nowhere else is tongues mentioned, including all the other lists of gifts to edify the church (in every other place outside of 1 Cor 12). P/C leaders often teach tongues as a primary gift of the Spirit, which is contrary to the at***ude of the NT as a whole.
8. Tongues is a sign gift according to 1 Cor 14:22, but P/C leaders teach often that it is an essential gift of the Spirit (by reason of "it is the initial evidence"). Contrary to this, the Bible teaches that the sign gifts were for authenticating the revelation of the New Covenant, and implies that subsequent generations did not need it or have it - Heb. 2:3-4 "...which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard [Him], God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit..." In addition, none of the antenicene fathers wrote anything on this subject as if it was something ongoing throughout the generations. In fact, the tongues movement is a fairly recent 20th century movement, which is a red-flag indication that it is quite possibly a cult movement.

I don't feel it necessary to interject my own experience with the phenomenon, since I give Biblical and historical proof of my point here.
Continued...
:)TD

tdidymas

09-26-2011, 03:27 PM

Adelphos, continued:

Quote:
At best, one single scripture (which is taken out of context) and made to fit this experience (and called a "prayer language" which is not a Biblical term), is used to support that practice.

Neither is Trinity a Biblical term, so this argument is moot. The fact of the matter is this - tongues are clearly prayer (1 Cor. 14).

I will grant you that Paul refers to it as "praying." However, he never uses that fact as a reason to do it. Any time it has been objected to P/Cs that modern tongues speaking is not like the NT, they always go the to "prayer language" idea to justify or "prove" it - this is not the original Biblical intent of the idea, thus the justification of calling it a "prayer language" to authenticate their experience is not Biblical.

Quote:
So then, this naturally leads to the question, "is speaking in tongues proof of having received the Holy Spirit?" The Biblical answer is an emphatic NO!!

It is definitively the initial evidence of receiving the Gift of the Holy Spirit.

Your application here is Biblically wrong, because your idea of tongues being "the initial evidence" is based on the false doctrine you have been taught (which is based on subjective experience), not on the Biblical text. One could call "initial evidence" of what happened in Acts only, in which tongues was a sign gift to unbelievers, and to the church only insomuch as they needed proof that the Gentiles and other religious groups had actually received the Holy Spirit as the apostles did on the day of Pentecost. Nowhere in scripture does this indicate that tongues is a regular gift given to believers who receive the Spirit. Again, Heb. 2 along with the context of what happened and what the apostles argued over in Acts proves my point here. I am extracting the proof from the Biblical text only, and eliminating the bias of personal subjective experience. What P/Cs have done here is to take the "initial evidence" of it as a sign gift in Acts, and they have "extrapolated" it as a general application of receiving the Holy Spirit, and called it "the initial evidence" of receiving the Holy Spirit by every believer. This is why the application of it is simply wrong, because the application does not fit the original intent of scripture.

Quote:
The only proof that the Bible gives that someone has received the gift of the Holy Spirit is the fruit of the Spirit.

That doesn't make sense. How does one explain the fruit of the Spirit in the lives of Old Testament saints then who obviously lived before the impartation of the Gift of the Holy Spirit?

Here again, it is only those with the bias of tongues as "the initial evidence" doctrine who interpret the statement "the Spirit was not yet, because Jesus was not yet glorified" as a justification for saying that OT saints did not have the Holy Spirit. This again is an eisegetical idea inserted into the text. If we take the whole of scripture together, we have OT saints who are said to have the Holy Spirit in many ways. God said "not by might... but by My Spirit," indeed the saints of old have always been referred as living their righteousness before God by the power of the Spirit, since "the righteous one will live by faith." There are those still in the Old Covenant times in the NT gospels who are said to be righteous, and who spoke by the Holy Spirit. The sense in which they had the Holy Spirit was mysterious until the day of Pentecost. Paul alludes to the fact that the gospel was preached to everyone in a subtle way before Christ came, and both Peter and the writer of Hebrews also testify to it. He said that the gospel in OT times was a mystery, before it was revealed to him and the apostles from Christ. This shows that the gospel existed in OT times, though a mystery, and was preached as a mystery to them. Those who believed in the coming Messiah before He came, and who lived a righteous life by faith in God are shown to have the Holy Spirit. Anyone who believes in 1 Cor 2 and Gal 5:22 cannot doubt that OT saints had the Holy Spirit to make them a righteous "tree" (see my teaching earlier on this). Paul's teaching on salvation, faith, and spiritual birth is generic for all mankind, and does not follow a chronological construct. Spiritual birth through faith in Christ is retroactive for all time prior to His death and resurrection, as much as after. So then, what can we conclude about the statement "the Spirit was not yet, because Jesus was not yet glorified"? Only that the Spirit is given in such a way as never before. This is alluded to by Peter in Act 2 wherein he quoted Joel "I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh." The "Spirit not yet" means that the Spirit was not yet poured out in an unmeasurable way to all mankind (i.e. to all the gentiles), just as prior to Jesus' death holiness was limited to the space of the "most holy place," but after the veil was rent, holiness became available to all the gentiles. And this is within the context of John, since he was also mostly apostle to gentiles as Paul was. So then, the Holy Spirit was indeed given to saints prior to Jesus' glorification, but was extremely limited to those who believed the gospel mystery. After Jesus was glorified, and then we get the day of Pentecost, now we have the Spirit poured out freely "on all flesh" because the death and resurrection of Christ makes all the gentiles (and Jews who previously did not believe) holy before God. This all fits together as the sense in which the NT teaches it.

In conclusion:
Do you accept that these are valid objections and proofs that what we observe today is fundamentally different than what was observed in the early church?

If you cannot get past this point, then I think answering any further objections from you would be a futile effort.
:)TD

Adelphos

09-26-2011, 05:43 PM

The fact that you speak in tongues, and this skews your interpretation of the scriptures by means of your experience - this is subjective experience. The fact that I observe that what is taught and practiced today as such does not measure up to the Biblical standard - this is objective experience. The fact that we are to objectively test everything in comparison to God's word is taught by the Bible. "Test all things." "Anyone who goes beyond and does not adhere to our teaching..."

There is no such thing as "objective experience." Your experience is just as subjective as mine - even if one calls it "objective experience." It would be more correct to say something like, interpretation is influenced by experience, whether p***ive, or active. So, yes, my experience of speaking in tongues does influence by understanding of Scripture, just as your experience of not speaking in tongues influences your understanding of Scripture. Now, if you can move away from this kind of argumentum ad hominem, then the time wasted here will have some value.

In other words, you might be able to prove that I am the Devil's brother, but that doesn't change the fact that so far you still haven't answered my arguments very well at all. Let us stick to the Scripture. Thanks

Respectfully

Adelphos

Adelphos

09-26-2011, 06:01 PM

People speak in tongues in churches all the time without interpretation, in direct contradiction to what Paul commanded in 1 Cor 14:28.

In order for me to really understand what your contention consists of, please answer me these questions:

1. Why did the Apostles allow tongues without interpretation take place in other p***ages?

2. Do Scriptures interpret Scriptures?

3. Is it possible that Paul's declaration is dealing with something very specific as opposed to congregational speaking in tongues?

Respectfully

Adelphos

Adelphos

09-26-2011, 06:06 PM

Pentecostal/Charismatic leaders teach quite frequently that the gift of tongues is for believers (to observe as "initial evidence"), but Paul explicitly states that tongues is for unbelievers (as evidence to them), 1 Cor 14:22.

Is it possible that when Paul explicitly states that tongues are for unbelievers that this doesn't limit it to that purpose?

Respectfully

Adelphos

Adelphos

09-26-2011, 06:13 PM

Pentecostal/Charismatic leaders teach quite frequently that everyone who receives the Holy Spirit speaks in tongues, but Paul's teaching is contrary to this, 1 Cor 12:30, saying that not everyone speaks it.

1. Is it possible that contextually Paul is addressing tongues as a gift?

2. Is it possible that speaking in tongues can be used as evidence of receiving the Gift of the Holy Spirit AND also be a separate gift?

Adelphos

09-26-2011, 06:23 PM

No one understands speaking in tongues today, which is contrary to what actually happened in Acts. In Acts 2 there were many people who understood the languages being spoken. Although the subsequent places in Acts do not specifically state such, we must use the same pattern of thought to interpret it.

There is no hermeneutical reason that makes it necessary to teach that tongues were totally understood in all p***ages where they were spoken. That would be an argument from silence unless there was compelling supporting evidence that would suggest otherwise.

Whenever the Samaritans, Gentiles, and John's followers spoke in tongues, it had to be authenticated by one who understood the languages being spoken. Otherwise, how could they have known it was a miraculous act, and that they also prophesied? To say that the other subsequent tongues speaking did not require understanding of what was said is an eisegetic and subjective interpretation that does not fit within the contextual intent.

1. There are no p***ages that suggest that tongues were being "authenticated" by those who understood the languages. This is reading into the text - that is "Eisegesis (from Greek εἰς "into" and ending from exegesis from ἐξηγεῖσθαι "to lead out") is the process of misinterpreting a text in such a way that it introduces one's own ideas, reading into the text."

2. Prophecy is in the native language, so there were no need for interpreters.

3. "Contextual intent" needs to be proven, not merely stated. This, you have failed to do.

The only place in Scripture where we know for sure that tongues were understood by those who heard them was Acts 2. The only thing that can be suggested by that is that tongues are languages.

Respectfully

Adelphos

Adelphos

09-26-2011, 06:30 PM

Does modern "speaking in tongues" edify the person speaking it? Edification in the context of the NT does not mean "feel good." It means built up in faith and the fruit of the Spirit. Not once have I observed (in 12 years of fellowshipping with P/Cs) that speaking in tongues edified anyone. The only edification I have actually observed in churches was based on scriptural knowledge and understanding. I have not observed any edification that was based on tongues speaking. (Other than "it makes me feel good" at***ude, which is unscriptural).

This sounds like you are basing your arguments on experience. So, allow me to go to Scripture:

He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
1 Corinthians 14:4 KJV

And if this practice is condemned, then Paul contradicted himself when he told the Corinthians to not forbid it:

Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.
1 Corinthians 14:39 KJV

Perhaps a good question at this juncture is this: Are you forbidding it?

Respectfully

Adelphos

Adelphos

09-26-2011, 06:33 PM

Adelphos

09-26-2011, 06:44 PM

Tongues is a sign gift according to 1 Cor 14:22, but P/C leaders teach often that it is an essential gift of the Spirit (by reason of "it is the initial evidence").

There are plenty of Scripture examples to establish the truth that speaking in tongues is the initial evidence of receiving the Gift of the Holy Spirit.

Contrary to this, the Bible teaches that the sign gifts were for authenticating the revelation of the New Covenant, and implies that subsequent generations did not need it or have it - Heb. 2:3-4 "...which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard [Him], God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit..."

1. Does confirmation of the Gospel still need to take place?

2. Exactly where in the Hebrews p***ages say this confirming process would ever stop?

In addition, none of the antenicene fathers wrote anything on this subject as if it was something ongoing throughout the generations. In fact, the tongues movement is a fairly recent 20th century movement, which is a red-flag indication that it is quite possibly a cult movement.

Hmmmmm....

1. The church fathers didn't write about a lot of things.

2. So, is it a red flag indicator that the teaching of "Justification by Faith" didn't get taught until the 1500s? Does that mean it is a false doctrine then?

3. So, all denominations that started 1500 years or later after the early church was around is "possibly a cult movement?" That is what you are inferring in my opinion. You may want to rethink this argument!

Respectfully

Adelphos

tdidymas

09-27-2011, 10:23 AM

There is no such thing as "objective experience." Your experience is just as subjective as mine - even if one calls it "objective experience." It would be more correct to say something like, interpretation is influenced by experience, whether p***ive, or active. So, yes, my experience of speaking in tongues does influence by understanding of Scripture, just as your experience of not speaking in tongues influences your understanding of Scripture. Now, if you can move away from this kind of argumentum ad hominem, then the time wasted here will have some value.

In other words, you might be able to prove that I am the Devil's brother, but that doesn't change the fact that so far you still haven't answered my arguments very well at all. Let us stick to the Scripture. Thanks

Respectfully

Adelphos

Perhaps "experience" was the wrong word to use, since you seem to be stuck in a semantical rut about it. My point was that my judgment concerning what I observed in real life is objective, compared to the subjectiveness of your interpretation of scripture based on your personal feelings.

Your statement "your experience of not speaking in tongues" proves that you are reading with prejudice. Nowhere did I ever imply that had I never done it. In fact, I alluded to it by mentioning "my experience with the phenomenon." Your bias is really showing here, that you are not carefully reading what I wrote.

"Let us stick to the Scripture" - this is what I have been doing all along. I purposely left out my personal experience with the phenomenon, and even clearly stated so, and stuck to exegetical interpretation of the scripture, and applied it to the real objective world we live in today. Please don't get blinded by your prejudice. I understand that your personal experience with tongues can possibly cause much upset by what I am saying in this thread. My exegetical interpretations of the scripture has no prejudice at all against the phenomenon in general or in principle. I am objecting to what is being taught in the churches about it. I do not see the phenomenon itself as a divisive element, but I see rather the teaching of P/Cs about the phenomenon as the divisive element. It is the unbiblical teaching about the phenomenon that I consider could be a cultic movement of the 20th century. And by "cultic movement," I mean a divisive element that separates brothers in the universal church. Please don't misunderstand me, I am not saying "you are in a cult" which would obviously be an evil judgment. The phenomenon would not be a divisive element at all, if the P/C churches repented and payed close attention to Biblical teaching about it.
:)TD

tdidymas

09-27-2011, 10:30 AM

In order for me to really understand what your contention consists of, please answer me these questions:

1. Why did the Apostles allow tongues without interpretation take place in other p***ages?
Show me where

2. Do Scriptures interpret Scriptures?
yes

3. Is it possible that Paul's declaration is dealing with something very specific as opposed to congregational speaking in tongues?
To be sure, it was specific, and it was congregational (both, not one or the other). This is the sense of the context of the p***age. If you think that "very specific" needs additional data than what is stated clearly in the context, then say what it is.

:)TD

tdidymas

09-27-2011, 10:32 AM

Is it possible that when Paul explicitly states that tongues are for unbelievers that this doesn't limit it to that purpose?

Not possible, since he clearly delineates - "not for believers."
:)TD

tdidymas

09-27-2011, 10:36 AM

1. Is it possible that contextually Paul is addressing tongues as a gift?

2. Is it possible that speaking in tongues can be used as evidence of receiving the Gift of the Holy Spirit AND also be a separate gift?

No, because this interpretation requires an eisegetic pretext.
:)TD

tdidymas

09-27-2011, 11:19 AM

There is no hermeneutical reason that makes it necessary to teach that tongues were totally understood in all p***ages where they were spoken. That would be an argument from silence unless there was compelling supporting evidence that would suggest otherwise.
I agree with you, and my supporting evidence is Acts 2. If the tongues in subsequent p***ages was essentially the same as Acts 2, then there would not be any need for them to repeat the fact that other people understood (and were able to interpret the language).

1. There are no p***ages that suggest that tongues were being "authenticated" by those who understood the languages. This is reading into the text - that is "Eisegesis (from Greek εἰς "into" and ending from exegesis from ἐξηγεῖσθαι "to lead out") is the process of misinterpreting a text in such a way that it introduces one's own ideas, reading into the text."
OK, I admit that here I used the term "authenticated" to prove a point. If the language spoken in Ch 10 & 19 was essentially the same as what happened in Ch 2, there would not be any need for Luke to repeat that others who heard them understood the languages. It is possible that they did not have the problem of counterfeit tongues at the time of Acts, as we do today. I am simply trying to make a point of application.

2. Prophecy is in the native language, so there were no need for interpreters.
How do you know, were you there? This is a facetious way of saying that you are reading into the text. There are 3 possibles for "they spoke in tongues and prophesied":
1. Some spoke in tongues, others prophesied - you cannot accept this, since your doctrine demands that all spoke in tongues, but this would fit your idea that the prophecy was "in the native language."
2. They all spoke in tongues and they all prophesied, and the prophecy was in tongues, and some people who heard it testified that it was prophecy. This is equally valid. It is reading into it that "some people testified" - but we know that the apostles did testify that it was equivalent to the Day of Pentecost experience. Obviously people heard it. It would not have been necessary for Luke to say that some heard and testified.
3. They all spoke in tongues and they all prophesied, but it was done at different times. This could be a valid interpretation of the events, and could fit your language idea, but here again, it is eisegetics as much as any other scenario, even more so, since splitting the tongues and prophecies to different time stamps requires some interpretive manipulation.

3. "Contextual intent" needs to be proven, not merely stated. This, you have failed to do.
The "contextual intent" I am talking about has to do with the Acts 2 account. In order to maintain contextual integrity, we must ***ume that the tongues phenomena in Ch 10 & 19 is essentially the same as Ch 2. To make them different is to deviate from contextual integrity.

The only place in Scripture where we know for sure that tongues were understood by those who heard them was Acts 2. The only thing that can be suggested by that is that tongues are languages.
Exactly.
:)TD

tdidymas

09-27-2011, 11:28 AM

This sounds like you are basing your arguments on experience. So, allow me to go to Scripture:

And if this practice is condemned, then Paul contradicted himself when he told the Corinthians to not forbid it:

Perhaps a good question at this juncture is this: Are you forbidding it?
Again, my eyewitness observations is not subjective experience. Obviously I don't know everything, so I do acknowledge that I have bias in what I observe, just as every person has a bias in what they observe. My objection is toward the major focus on tongues as an experience that is said that everyone needs, but I see no extrinsic value in it, nor any Biblical support for it.

I have not forbidden anything thus far. I am objecting to the modern teaching about it.
:)TD

Adelphos

09-27-2011, 01:14 PM

I will grant you that Paul refers to it as "praying." However, he never uses that fact as a reason to do it.

He doesn't use that fact as a reason not to do it either. So, this is a moot comment in my opinion.

Any time it has been objected to P/Cs that modern tongues speaking is not like the NT, they always go the to "prayer language" idea to justify or "prove" it - this is not the original Biblical intent of the idea, thus the justification of calling it a "prayer language" to authenticate their experience is not Biblical.

Tongues being prayer is a fact. It has nothing to do with "justifying" anything. In fact, I would suggest that one of the main emphases of 1 Corinthians 14 is the proper use of tongues as prayer.

The entire context is primarily speaking about praying in tongues before the ***embly (and why that prayer needed interpreted when in front of an ***embly)

Verse 2: "For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him." The question is this: Is speaking to God prayer? Absolutely!!

Verse 3: Paul is merely contrasting the benefits of prophecy over prayer in tongues without interpretation.

Verse 4: The summary of this contrast is "He that speaketh in an unknown tongue [in prayer - context hasn't changed] edifieth himself [because prayer always edifies us], but he that prophesieth edifieth the church."

Verse 5: Context has not changed! Paul is still contrasting uninterpreted tongues with prophecy: "I would that ye all spake with tongues [in prayer - context hasn't changed], but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues [in prayer], except he interpret [i.e. interpret the prayer in tongues], that the church may receive edifying" [which will cause them to say "amen" to the prayer according to verse 16).

Verse 6: "Now, brethren, if I come unto you [to pray - context hasn't changed] speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall [also] speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?" We know from Scripture and history that people in the local synagogue would be allowed to pray or speak before the rest of the ***embly (Josephus, Vita 290–295, Agatharchides ap. Josephus, Ap. 1.209–211; Matthew 4:23; 6:5; Luke 4:16-21) . We also know from history that many church concepts actually crossed over directly from the synagogue system (i.e. elders). Now that the converted Jews and Greek proselytes at Corinth (Acts 18:4) were now filled with the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, they would take their turn before the ***embly to pray in tongues, thinking that this was more spiritual than praying in Greek, their native language. Paul is attempting to share that with the Corinthian believers that praying in tongues without interpretation before the ***embly has not value to the believers of the ***embly.

Verse 7-12: Paul continues to share how praying in tongues without interpretation fails to edify the body. He illustrates it here by the ****ogy of sounds and voices.

Verse 13: "Wherefore [context has not changed - prayer in tongues] let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret" [What will be interpreted here? The prayer of tongues! This will lead the hearers to be able to say "amen" to the prayer, thus, they will be edified]

Verse 14: "For if I pray in an unknown tongue [this proves that, indeed, the subject is still prayer, continued from verse 2], my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful."

Verse 15: "What is it then? I will pray with the spirit. and I will pray with the understanding also [through operating the gift of interpretation the person will understand the prayer they themselves are praying. It should be noted that Paul is not encouraging them to pray to interpret someone elses tongue!]: I will sing with the spirit [in other tongues in prayer, as praise to God], and I will sing with the understanding also" [by singing the interpretation to the prayer song].

Verse 16: "Else, when thou shalt bless with the spirit [eulogeo, to offer praise and thanksgiving to God in prayer in other tongues, as "bless" denotes], how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned [uninitiated in the things of God] say Amen at they giving of thanks [prayer], seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?" [Because you have given thanks in other tongues]

Verse 17: "For thou verily givest thanks well [by praying in tongues] but the other is not edified" [because no interpretation is being given].

Verse 18: "I thank God, I speak in tongues [pray in tongues] more than ye all"

Verse 23: "If therefore [in view of everything I am saying about prayer in tongues] the whole church be come together into one place, and all [those who "come unto you (them)" - like Paul's example in verse 6, before the ***embly] speak with tongues [pray] and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?" [by praying in tongues without interpretation]

Verse 27: "If any man speak in an unknown tongue [in prayer - still the same subject], let it [the prayer in tongues] be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course, and let one intepret." [Contextually, Paul was encouraging the tongue speaker to interpret his own tongues - vss. 13-16, but it certainly is not limited to that - see next verse. The Greek can be legitimately understood to be saying the same thing here as well].

Verse 28: "But if there be no interpreter [no one coming bringing an interpretation], let him keep silence [be brought to silence - Greek] in the church; and let him [continue to] speak to himself, and to God" [in prayer]

Submitted in Prayer,

Adelphos

tdidymas

09-27-2011, 01:45 PM

There are plenty of Scripture examples to establish the truth that speaking in tongues is the initial evidence of receiving the Gift of the Holy Spirit.
Please list, since I cannot think of any.

1. Does confirmation of the Gospel still need to take place?
Confirmation of the gospel today is only done by illumination of the Holy Spirit, which is a supernatural event, but not miraculous. A miraculous event is one in which many people witness, which has no natural cause. There are no miraculous events taking place for the authentication of the gospel, since the NT gospels were written. It is no longer "new revelation" in which God is using miraculous events to authenticate it (Heb. 2). If you differ with this, then please give both scriptural evidence, and historical evidence.

2. Exactly where in the Hebrews p***ages say this confirming process would ever stop?
2:1-4. If you read it carefully, it indicates that Jesus and the apostles performed authenticating miracles, but not himself (the writer of Heb). All written historical evidence indicates that miracles ceased after the 1st century (I'm talking about gospel-authenticating miraculous events, not healings and Providential activities that God does for people all over the world on an ongoing basis).

1. The church fathers didn't write about a lot of things.
They wrote about quite a lot of things, if you investigate.

2. So, is it a red flag indicator that the teaching of "Justification by Faith" didn't get taught until the 1500s? Does that mean it is a false doctrine then?

3. So, all denominations that started 1500 years or later after the early church was around is "possibly a cult movement?" That is what you are inferring in my opinion. You may want to rethink this argument!
This is not a valid argument. One could say in response to this that the Trinity idea is cultic, unless you hold to the modalistic idea, and then that is deemed as cultic also. You mistake the reformation as the first to teach justification by faith, but this is not correct. It became a big deal in the reformation because the Roman Catholics had largely lost the essential application of it (I'm speaking of application, not official church doctrine). In fact, Augustine taught justification by faith. Since it was not a major issue at the time, it was not explained as clearly as in the reformation days. In fact, the NT scriptures should have been sufficient for proving the doctrine of justification by faith, and most likely was taught from the scriptures for hundreds of years. Therefore your idea that justification by faith was a new doctrine of the 16th century is not correct. On the other hand, the P/C doctrines on tongues are a 20th century phenomenon.

I hope I have sufficiently answered.
:)TD

tdidymas

09-27-2011, 01:57 PM

He doesn't use that fact as a reason not to do it either. So, this is a moot comment in my opinion.

Tongues being prayer is a fact. It has nothing to do with "justifying" anything. In fact, I would suggest that one of the main emphases of 1 Corinthians 14 is the proper use of tongues as prayer.

The entire context is primarily speaking about praying in tongues before the ***embly (and why that prayer needed interpreted when in front of an ***embly)

Verse 2: "For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him." The question is this: Is speaking to God prayer? Absolutely!!

Verse 3: Paul is merely contrasting the benefits of prophecy over prayer in tongues without interpretation.

Verse 4: The summary of this contrast is "He that speaketh in an unknown tongue [in prayer - context hasn't changed] edifieth himself [because prayer always edifies us], but he that prophesieth edifieth the church."

Verse 5: Context has not changed! Paul is still contrasting uninterpreted tongues with prophecy: "I would that ye all spake with tongues [in prayer - context hasn't changed], but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues [in prayer], except he interpret [i.e. interpret the prayer in tongues], that the church may receive edifying" [which will cause them to say "amen" to the prayer according to verse 16).

Verse 6: "Now, brethren, if I come unto you [to pray - context hasn't changed] speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall [also] speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?" We know from Scripture and history that people in the local synagogue would be allowed to pray or speak before the rest of the ***embly (Josephus, Vita 290–295, Agatharchides ap. Josephus, Ap. 1.209–211; Matthew 4:23; 6:5; Luke 4:16-21) . We also know from history that many church concepts actually crossed over directly from the synagogue system (i.e. elders). Now that the converted Jews and Greek proselytes at Corinth (Acts 18:4) were now filled with the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, they would take their turn before the ***embly to pray in tongues, thinking that this was more spiritual than praying in Greek, their native language. Paul is attempting to share that with the Corinthian believers that praying in tongues without interpretation before the ***embly has not value to the believers of the ***embly.

Verse 7-12: Paul continues to share how praying in tongues without interpretation fails to edify the body. He illustrates it here by the ****ogy of sounds and voices.

Verse 13: "Wherefore [context has not changed - prayer in tongues] let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret" [What will be interpreted here? The prayer of tongues! This will lead the hearers to be able to say "amen" to the prayer, thus, they will be edified]

Verse 14: "For if I pray in an unknown tongue [this proves that, indeed, the subject is still prayer, continued from verse 2], my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful."

Verse 15: "What is it then? I will pray with the spirit. and I will pray with the understanding also [through operating the gift of interpretation the person will understand the prayer they themselves are praying. It should be noted that Paul is not encouraging them to pray to interpret someone elses tongue!]: I will sing with the spirit [in other tongues in prayer, as praise to God], and I will sing with the understanding also" [by singing the interpretation to the prayer song].

Verse 16: "Else, when thou shalt bless with the spirit [eulogeo, to offer praise and thanksgiving to God in prayer in other tongues, as "bless" denotes], how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned [uninitiated in the things of God] say Amen at they giving of thanks [prayer], seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?" [Because you have given thanks in other tongues]

Verse 17: "For thou verily givest thanks well [by praying in tongues] but the other is not edified" [because no interpretation is being given].

Verse 18: "I thank God, I speak in tongues [pray in tongues] more than ye all"

Verse 23: "If therefore [in view of everything I am saying about prayer in tongues] the whole church be come together into one place, and all [those who "come unto you (them)" - like Paul's example in verse 6, before the ***embly] speak with tongues [pray] and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?" [by praying in tongues without interpretation]

Verse 27: "If any man speak in an unknown tongue [in prayer - still the same subject], let it [the prayer in tongues] be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course, and let one intepret." [Contextually, Paul was encouraging the tongue speaker to interpret his own tongues - vss. 13-16, but it certainly is not limited to that - see next verse. The Greek can be legitimately understood to be saying the same thing here as well].

Verse 28: "But if there be no interpreter [no one coming bringing an interpretation], let him keep silence [be brought to silence - Greek] in the church; and let him [continue to] speak to himself, and to God" [in prayer]

Submitted in Prayer,

Adelphos

I don't have a problem with your interpretation of this p***age. It appears as valid as any interpretation I have heard or read.

The problem I have is with the unbiblical purpose by which the P/Cs get their doctrines, which I ***ert is divisive in the universal church. Again, my issue is not with the speaking in tongues phenomenon itself, but with the P/C teachings about it which are the cause of counterfeit manifestations.
:)TD

Adelphos

09-27-2011, 03:47 PM

Your application here is Biblically wrong, because your idea of tongues being "the initial evidence" is based on the false doctrine you have been taught (which is based on subjective experience), not on the Biblical text.

1. You may believe that it is a false doctrine - that does not make it so.

2. You ***ume much if you believe I was taught this doctrine.

3. Let us get back to the text and leave one more of your ad hominems to yourself.

Like I have expressed before. You may be able to prove I am the Devil's brother, but this does not mean you have answered the arguments.

One could call "initial evidence" of what happened in Acts only, in which tongues was a sign gift to unbelievers, and to the church only insomuch as they needed proof that the Gentiles and other religious groups had actually received the Holy Spirit as the apostles did on the day of Pentecost.

I am really not sure what you are trying to communicate above.

Nowhere in scripture does this indicate that tongues is a regular gift given to believers who receive the Spirit.

I agree that tongues is not a regular gift given to believers who receive the Spirit. I teach that Speaking in Tongues doesn't have to be a gift in all cases, therefore, one need only look at Scripture examples to discover what unique manifestation takes place when one receives the Gift of the Holy Spirit.

Again, Heb. 2 along with the context of what happened and what the apostles argued over in Acts proves my point here.

What proof are you talking about? What exactly did you prove?

I am extracting the proof from the Biblical text only, and eliminating the bias of personal subjective experience. What P/Cs have done here is to take the "initial evidence" of it as a sign gift in Acts, and they have "extrapolated" it as a general application of receiving the Holy Spirit, and called it "the initial evidence" of receiving the Holy Spirit by every believer. This is why the application of it is simply wrong, because the application does not fit the original intent of scripture.

Interesting! So, is the "faith" mentioned in 1 Corinthians the same in kind wherever it is mentioned in the New Testament?

Here again, it is only those with the bias of tongues as "the initial evidence" doctrine who interpret the statement "the Spirit was not yet, because Jesus was not yet glorified" as a justification for saying that OT saints did not have the Holy Spirit. This again is an eisegetical idea inserted into the text. If we take the whole of scripture together, we have OT saints who are said to have the Holy Spirit in many ways.

So, are you saying that the Old Covenant saints received the Gift of the Holy Spirit?

God said "not by might... but by My Spirit," indeed the saints of old have always been referred as living their righteousness before God by the power of the Spirit, since "the righteous one will live by faith." There are those still in the Old Covenant times in the NT gospels who are said to be righteous, and who spoke by the Holy Spirit. The sense in which they had the Holy Spirit was mysterious until the day of Pentecost. Paul alludes to the fact that the gospel was preached to everyone in a subtle way before Christ came, and both Peter and the writer of Hebrews also testify to it. He said that the gospel in OT times was a mystery, before it was revealed to him and the apostles from Christ. This shows that the gospel existed in OT times, though a mystery, and was preached as a mystery to them. Those who believed in the coming Messiah before He came, and who lived a righteous life by faith in God are shown to have the Holy Spirit.

So again, do you teach that Old Testament saints received the Gift of the Holy Spirit?

Anyone who believes in 1 Cor 2 and Gal 5:22 cannot doubt that OT saints had the Holy Spirit to make them a righteous "tree" (see my teaching earlier on this). Paul's teaching on salvation, faith, and spiritual birth is generic for all mankind, and does not follow a chronological construct. Spiritual birth through faith in Christ is retroactive for all time prior to His death and resurrection, as much as after. So then, what can we conclude about the statement "the Spirit was not yet, because Jesus was not yet glorified"? Only that the Spirit is given in such a way as never before.
This is alluded to by Peter in Act 2 wherein he quoted Joel "I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh." The "Spirit not yet" means that the Spirit was not yet poured out in an unmeasurable way to all mankind (i.e. to all the gentiles),

Really!? So, exactly what p***ages change the meaning of the Holy Spirit being given to He was "not yet poured out in an unmeasurable way to all mankind." I cannot find the p***ages! It appears to me that "reading into the text" is going on here.

Just as prior to Jesus' death holiness was limited to the space of the "most holy place," but after the veil was rent, holiness became available to all the gentiles. And this is within the context of John, since he was also mostly apostle to gentiles as Paul was. So then, the Holy Spirit was indeed given to saints prior to Jesus' glorification, but was extremely limited to those who believed the gospel mystery. After Jesus was glorified, and then we get the day of Pentecost, now we have the Spirit poured out freely "on all flesh" because the death and resurrection of Christ makes all the gentiles (and Jews who previously did not believe) holy before God. This all fits together as the sense in which the NT teaches it.

This view seems very confusing.

Do you accept that these are valid objections and proofs that what we observe today is fundamentally different than what was observed in the early church?

I think they may need adjustment, but I would say that those who do not allow the gifts of the Holy Spirit to flow in the ***embly need more adjustment. Why? Because they are totally ignoring 1 Corinthians 12, and 14, as if they can pick and choose what p***ages of Scripture they desire to practice or not!

Respectfully

Adelphos

Adelphos

09-27-2011, 04:27 PM

Perhaps "experience" was the wrong word to use, since you seem to be stuck in a semantical rut about it.

lol

My point was that my judgment concerning what I observed in real life is objective, compared to the subjectiveness of your interpretation of scripture based on your personal feelings.

Unless you used the scientific method for objective ****ysis, I deem it subjective. As far as the continual accusation of my interpretation being based upon personal feelings, this is your subjective ****ysis of my position, for I have not brought up any personal feelings on the matter.

Your statement "your experience of not speaking in tongues" proves that you are reading with prejudice. Nowhere did I ever imply that had I never done it. In fact, I alluded to it by mentioning "my experience with the phenomenon." Your bias is really showing here, that you are not carefully reading what I wrote.

Yes, you are right. I have actually ***umed your experience. This is why I am encouraging conversation based upon Scripture.

"Let us stick to the Scripture" - this is what I have been doing all along. I purposely left out my personal experience with the phenomenon, and even clearly stated so, and stuck to exegetical interpretation of the scripture, and applied it to the real objective world we live in today. Please don't get blinded by your prejudice.[/quote[

Stop you ad hominems. Thank you!

[quote]I understand that your personal experience with tongues can possibly cause much upset by what I am saying in this thread.

Not really!

My exegetical interpretations of the scripture has no prejudice at all against the phenomenon in general or in principle. I am objecting to what is being taught in the churches about it. I do not see the phenomenon itself as a divisive element, but I see rather the teaching of P/Cs about the phenomenon as the divisive element.

Every doctrine today has counter arguments, therefore, every doctrine can become divisive and historically, has been divided over.

It is the unbiblical teaching about the phenomenon that I consider could be a cultic movement of the 20th century. And by "cultic movement," I mean a divisive element that separates brothers in the universal church.

If it wasn't for the fact that all denominations are based on some sort of division, and there are over 50,000 denominations, your argument is nothing more that a logical fallacy. If you would like to talk about how it is a logical fallacy, I don't mind. It is very easy to prove. Why don't you stick to the Scriptures. Thanks

Please don't misunderstand me, I am not saying "you are in a cult" which would obviously be an evil judgment. The phenomenon would not be a divisive element at all, if the P/C churches repented and payed close attention to Biblical teaching about it.

I almost get a sense that you may have not spent much time studying Church history. None the less, let us stop wasting time with your personal ****ysis, and get back to the Word.

Thanks

Adelphos

Adelphos

09-27-2011, 04:33 PM

Originally Posted by Adelphos

In order for me to really understand what your contention consists of, please answer me these questions:

Why did the Apostles allow tongues without interpretation take place in other p***ages?

tdidymas said

Show me where

Acts 10 and 19

Adelphos

09-27-2011, 07:08 PM

Adelphos,

Why did the Apostles allow tongues without interpretation take place in other p***ages?

Show me where

Acts 10 and Acts 19

Adelphos

09-27-2011, 07:22 PM

Adelphos:

Is it possible that Paul's declaration is dealing with something very specific as opposed to congregational speaking in tongues?

To be sure, it was specific, and it was congregational (both, not one or the other). This is the sense of the context of the p***age. If you think that "very specific" needs additional data than what is stated clearly in the context, then say what it is.

Actually, one cannot prove it was congregational (that is, everyone speaking in tongues at once). The context was specifically about individual prayer in tongues (which I demonstrated already in my post about prayer in tongues), not about corporate worship in tongues (which you have not proven the text is dealing with at all, but have merely DECLARED it so - which is not sound exegesis, btw).

Adelphos

09-27-2011, 08:06 PM

Adelphos:

Is it possible that when Paul explicitly states that tongues are for unbelievers that this doesn't limit it to that purpose?

tdidymas:

Not possible, since he clearly delineates - "not for believers."

There are a few fallacies that are committed by this view point:

1. This is an example of a false disjunction: an improper appeal to the law of the excluded middle.

2. An appeal to selective evidence.

3. Unwarranted confusion of truth and precision.

Scripture does show speaking in tongues being used for multiple reasons. Allow me to demonstrate just one of these:

Acts 10:46: “FOR they heard them speak with tongues”

“FOR” should be translated “BECAUSE”:

1) The Greek word translated “for” (Gr: “gar”) is not merely a preposition. It is a conjunction “…which is virtually equivalent to ‘because’…” and must be “…distinguished from the preposition ‘for’… (J.W. Wenham, Elements of N.T. Greek, p. 200).

2) In fact, “Gar” is “…a conjunction, which acc. (accusative) to its composition ‘ge’ and ‘ara’, is properly a particle of affirmation and conclusion, denoting truly therefore, verily as the case stands, ‘the thing is first affirmed by the particle ‘ge’, and then is referred to what precedes by the force of the particle ‘ara’ (J.H. thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 109). In other words, “gar” comes from two particles, one affirming the previous thought or word, and one referring back to the previous thought or word, making this conjunction a strong “because”.

3) The fact that “gar” is used in the “accusative” case reinforces the truth of the previous verse (Acts 10:45) and its connection with Acts 10:46, for the accusative case shows the direction, extent, or end of an action. This is the case of the direct object. So then, Acts 10:46 demonstrates that “because (double affirmation – i.e. ‘absolutely because)” those who heard the speaking in tongues, they (they, by their hearing were directed to the end of action) understood “…that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost (Acts 10:45).

4) Further proof that this word is a very strong “because” is the following three-fold basic definitions of “gar” (J.H. Thayer, Greek- English Lexicon of the New Testament, pp. 109, 111)

*Its primary and original Conclusive force is seen in questions and answers expressed with emotion. (Notice the term “Conclusive force”)

*It adduces the Cause or gives the Reason of a preceding statement or opinion. (Notice the term “Reason of a preceding statement”)

*It serves to explain, make clear, illustrate, a preceding thought or word.

(For further study, one may note the following words translated “FOR” in the New Testament: anti, apo, achri, dia, eis, ek, en, eneka, epi, kata, peri, pros, huper. These provide interesting insights for comparison studies.)

Therefore, a better translation of Acts 10:45, 46 is presented:

v. 45 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.
v. 46 BECAUSE they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God.

Correct Objective Hermeneutical Conclusion:

Believers who were with Apostle Peter understood clearly that Speaking in Tongues was the direct result of the preceding thought, mainly, that the GIFT of the HOLY SPIRIT was “poured out”.

Therefore, one purpose, at least from this text, is that speaking in tongues demonstrates that one has received the Gift of the Holy Spirit.

Respectfully

Adelphos

Adelphos

09-28-2011, 05:41 PM

Adelphos:

Is it possible that speaking in tongues can be used as evidence of receiving the Gift of the Holy Spirit AND also be a separate gift?

tdidymas:

No, because this interpretation requires an eisegetic pretext.

Interesting, but not provable.

What is provable, however, is that for one to make that conclusion, one is decisively committing the following logic fallacies (which we can discuss, if you wish):

1. Failure to recognize distinctions.

2. False ***umptions about technical meanings.

3. Selective and prejudicial use of evidence.

4. Unwarranted restriction of the semantic field.

Moreover, it forces Scripture to contradict itself.

Respectfully

Adelphos

Adelphos

09-28-2011, 05:48 PM

Adelphos:
There is no hermeneutical reason that makes it necessary to teach that tongues were totally understood in all p***ages where they were spoken. That would be an argument from silence unless there was compelling supporting evidence that would suggest otherwise.

tdidymas:
I agree with you, and my supporting evidence is Acts 2. If the tongues in subsequent p***ages was essentially the same as Acts 2, then there would not be any need for them to repeat the fact that other people understood (and were able to interpret the language).

Tongues being essentially the same is not the same as ***uming something is in a text without any proof. This is "reading into the text," which btw, is part of the dictionary definition for Eisegesis.

Respectfully

Adelphos

tdidymas

10-03-2011, 10:06 AM

Adelphos:
Tongues being essentially the same is not the same as ***uming something is in a text without any proof. This is "reading into the text," which btw, is part of the dictionary definition for Eisegesis.

Your interpretation that there was NO translation of the language is just as much eisegesis as you claim is my interpretation. This appears to be somewhat hypocritcal to me.

This conversation is getting extremely convoluted. I think it would be better to answer only 1 post at a time.

In your posts above, it appears that you are trying to baffle me with BS. Are you trying to prove how knowledgable you are? You use big university words and give a word study on the word "for" in a certain reference which has no bearing on the issue in question. It makes me think that you are either trying to impress me with your knowledge, or that you really do not understand the issue of the debate. In either case, it does not appear to me that you are honestly considering the arguments. This leaves me wondering if it is wise for me to continue this conversation.
:confused:TD

Adelphos

10-03-2011, 08:01 PM

Your interpretation that there was NO translation of the language is just as much eisegesis as you claim is my interpretation. This appears to be somewhat hypocritcal to me.

This conversation is getting extremely convoluted. I think it would be better to answer only 1 post at a time.

In your posts above, it appears that you are trying to baffle me with BS. Are you trying to prove how knowledgable you are? You use big university words and give a word study on the word "for" in a certain reference which has no bearing on the issue in question. It makes me think that you are either trying to impress me with your knowledge, or that you really do not understand the issue of the debate. In either case, it does not appear to me that you are honestly considering the arguments. This leaves me wondering if it is wise for me to continue this conversation.
:confused:TD

I am answering the arguments very precisely. If you are not used to responding to these arguments, using the excuse that I am either using more argumentum ad hominems, or the excuse that I don't understand the arguments, I understand. The fact of the matter is that you do not have a case. Moreover, if you do not want to try to understand my responses, no one is forcing you to respond.

Very Respectfully,

Adelphos

James Banta

08-01-2012, 09:14 AM

We speak in tongues as led by our Lord. He and he alone gives us his Spirit and wemay get it as the finishing act of his work or before we finish what we have been commanded as seen in ACTS 8,10 AND 19.

ALL MUST AND WILL SPEAK IN TONGUES IF SAVED, if not, a person is a pretender and liar.
You will be lost and split hell wide open and eventually be cast into the Lake of Fire for not being saved and speaking in tongues as the Spirit gives the utterance.

1 CO. 12:30 This is speaking of a Gift of The Spirit which God gives severally (singularly) as he wills and is not the Spirit baptism promised and given to all and in the same way of speaking in tongues 1 CO. 12;13, MARK 16:16, ACTS 2:38-39
read those and don't just skirt them.

Hi Buck.. Interesting idea this having to speak in tongues.. I noticed that you used a p***age that teaching certain gifts follow those that are saved in Mark 16.. May we look at it closer?

Mark 16:16-18
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be ****ed.
And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Ok based on this p***age you claim that tongues are required as a sign of salvation.. Ok I won't argue that point. What I want to know is, have you also cast out devils, handled serpents, taken poison, and healed the sick with a touch as that same evidence? After all they are all included in the p***age as evidence that a person is saved.. Tongues is a small 6 word phrase in a p***age of 50 words.. Surely the other requirements given here are just as much a requirement as speaking in tongues, are they not? IHS jim

James Banta

08-01-2012, 09:38 AM

I would be glad to affirm that NO ONE is "speaking in tongues" today.

Why not? Has God taken some gifts away from His Church? I have had many tell me that tongues were given so that the gospel could be spread to all the peoples of the world no matter what their language. The only problem with holding that tongues is always a language the is understood by people of this world at least in some corner of the world is that Paul spoke is an UNKNOWN tongue. And when He spoke in tongues he wasn't speaking to men but to God:

1 Cor 14:2
For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

While I see that it is far better to teach and preach the word of life than to speak in tongues, speaking in an unknown tongue can't be denied as a Biblical spiritual gift. Even though this gift adds no edification to the Church, it does edifiy those that it has been given.

Personally I have not been given this gift, I will never try to fake or force it. I do see that I can the gift of teaching and offering prophecy (That is forth-telling not for-telling). I believe in all of God's word, even the parts that seem not to have a reason I can understand.. I don't know why God called to have all the peoples of the land killed as Israel came into it to claim their inheritance. Was there a reason. I believe there was but it's not important for me to understand.. Tongues however has a bit of a reason. This gift edifies the speaker.. Is that not a worthy reason? IHS jim

alanmolstad

08-02-2012, 05:38 AM

Why not? Has God taken some gifts away from His Church? well..........thats a streach of reason...

By this I mean that just because a guy can claim a gift it does not mean to call that gift into question is equal to calling all gifts into question.

The guy could just be simply wrong about thinking he had a gift thats all....
And pointing out his little error is the correct action for people of faith to take.

So i believe it is the correct action to take that when we see a person making a claim to have a "gift" and we see them use this gift in a manner that is not in agreement with the Text, that we stand up and point out to the person (Or their church when needed) that they have been presumptuous in their claim of a gift.

alanmolstad

08-02-2012, 05:47 AM

Paul spoke is an UNKNOWN tongue.
unknown to whom?

unknown to God?.....nope.
But the context is that when you speak in an unknown tongue and praise God, that because the other person listening does not have a clue what you are saying, that the only merit in this action is between the speaker and his Lord....

In other words, the hearer gets no value at all....

So what is an "unknown tongue"?.....well, in my own case, an unknown tongue would be Spanish,,,,,or French......or German etc.

All are very real languages....but yet are totally "unknown" should I be standing right next to another person speaking them.

So if you speak an unknown tongue, (French) and speak very wise and holy words of praise to God, while your efforts to edify me are made moot by the lack of a correct interpretation, you still may get some personal value out of the act of worship.

In a church setting, should you wish to praise god in an unknown tongue (say for example German) and asked for permission to stand up and do so before the whole church, i would only ask that you follow your spoken word with a correct interpretation of what you said so that everyone can judge for themselves the truthfulness of what they have heard.

And this is all Paul is requesting in his teachings on how to do the speaking in tongues in the church....

alanmolstad

08-02-2012, 05:59 AM

This gift edifies the speaker.. Is that not a worthy reason? IHS jim

well.........its a lonely reason.

The context of where this type of personal edification is talked about in the Text is such that while there is some good merit for private use of the gift....its not actually the aim of God for this gift to be a private gift.

The gift was aimed at "SPREADING" the good news across the world to different lands and peoples...

This other idea, (that we are to seek the private use of the gift as part of a way to receive personal / private edification) seems to me to be like saying that God wants you to stay home from church so you can clean garage.

Yes, having a clean garage is nice...."For You!"
But it has no effect at all at building up the community of faith in your church....
and your lack of attendance and personal input in your church is more of an issue now beyond any personal gain you may receive by getting all the old paint cans lined up by color in your garage.

Speaking to me in an unknown tongue may edify you, but its worthless to me until I find out what you said...

And if I cant ever find out what you said, then I would suggest you dont bother speaking at all in the first place...

James Banta

08-02-2012, 01:58 PM

well.........its a lonely reason.

The context of where this type of personal edification is talked about in the Text is such that while there is some good merit for private use of the gift....its not actually the aim of God for this gift to be a private gift.

The gift was aimed at "SPREADING" the good news across the world to different lands and peoples...

This other idea, (that we are to seek the private use of the gift as part of a way to receive personal / private edification) seems to me to be like saying that God wants you to stay home from church so you can clean garage.

Yes, having a clean garage is nice...."For You!"
But it has no effect at all at building up the community of faith in your church....
and your lack of attendance and personal input in your church is more of an issue now beyond any personal gain you may receive by getting all the old paint cans lined up by color in your garage.

Speaking to me in an unknown tongue may edify you, but its worthless to me until I find out what you said...

And if I cant ever find out what you said, then I would suggest you dont bother speaking at all in the first place...

I am ONLY saying that is it possible to be edified and still edify the Church.. Have a clean garage and still go to church.. Should we not pray because it builds us up individually? Should we wait until we are among other Christian to do so, so that the whole Body of the Church in edified? It is important to have a personal prayer life, it is important to exercise the gifts we are given whether given to edify the Church or edify the person to whom there were given. We can have a gift from God that is just for us and stand in the Church as an important part of His body there to serve the others. having one doesn't detract from the others.. Paul said that He spoke in an unknown tongue.. In that only he was edified. But Paul went forth and as a central brick among us all building up the Church as a Holy Habitation of Christ.. IHS jim

alanmolstad

08-02-2012, 05:05 PM

Should we wait until we are among other Christian to do so, so that the whole Body of the Church in edified?
I believe that the answer that Paul is leading us to is "YES"
And it is also clearly Paul's understanding that unless you know for sure there is going to be a correct translation of what is said in a strange tongue, that you should sit down and shut up.....

Paul clearly is teaching us that this is a gift to the church, and that it has to be used with that aim in mind of "helping spread the Word"....

and that if you cant be sure everyone will understand what is being said, that you should say nothing....

James Banta

08-03-2012, 06:14 PM

I believe that the answer that Paul is leading us to is "YES"
And it is also clearly Paul's understanding that unless you know for sure there is going to be a correct translation of what is said in a strange tongue, that you should sit down and shut up.....

Paul clearly is teaching us that this is a gift to the church, and that it has to be used with that aim in mind of "helping spread the Word"....

and that if you cant be sure everyone will understand what is being said, that you should say nothing....

I believe in the teaching of Paul on the subject:

1 Cor 14:2
For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries.

No one understands.. No interpretation in this p***age is required.. It is a prayer to God not for men at all..

1 Cor 14:18-19
I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all; however, in the church I desire to speak five words with my mind so that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue.

Paul then requires that tongues must be done in order and always be accomplished by an interpretation.. BUT in personal prayer this is NOT the rule.. Paul prayed in and unknown tongue mire than all of us.. In so doing he prayed to God and not to man.. IHS jim

alanmolstad

08-03-2012, 06:33 PM

I think what is called the "Gift of tongues" is just a bunch of pretend..
I have seen first hand (At the ***embly of God church as well as at Bible camp) how people are manipulated into making sounds that via positive reinforcement of others, becomes what the person thinks of as the "gift"

It's not the gift at all, but just the result of people being swept up in a popular manner of doing something.

The real gift itself does appear in a very strong manner in the book of ACTS.
Walter martin used to always remind us that the first use of this gift should help us set the tone for our own use of it.

The real gift was a true "Gift" a true miracle.
Something that was well known and very well tested.
The idea was that the city had Jews from all over the world and by being able to hear the Good News about Jesus taught to them in their own tongue the word spread across the earth quickly.

The modern popular gift is not so tested...
You really don't see anyone showing up at NASA to have their gift confirmed...
...:eek:

What we see mostly in the charismatic church is also seen in the 3rd world in many pagan religions, in they they too fall into and under the sway of the effect some communities have over ways of speaking ....

The use of the "trance"
The use of uttering non-words
all are more or less an unusual event (in most places) yet common (in some other places) manner of worshiping whatever thing people happen to be worshiping at the time.

One of the things that i never hear when talking to people about their so-called "gift" is a willingness to be put to the test.

There seems to be no desire of anyone who claims this gift to be really tested......it's like they don't want to know something?

I for one would love to one day see someone who was willing to go before any board of science and willing to have their gift tested to see if it was real or not?

Thus, on the topic, i usually tell people that their gift is "Fake' just to end the conversation right there and save myself a lot of time.
If they disagree, I ask them to prove Im wrong....allow yourself to be tested to see if what you claim is true...

as of yet.....none have accepted such a challenge.

The modern gift is 'learned'....and that right there should tell you about the true nature of what you are dealing with.
It's a learned behavior.
There are many different ways it is taught to people....examples, prompting, practice, even priming the pump, etc,
But the true gift in the Bible is not a learned behavior.....

It came from heaven...not via a AOG Bible study cl*** on gifts.

James Banta

09-04-2012, 08:22 AM

Oneness folks.
Did you speak in tongues before or after you were saved? Please include scripture.
How do you interpret 1 Cor.12:30?
Do you teach all must speak in tongues? If so, why?
What happens if other christians don't receive this gift?

God bless,
p2

While the gift of tongues is a REAL gift of the Holy Spirit mentioned in the say p***ages with prophecy, teachings, helps, and giving the Holy Spirit through the Apostle Paul calls it the least of the Gifts. Paul taught that it was His wish that we all spoke in tongues but more than that He would rather have us all prophecy that we can edify the Church (1 Corinthians 14:5).. Speaking an unknown tongue dose not help the world or the Church. They don't bring the lost to Jesus. They don't teach or edify. Truly they are the least of the gifts of the Holy Spirit and Paul admonished us to earnestly desire the greater gifts.

Neither the waters of baptism or the speaking in tongues saves a person into the kingdom of God.. That is done by God's grace through faith in Jesus and NOT OF WORKS (the things we can do). Salvation is all about Jesus and nothing about us.. Look only to Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit and the Father will lift us up.. IHS jim

Jean Chauvin

09-18-2012, 10:01 AM

James Banta

10-07-2012, 10:34 AM

WOW. Ed Decker becomes a bus driver and starts taking everybody to school. Oneness cult member not trained in logic creates more logical fallacies then then a Ed Decker/Sandra Tanner Poker Game.

What else have I missed?

The Oneness cult is indeed a sociological cult. In our Bible Studies every sa****ay night a former oneness joins our group. Hes gone through a lot of mental and spiritual abuse. Typical Oneness victim.

While the issues of tongues is not essential to the faith. The Oneness cult creates a division there that is simply invented from the back woods of their emotion. The issue of Calvinism also even among orthodox circles has caused some to do the same mistake. Dave Hunt for example and George Bryson and even Chuck Smith discretly.

Though I will be upsetting Chrisitans also when I say that the gift of tongues is not a gift today. We see in I Corinthians 13:8 that tongues and prophesy will cease. Some common theories on this are:

It refers to Jesus and his return
When the mystery is issued in.

The most popular position, probably in the high 90's takes the perfect in verse 10 as Jesus.

We do see that we are speaking of a neauter gender here thus grammatically it cannot be Jesus.

Tongues ceased with the closing of cannon absolutely.

Im not sure I took this road. I've studied the Oneness cult since I was a teenager that started with the Robert Bowman debate with a Oneness cult member.

This is a pretext to the subject as a whole. If the Lord gives me time, together we can theologically shoot you between the eyes and either have you become so dumbfounded you hop around to another cult or you repent and turn to the Biblical Jesus Christ for your salvation.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

That is by far the most common anti tongues teaching found in the Church.. I don't blame you at all for holding that doctrine.. I praise God that it matters so little.. Still after all this time since the canon of scripture has been established prophecy continues within the Church. Even if it is only watching and waiting for full fulfillment of all things prophecy continues. It is not a huge leap for me to hold that tongues also continues. Many a person is edified by their personal use of tongues. I am in favor of anything God uses to lift up His children drawing then closer to Him.. So until the perfect does come these gift will remain in the Church..

Brother I am NOT gifted in tongues, I am NOT a prophet.. I am a mere teacher who does nothing but points to the Lord on the cross telling people to take their sin, their hurts, their love and hopes to Him.. IHS jim

MichaellS

04-28-2013, 03:00 AM

P/C leaders quite frequently teach people how to speak in tongues. This is contrary to Biblical principle, which teaches that the Holy Spirit "gave utterance." Not once in the scripture has any of the apostles ever implied that human instruction on "how to speak in tongues" ever accompanied the gift. If a person needs to be taught how to speak in tongues, the ramifications are:
a. The teacher does not believe the Holy Spirit is able to give utterance apart from human instruction.
b. The person "receiving the gift" cannot be given utterance from the Holy Spirit without being taught how to do it by a man.
c. The "gift" is tainted with fleshly human instruction, which is not a Biblical principle, and the result is likely not an authentic miraculous gift from the Spirit of God.

I agree with you here. I despise it as much as I despise people being led to accept Jesus into their hearts. There are no examples in Scripture of either practice!

Respectfully

Adelphos

Agree to a point, when the weight of an organization’s reputation to produce “fruit” is on the line, abusiveness in techniques that don’t leave room for God that can well up garners a reputation in itself. Reason tells us this isn’t right. But, let’s be honest, for on the other hand Paul’s use of “impart some spiritual gift” isn’t to be cast aside as any other old vanity! I’ll just stick to his “decently and in order” methods and not either of yours (Romans 1:11).

MichaellS

04-28-2013, 03:14 AM

Having read through the vast bulk of this and what happens when it goes on and on like this all too often establishes the same as it did here. To the reader, it also becomes obvious at some point that about 40% of the content here isn’t related specifically to the Oneness crowd but the gift itself. Low concern but exposed how little isn't cleared up.

At the risk of sounding high-minded, , ,Adelphos and tdidymas, reading your comments puts a blend of impressions under my collar that sadly, some of the time is intensified by your expertise but reflecting a resounding part of the rest of the thread. It left me with some good refreshing of mental notes and some not so good. But worse, when the labor to pull up a significant point is greeted yet by the same old spirit of defense, who can blame anyone for not being interested in that. Beyond an occasional “Interesting”, seldom is anything ever pried out at length for a minumum purpose of neutralizing the air, IMO.

Possibly, the time-honored rigors of scholarly discussion has a differing view of healthy debate.

Tom Boots

05-09-2013, 10:53 AM

Tongues never ceased, it is a gift until The Lord returns, just like the other gifts, only those who don't have the baptism of the Holy Ghost state such, from misinformed teachings.
Jesus said you must be born again of water and the Spirit, many Trinitarians in many of the MYSTERY BABYLON religion are against it, because they simply never had the Spirit or the Truth.
According to Acts 2:38-39 this promise of the Father ...the Holy Ghost baptism is for ALL.
I was never trained, taught by a minister, told to do something like speak in tongues, in my first service at a altar with me repenting, I received the baptism with the Holy Ghost and then latter the Gift of Tongues /Gift of Interpretation and then was baptized in Jesus wonderful name by a Apostolic minister.
I do hold the difference between the baptism with the Holy Ghost and speaking in tongues with that of the Gift of the Tongues and Interpretation.

tdidymas

08-13-2013, 10:53 AM

Adelphos:

Actually, one cannot prove it was congregational (that is, everyone speaking in tongues at once). The context was specifically about individual prayer in tongues (which I demonstrated already in my post about prayer in tongues), not about corporate worship in tongues (which you have not proven the text is dealing with at all, but have merely DECLARED it so - which is not sound exegesis, btw).

I know it's been awhile, but, here goes...
The p***age in question is 1 Cor. 14:28, and it states "...in the church" and you don't think the context is clearly congregational?
:)TD

RealFakeHair

08-13-2013, 11:29 AM

I know it's been awhile, but, here goes...
The p***age in question is 1 Cor. 14:28, and it states "...in the church" and you don't think the context is clearly congregational?
:)TD

It is so easy to dis-prove the ability to speak in tongues and give translation as is done in pentecoastal churches. I wonder why they still attempt to try it. However as 1 Cor; 14:28 reads, it should be done in a congregtional setting. It is verse 29, that every tongue prac***ioner runs from.

tdidymas

08-13-2013, 11:57 AM

It is so easy to dis-prove the ability to speak in tongues and give translation as is done in pentecoastal churches. I wonder why they still attempt to try it. However as 1 Cor; 14:28 reads, it should be done in a congregtional setting. It is verse 29, that every tongue prac***ioner runs from.

You're absolutely right. Way back in the days when I was caught up in that hubub, no one dared to question it, much less judge it! (However, in 20 yrs I did hear it judged 2 times). People were more in fear than wisdom.
TD:)

RealFakeHair

08-13-2013, 12:10 PM

You're absolutely right. Way back in the days when I was caught up in that hubub, no one dared to question it, much less judge it! (However, in 20 yrs I did hear it judged 2 times). People were more in fear than wisdom.
TD:)
Just one of many of life's lessons. Religion does that to us; we're only human. This is why we will keep searching, but never open the door to truth, it is just too painful.

MichaellS

08-13-2013, 05:08 PM

A very gallant try to the both of you in picturesque WM fashion as far as receiving the baptism in the “Spirit” goes. But you would still be too late to convince me even before I received it. The truth stands easily, clearly self confirming lest you havn't done the necessary study. You can always change though you know. It’s always available for those who are “afar off” (Acts 2:39), meaning throughout time.

How is it you have taken on a carnal response in your journey? Did you not take the time to self "edify" with the gift?

RealFakeHair

08-14-2013, 07:37 AM

MichaellS

08-14-2013, 05:11 PM

HUh, what?

Well, I’ll tell ya. What I’m seeing is commentary revolving more around reproach for the gift than knowing how to adorn it out of faith. Tdidymas’ 20yr run sounds impressive till, ,

I’ll ask again, if you ever exercised the ability, did you take the time to self "edify" with the gift?

If you would rather not discuss any longer, Okay then.

tdidymas

08-15-2013, 09:29 AM

RealFakeHair

08-15-2013, 09:45 AM

Well, I’ll tell ya. What I’m seeing is commentary revolving more around reproach for the gift than knowing how to adorn it out of faith. Tdidymas’ 20yr run sounds impressive till, ,

I’ll ask again, if you ever exercised the ability, did you take the time to self "edify" with the gift?

If you would rather not discuss any longer, Okay then.

The one and only thing I do is not play around with the Holy Spirit of the Holy Bible. I don't exercise anything God of the Holy Bible doesn't bless me with. Although I am sure I miss many an apportunity to do so. That is my missed blessing and no one else.

MichaellS

08-16-2013, 01:53 AM

The one and only thing I do is not play around with the Holy Spirit of the Holy Bible. I don't exercise anything God of the Holy Bible doesn't bless me with. Although I am sure I miss many an apportunity to do so. That is my missed blessing and no one else.

You have a criteria of what tongues is not? Seriously, I am quite interested in God's peoples position on this.

MichaellS

08-16-2013, 02:06 AM

What exactly do you mean? Can you explain in detail?
:)TD

Tdidymas, I find it hard to return the request under the weight of your involvement with the subject. I’m thinking you could answer that sufficiently enough as have others here.

So let’s start with a painfully obvious question; to what are you referring please?

tdidymas

08-16-2013, 02:04 PM

Tdidymas, I find it hard to return the request under the weight of your involvement with the subject. I’m thinking you could answer that sufficiently enough as have others here.

So let’s start with a painfully obvious question; to what are you referring please?

I don't get it. I thought you said you wanted to discuss it. My question is in ref to your question: "did you take the time to self "edify" with the gift?" I'm just asking you what do you mean. This is a vague question. Can you explain to me the details of what you are talking about? What do you mean by "self 'edify'"?
:)TD

MichaellS

08-17-2013, 05:38 AM

What do you mean by "self 'edify'"? :)TD

Hello tdidymas,

“One who speaks in a tongue edifies [builds up] himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church.” (1 Corinthians 14:4)

Though I realize the preferred benefit of prophesy for the body, could it not be the gentle persuasion for the mind to lessen the singular use to edification, seeing that preferred “rather” (1 Cor.14:5, 1 Cor.14:1) to prophesy in place twice? There is nothing to indicate either requirement nor devaluing of the gift for the individual’s private use. Again, since we are exhorted to “desire spiritual gifts” (V1), nowhere are we told to run cool on private edification.

The overwhelming occasion is to highlight the noted preference to the whole, but where in comment is the highlighting benefit to the individual in private to God? In use, and I mean “patience of the saints” daily use and unyielding pattern to investigate this element, would be the end result of building oneself up. Yes, his understanding is unfruitful. But I think that is the whole point. If you build up (edify) without understand yet directly in the Spirit, then God gets the glory when you begin to exhaust that ability He the Spirit brings to urge.

I have some premonition that you could add to this, and not so much disagree. Could I be right?

tdidymas

08-19-2013, 01:24 PM

Hello tdidymas,

“One who speaks in a tongue edifies [builds up] himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church.” (1 Corinthians 14:4)

Though I realize the preferred benefit of prophesy for the body, could it not be the gentle persuasion for the mind to lessen the singular use to edification, seeing that preferred “rather” (1 Cor.14:5, 1 Cor.14:1) to prophesy in place twice? There is nothing to indicate either requirement nor devaluing of the gift for the individual’s private use. Again, since we are exhorted to “desire spiritual gifts” (V1), nowhere are we told to run cool on private edification.

The overwhelming occasion is to highlight the noted preference to the whole, but where in comment is the highlighting benefit to the individual in private to God? In use, and I mean “patience of the saints” daily use and unyielding pattern to investigate this element, would be the end result of building oneself up. Yes, his understanding is unfruitful. But I think that is the whole point. If you build up (edify) without understand yet directly in the Spirit, then God gets the glory when you begin to exhaust that ability He the Spirit brings to urge.

I have some premonition that you could add to this, and not so much disagree. Could I be right?

Your argument appears to be right in theory, except for one statement you appear reversed from what I would see as a logical argument:

In use, and I mean “patience of the saints” daily use and unyielding pattern to investigate this element, would be the end result of building oneself up.
It seems to me that edification should be (in theory) the result of daily usage and "unyielding pattern to investigate this element." Yet your argument is reversed of this. Why is this? If you are trying to say that "building oneself up" is the activity leading toward the result of edification, then your argument doesn't follow either, since those two items is the activity itself. So your argument appears circular. Like saying "the activity of self-edification results in self-edification."

So then, let me be more specific in my question:
How exactly are you edified? What is your tongue-talking doing for you? What is the fruit of it?
:)TD

RealFakeHair

08-19-2013, 02:03 PM

I think it is important to remember what a gift is. I'd take any gift God of the Holy Bible gives me. Although I'd probability not use it to the best of my ability. I could only wish Christians used God's gifts to better serve Him.

MichaellS

08-20-2013, 02:38 AM

Your argument appears to be right in theory, except for one statement you appear reversed from what I would see as a logical argument:

It seems to me that edification should be (in theory) the result of daily usage and "unyielding pattern to investigate this element." Yet your argument is reversed of this. Why is this? If you are trying to say that "building oneself up" is the activity leading toward the result of edification, then your argument doesn't follow either, since those two items is the activity itself. So your argument appears circular. Like saying "the activity of self-edification results in self-edification."

So then, let me be more specific in my question:
How exactly are you edified? What is your tongue-talking doing for you? What is the fruit of it?
:)TD

Thank you for the correction. Would this correct the spirit of the message? “would be a sound decision for building oneself up.”

What is it doing for me? I would have to forward that question to the Lord’s own reasoning. How am I to know what He would cl***ify as unprepared territory to bless if I wasn't involved with the gift? If overly concerned with what you will wind up with, keep in mind that p***age in Luke.

9“So I say to you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 10“For everyone who asks, receives; and he who seeks, finds; and to him who knocks, it will be opened. 11“Now suppose one of you fathers is asked by his son for a fish; he will not give him a snake instead of a fish, will he? 12“Or if he is asked for an egg, he will not give him a scorpion, will he? 13“If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him?” (Luke 11:9-13)

It would be difficult to separate the gift from the Giver.

tdidymas

08-20-2013, 12:14 PM

Thank you for the correction. Would this correct the spirit of the message? “would be a sound decision for building oneself up.”
Regarding this, I used to think that experimentation (I take it this is what you are describing in "unyielding pattern to investigate this element") with "this element" was the right thing to do. But later I found out that the soundest decision for building up oneself is to study the Word. It tells me that it is the fruit of an action that is the measurement of its godliness.

What is it doing for me? I would have to forward that question to the Lord’s own reasoning. How am I to know what He would cl***ify as unprepared territory to bless if I wasn't involved with the gift? If overly concerned with what you will wind up with, keep in mind that p***age in Luke.
This looks like an evasion. I'm just trying to find out how exactly you are defining self-edification as a result of the exercise of tongues. Are you trying to tell me that your self-edification is an intangible unknown to you?

9“So I say to you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 10“For everyone who asks, receives; and he who seeks, finds; and to him who knocks, it will be opened. 11“Now suppose one of you fathers is asked by his son for a fish; he will not give him a snake instead of a fish, will he? 12“Or if he is asked for an egg, he will not give him a scorpion, will he? 13“If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him?” (Luke 11:9-13)

It would be difficult to separate the gift from the Giver.
Again, I believe the Bible is telling me to measure a gift by its fruit. If you cannot give me some tangible way of discerning the fruit of your tongue-talking, then how am I to know where your gift came from? Does not the scripture say "Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge"?

The trouble with most Pentecostals I talk to is that they run away when their actions are called into evaluation. I hope you won't do the same.
:)TD

MichaellS

08-21-2013, 02:31 AM

This looks like an evasion.

Really? You want me to begin to exalt by unlawful speech the measure of what the flesh has seen? Not interested in painting myself with that. Now there is something to show concern over. Yes, it’s true, God is “a rewarder” (Hebrews 11:6), and if God is a rewarder, why is it you think this is still some making of my own devise? Something I determine?

Does not the scripture say "Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge"?

Sure it does. A detailed list for it’s use in and for the Church, and another for it’s use in private and for unbelieving. But I now wonder as to how much you have been made aware of these things? They are rather fundamental items you are requesting from me.

I would like to continue if you will :)

tdidymas

08-21-2013, 09:42 AM

Really? You want me to begin to exalt by unlawful speech the measure of what the flesh has seen? Not interested in painting myself with that. Now there is something to show concern over. Yes, it’s true, God is “a rewarder” (Hebrews 11:6), and if God is a rewarder, why is it you think this is still some making of my own devise? Something I determine?

Sure it does. A detailed list for it’s use in and for the Church, and another for it’s use in private and for unbelieving. But I now wonder as to how much you have been made aware of these things? They are rather fundamental items you are requesting from me.

I would like to continue if you will :)

Yet more evasion, since you have not answered my simple question of what even you call "fundamental items." If I am requesting fundamental items, then why can't you explain it?

In regard to your accusation that I want you to "exalt by unlawful speech the measure of what the flesh has seen" - I think you better cite the scripture reference that applies to my question, otherwise you are bearing false witness against your neighbor, since you have the audacity to judge my intention.

I am asking simple questions with the purpose of discerning where your gift is coming from. If you refuse to answer, then I must conclude that your gift is illegitimate. Are you afraid to answer?

How is your tongue-talking edifying you? Please explain in detail.
:)TD

RealFakeHair

08-21-2013, 09:42 AM

What is the difference between speaking in tongues and God's written Word?

MacG

08-21-2013, 05:17 PM

Really? You want me to begin to exalt by unlawful speech the measure of what the flesh has seen? Not interested in painting myself with that. Now there is something to show concern over. Yes, it’s true, God is “a rewarder” (Hebrews 11:6), and if God is a rewarder, why is it you think this is still some making of my own devise? Something I determine?

Sure it does. A detailed list for it’s use in and for the Church, and another for it’s use in private and for unbelieving. But I now wonder as to how much you have been made aware of these things? They are rather fundamental items you are requesting from me.

I would like to continue if you will :)

I'd like to add this to this thread: "tr.v. ed·i·fied, ed·i·fy·ing, ed·i·fies. To instruct especially so as to encourage intellectual, moral, or spiritual improvement."

Given the definition above it seems more like private tongues is for encouraging one to continue in learning, staying moral and improving in a spiritual way.

I think T is asking in what ways have you seen the edification build you up, help you resist temptation (synonymous with keeping moral) or improve in a spiritual manner not about revealing anything seen in visions which I think you are referring to as 'unlawful speech'.

If I am wrong, forggedabout it :)

MichaellS

08-22-2013, 02:33 AM

Entirely possible MacG, and I’m thinking does indeed apply. I surely don’t want to frustrate the question T bring either. But our lack of being unable to express the knowledge of what God does and brings doesn’t stop with what we don’t know, but what we can’t say. How?

We come to this table with only the tools of comprehension we have. Things that would come my way I did finally learn are not so cut and dried. Back about 84-85’, I just came off a 2 ½ day total fast. While I cannot say for you what revelation God was to bring me concerning a particular visual gift during service, (believe me, I tried testify of it, and God showed me it was His doing to tell), I learned it was directed at a number of people during service, including Pastors and congregants. But you know how it is with these things when they begin to call up their charge, “show us a sign”.

But this is the height of only one area of development for me. Again, cut and dried no overlap for the Spirit to enable “severally as He will”? Forget it. But if I must glory in the flesh, God did show me my own intentions were a bit stuck on self.

Tdidymas, since I’m sure you would agree that with God, nothing is impossible, that would also have to include the paranormal occurrences. Have you ever seen it play out? Have you ever seen how people respond to it? Quite entertaining is to say a little proud. The jitters, head-dropping disbelief isn’t so remarkable as it is that God would fashion a gift so close and someone who sought so something so close to seeking a response (“sign”), though I did not know what that might entail, but something He did honor.

How close are you to my earlier intent?

Partners, I do not wish to be so brief, but time isn't esp. ample for me presently. I hope to continue, ,

God bless.

MichaellS

08-22-2013, 02:36 AM

What is the difference between speaking in tongues and God's written Word?

There’s a thought RFH!! But isn’t it dependent on the handler?

RealFakeHair

08-22-2013, 08:03 AM

There’s a thought RFH!! But isn’t it dependent on the handler?

The correct answer is. There is no difference between the two. Both gift of tongues and God's written Word are equal, and should be treated with respect. The interpretation of tongues must be recorded and printed in God's Holy Bible at the end of Revelation. If would go something like this. If I received a message from God in the form of tongue, and if it was properly interpreted then the next book in the Holy Bible goes something like this. The Book of RealFakeHair; chapter 1. verse 1.Thus saith the Lord......

tdidymas

08-23-2013, 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by MichaellS: "I would like to continue if you will"
Are you still contemplating the answer?
(Key word is fruit)

While you're thinking about it, here's another like-minded question for you:

2. How is your tongue-talking edifying others? Please explain in detail.
:)TD

MichaellS

08-24-2013, 03:27 AM

Are you still contemplating the answer?
(Key word is fruit)

Hello Tdidymas,

I see your point, since you and I already know this answer as plain as the summer day is long, make sure any weaker brother is edified to the end from this knowledge and not left in a dangerous state of confusion with something startling to the conscience. But it must be a simple answer and down to earth. Excellent!

Okay then. Dear reader, since God showed me the edges of that unspeakable gift without functioning in it after my own conversion back in 1975 and how troubled my mind was by it, , I was aware that it was something unfamiliar and unrelated to my own capability. Yes, I was troubled by it as you too even might be now.

So, to present you with the answer to the above question:

“[H]ow exactly you are defining self-edification as a result of the exercise of tongues.”

Peace, over the gift. Within the whole realm of what it is God does on our behalf, this one thing I know; a tremendous peace upholds me throughout the course of this activity that he showed me I was earlier in the very near state of losing my mind over, or something close to it (I wasn’t just a little worried), had it not been for a season of a few months of private edification preceding what the Holy Spirit had for me, thanks be to God. That would be the “fruit” our friend Tdidymas speaks of. Astounding peace, surrounding an unnatural ability.

What is the exact feeling then during this process? Well, keep in mind the above peace permeated while I was fully conscious to such an end that for lack of a better (already mentioned) word, 2-fold entertainment from above, by God, and below, people on earth.

2. How is your tongue-talking edifying others? Please explain in detail.
:)TD

Here again the word is clear. But Tdidymas must have missed the text’s presentation of this activity. Does he mean my private edification, or my Church use of this gift?

RealFakeHair

08-24-2013, 09:16 AM

Some folks here either go to bed late or get up early!

tdidymas

08-26-2013, 04:20 PM

the edges of that unspeakable gift
2-fold entertainment from above, by God, and below, people on earth.
Your descriptions here appear vague. I get that you feel peace whenever you use it. But what is this? What "edges" are you talking about? What is this "2-fold entertainment" you are talking about?

The apostles wrote in Koine Greek, which was common language at the time, so that it could be understood by anyone. Sorry to add more requirements to my question, but isn't this a reasonable request, to ask for language that can be understood by the "run-of-the-mill" Christian?

Does he mean my private edification, or my Church use of this gift?
OK, so how about both?
:)TD

MichaellS

08-28-2013, 02:23 AM

Your descriptions here appear vague. I get that you feel peace whenever you use it. But what is this? What "edges" are you talking about? What is this "2-fold entertainment" you are talking about?

The apostles wrote in Koine Greek, which was common language at the time, so that it could be understood by anyone. Sorry to add more requirements to my question, but isn't this a reasonable request, to ask for language that can be understood by the "run-of-the-mill" Christian?

OK, so how about both?
:)TD

Tdidymas, This line of questioning you have going on here, uh, may I make a suggestion? Rather than showing discontentedness towards me, why not do as the Apostle suggested, and leave the precautions in God’s capable hands?

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. (I Jn 4:1)

That is, what He will reveal to you and how it stacks up according to His word. What He will do when we put those investigative efforts into the things of God.

The resources to search these things out are vast these days including this subject, though I dislike the sometimes skew-effect of cross-reference and concordance that shows itself from time to time, be that digital or hard copy. Eventually, even those so-called exhaustive bound works can limit a search. But that is another subject.

Surely, you have heard:

4There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all. (Ephesians 4:4-6)

Then what do people do with Paul’s apparent dividing of faith and baptism?:

1It happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul p***ed through the upper country and came to Ephesus, and found some disciples. 2He said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said to him, “No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.” 3And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” And they said, “Into John’s baptism.” 4Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying. 7There were in all about twelve men. (Acts 19:1-7)

What should they believe, or better yet do. They should know it is still one baptism of Spirit working what? Just as the scriptures declare, rewarding gifts:

But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills. (1 Corinthians 12:11)

I’m not asking anyone to change their place of worship except for those who’s policy doesn’t fit God’s will. But make a few contacts to search this out. The larger ones who do not resist this would be best.

tdidymas

08-28-2013, 11:53 AM

Tdidymas, This line of questioning you have going on here, uh, may I make a suggestion? Rather than showing discontentedness towards me, why not do as the Apostle suggested, and leave the precautions in God’s capable hands?

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. (I Jn 4:1)

That is, what He will reveal to you and how it stacks up according to His word. What He will do when we put those investigative efforts into the things of God.

The resources to search these things out are vast these days including this subject, though I dislike the sometimes skew-effect of cross-reference and concordance that shows itself from time to time, be that digital or hard copy. Eventually, even those so-called exhaustive bound works can limit a search. But that is another subject.

Surely, you have heard:

4There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all. (Ephesians 4:4-6)

Then what do people do with Paul’s apparent dividing of faith and baptism?:

1It happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul p***ed through the upper country and came to Ephesus, and found some disciples. 2He said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said to him, “No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.” 3And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” And they said, “Into John’s baptism.” 4Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying. 7There were in all about twelve men. (Acts 19:1-7)

What should they believe, or better yet do. They should know it is still one baptism of Spirit working what? Just as the scriptures declare, rewarding gifts:

But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills. (1 Corinthians 12:11)

I’m not asking anyone to change their place of worship except for those who’s policy doesn’t fit God’s will. But make a few contacts to search this out. The larger ones who do not resist this would be best.

Yet more evasion.
:)TD

MichaellS

08-29-2013, 02:28 AM

Yet more evasion.
:)TD

Are you led of God, or fully self willed?

tdidymas

08-29-2013, 11:50 AM

Are you led of God, or fully self willed?

Look in the mirror, brother.

I asked a very simple question that requires little thought, "how is your action edifying you and others?" But you answered in vagarities, using language that no one uses and certainly no one can understand. I simply stated that the apostles did not write that way. They were honest, clear, and thoughtful in their writings. Then you actually tried to change the subject by asking me questions about baptism among other unrelated subjects. It looks like evasion to me - either you cannot answer the question, or you simple don't want to answer it. Is this too much to ask of you, just to be honest in answering a simple question?

So let me reiterate the OP - this subject is about "the gift of tongues." The question related to this is "how is your gift edifying yourself and others"?

Please, I kindly ask that if you want to make a serious effort to answer, then please do so. Otherwise, can you just be honest to say that you care not to answer it?
:)TD

MichaellS

08-29-2013, 05:37 PM

I simply stated that the apostles did not write that way. They were honest, clear, and thoughtful in their writings.

I see. Possibly, you do not regard those things that are not always explainable from those who cherish what the Spirit says for us now, or the apostles then. In which wasn’t always clear and “some things hard to understand” (2 Peter 3:16). If we regard it as everything of man, and nothing from God through His sons being enabled by His Spirit, then that limitation is readily understandable. For I do quite well understand the near animosity for the things of the Spirit in applicable terms. And how it isn’t thought relevant anymore in certain denominations.

This would explain your vexation in continuing to pick away at me, my common limitation before God and my enlarged answer I have willingly granted in the Spirit of brotherhood that you find callously unacceptable.

Then you actually tried to change the subject by asking me questions about baptism among other unrelated subjects.

Punctuating my point precisely. How is it related? Because I asked you to consider trying that which you do not acknowledge in me. If you are led of God, then you are sensitive to that leading. And if you are sensitive to that leading, your hearing would recognize it whenever it crossed your path. Likewise, that “peaceable fruit of righteousness” comes as a result of His corrective leading. To reject this is an evasiveness of imperiling one’s own understanding in the word. In the good and bad, it's about communion with the Creator.

When I said, “Peace over the gift”, it is before God as truth, and your insulting rejection does not change that truth. But as I said, such disregard for the Spirit’s work today is quite well known and supremely unfortunate for all who treat Him as such. But this rejected answer of mine isn’t the worst we have on display here.

Are you led of God, or fully self willed?

Look in the mirror, brother.

Sad. Who among those reading here and familiar with the leading (or the concept) would waste the opportunity to let that light shine by continuing this mundane dialog? Go on, dig up some more of my experience of what I count Philippians 3:8 to fertilize my 2 Timothy 4:13’s for use years and years down the road.

I fear for all like TDM who are comfortable with closing the entrance to the Spirit.

RealFakeHair

09-03-2013, 01:24 PM

MichaellS

09-04-2013, 09:26 PM

I fear for all like TDM who are comfortable with closing the entrance to the Spirit. Quote(MichaellS)
I put it this way, I fear for all like xyz who are comfortable with not gaurding against the entrance of evil spirits.

My brother who is weak in the faith and unlearned accepts you, as do I, but for some reason he is more prone to listen to you on this than he will me. He wants to know what are you telling him to do with the above information? Since he is aware that God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33), nor does my brother tie into uncertainty as the Lord said not to do (Matthew 5:37, James 5:12). So I ask you Hair, please help settle this issue for my weaker brother being as specific as possible. What are you telling him to do with the above information?

tdidymas

09-09-2013, 02:14 PM

Michael, thank you for your reply to Hair, now I know how you judge me. So since you see me as weak and unlearned, then surely if you were led by the Spirit you would be making sure that I was well-instructed (which you have yet to do, since you have avoided answering a simple question from the beginning, and continue to do so). Please show me where my replies are unlearned:

I see. Possibly, you do not regard those things that are not always explainable from those who cherish what the Spirit says for us now, or the apostles then. In which wasn’t always clear and “some things hard to understand” (2 Peter 3:16). If we regard it as everything of man, and nothing from God through His sons being enabled by His Spirit, then that limitation is readily understandable. For I do quite well understand the near animosity for the things of the Spirit in applicable terms. And how it isn’t thought relevant anymore in certain denominations.

When you quote 2 Peter 3:16, I ***ert you are misapplying it, since Peter was talking about predestination, justification, and such things being hard to understand, since the understanding of the truth of such matters depends on one's definition of basic concepts such as faith (which is ill-defined by many). In fact, your claim that tongues is hard to understand and unexplainable is where you err, as I quote from Paul in 1 Corinthians 12:28 "And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues." So then to you, is this whole list unexplainable, or just tongues as you claim it? In fact, Paul is listing these things as elemental gifts in the church at the time, and does indeed well-explain the usage of them in that epistle, including tongues. Yet the usage of your gift you deem "not always explainable." In conclusion, I take it that your attempt at making some excuse (that it is unexplainable) puts your 'gift' in the category of cultic behavior, since you cannot explain it in terms of Biblical language. Do you leave me no other alternative than this conclusion?

This would explain your vexation in continuing to pick away at me, my common limitation before God and my enlarged answer I have willingly granted in the Spirit of brotherhood that you find callously unacceptable.
Actually, my conversation is relatively friendly. If it appears vexing and callous, I think it is because of your unwillingness to fully confess your testimony of it, and perhaps this has fear behind it, namely fear of the unknown, since it is "not always explainable" to you. If you were completely honest in your answers, you would find my conversation friendly to you, although it might not necessarily be friendly to the practice you hold so dear.

Punctuating my point precisely. How is it related? Because I asked you to consider trying that which you do not acknowledge in me. If you are led of God, then you are sensitive to that leading. And if you are sensitive to that leading, your hearing would recognize it whenever it crossed your path. Likewise, that “peaceable fruit of righteousness” comes as a result of His corrective leading. To reject this is an evasiveness of imperiling one’s own understanding in the word. In the good and bad, it's about communion with the Creator.

I am being led by the Holy Spirit when I "try the spirits whether they are of God." I am being led of the Spirit when I use strict interpretation of the written Word. I am being led of the Spirit when I ask what the fruit of the action is. (Would you dare suggest to me that I am not being led of the Spirit in these things?)

Should I consider "trying" tongues as you suggest here? Should I try something that for all practical purposes may be something of a fleshly source (or worse, demonic)? Or even worse than this, should I "try" something that only the Holy Spirit gives, only to be found mocking the very Spirit who gives it? Should I "try" something that I see other people doing as if I was some infant who tries out his own babbling, just to be a part of adult conversation? The Bible clearly states that the Spirit gave utterance, therefore your suggestion that I consider "trying" it is conterfeit, to say the least, a bum steer. Then, everything you say from this point becomes more suspect.

Of course, it is about communion with the Creator. If God tells me to do this thing, I'll do it no matter what; but if you tell me I should do it, then why should I listen to you?

When I said, “Peace over the gift”, it is before God as truth, and your insulting rejection does not change that truth. But as I said, such disregard for the Spirit’s work today is quite well known and supremely unfortunate for all who treat Him as such. But this rejected answer of mine isn’t the worst we have on display here.

I did not reject this statement. In fact, I see it as the most honest thing you have said so far. What I objected to was the flowery and vague language that you wrote all around it. If you had said the single word "peace," you would have said (apparently) all that your honesty could muster, and that would have been enough. But your vague language all around it speaks volumes of pretentiousness.

Sad. Who among those reading here and familiar with the leading (or the concept) would waste the opportunity to let that light shine by continuing this mundane dialog? Go on, dig up some more of my experience of what I count Philippians 3:8 to fertilize my 2 Timothy 4:13’s for use years and years down the road.

I fear for all like TDM who are comfortable with closing the entrance to the Spirit.

Actually, I am simply trying to find out if indeed your practice is of God's Spirit, or has some other source. What I close entrance to is deception, since I've been there, done that before.

If this dialog appears mundane to you, then why don't you just end it?

Your 2 Tim. 4:13 ref doesn't appear relevant to this conversation.

Let me simply say at this point, you might as well be totally honest about your experience, rather than couching information in vague language or evasion. It would be better for us both if I reject your practice with full knowledge of your honest descriptions, rather than to reject it based on your refusal to confess it. Give me a reason to accept it!! By default I must reject it, unless you give me some positive Biblical evidence to accept it. Do you agree?
:)TD

RealFakeHair

09-10-2013, 02:12 PM

My brother who is weak in the faith and unlearned accepts you, as do I, but for some reason he is more prone to listen to you on this than he will me. He wants to know what are you telling him to do with the above information? Since he is aware that God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33), nor does my brother tie into uncertainty as the Lord said not to do (Matthew 5:37, James 5:12). So I ask you Hair, please help settle this issue for my weaker brother being as specific as possible. What are you telling him to do with the above information?

Just warning you to try the spirit. Make sure anything the spirit tells you conforms to the Holy Bible, and not just what you are I want from the spirit. A good book on this is written by David Wilkerson, on why he left the charismatic movement.
The same things he experienced I also saw in the movement. So what I am saying is be very careful with it.

MichaellS

09-11-2013, 02:29 AM

Michael, thank you for your reply to Hair, now I know how you judge me. So since you see me as weak and unlearned, then surely if you were led by the Spirit you would be making sure that I was well-instructed (which you have yet to do, since you have avoided answering a simple question from the beginning, and continue to do so). Please show me where my replies are unlearned:

When you quote 2 Peter 3:16, I ***ert you are misapplying it, since Peter was talking about predestination, justification, and such things being hard to understand, since the understanding of the truth of such matters depends on one's definition of basic concepts such as faith (which is ill-defined by many). In fact, your claim that tongues is hard to understand and unexplainable is where you err, as I quote from Paul in 1 Corinthians 12:28 "And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues." So then to you, is this whole list unexplainable, or just tongues as you claim it? In fact, Paul is listing these things as elemental gifts in the church at the time, and does indeed well-explain the usage of them in that epistle, including tongues. Yet the usage of your gift you deem "not always explainable." In conclusion, I take it that your attempt at making some excuse (that it is unexplainable) puts your 'gift' in the category of cultic behavior, since you cannot explain it in terms of Biblical language. Do you leave me no other alternative than this conclusion?

Actually, my conversation is relatively friendly. If it appears vexing and callous, I think it is because of your unwillingness to fully confess your testimony of it, and perhaps this has fear behind it, namely fear of the unknown, since it is "not always explainable" to you. If you were completely honest in your answers, you would find my conversation friendly to you, although it might not necessarily be friendly to the practice you hold so dear.

I am being led by the Holy Spirit when I "try the spirits whether they are of God." I am being led of the Spirit when I use strict interpretation of the written Word. I am being led of the Spirit when I ask what the fruit of the action is. (Would you dare suggest to me that I am not being led of the Spirit in these things?)

Should I consider "trying" tongues as you suggest here? Should I try something that for all practical purposes may be something of a fleshly source (or worse, demonic)? Or even worse than this, should I "try" something that only the Holy Spirit gives, only to be found mocking the very Spirit who gives it? Should I "try" something that I see other people doing as if I was some infant who tries out his own babbling, just to be a part of adult conversation? The Bible clearly states that the Spirit gave utterance, therefore your suggestion that I consider "trying" it is conterfeit, to say the least, a bum steer. Then, everything you say from this point becomes more suspect.

Of course, it is about communion with the Creator. If God tells me to do this thing, I'll do it no matter what; but if you tell me I should do it, then why should I listen to you?

I did not reject this statement. In fact, I see it as the most honest thing you have said so far. What I objected to was the flowery and vague language that you wrote all around it. If you had said the single word "peace," you would have said (apparently) all that your honesty could muster, and that would have been enough. But your vague language all around it speaks volumes of pretentiousness.

Actually, I am simply trying to find out if indeed your practice is of God's Spirit, or has some other source. What I close entrance to is deception, since I've been there, done that before.

If this dialog appears mundane to you, then why don't you just end it?

Your 2 Tim. 4:13 ref doesn't appear relevant to this conversation.

Let me simply say at this point, you might as well be totally honest about your experience, rather than couching information in vague language or evasion. It would be better for us both if I reject your practice with full knowledge of your honest descriptions, rather than to reject it based on your refusal to confess it. Give me a reason to accept it!! By default I must reject it, unless you give me some positive Biblical evidence to accept it. Do you agree?
:)TD

We have not corrected anything here in my handling of this issue.

Of course, it is about communion with the Creator. If God tells me to do this thing, I'll do it no matter what; but if you tell me I should do it, then why should I listen to you?

Return and see what you have left behind on attaching doubt on all those statements Paul said concerning that which we should now begin to entrust:

“I do not want you to be unaware, , , I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus is accursed"; and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.” (1 Corinthians 12:1,3)

Have I cursed our precious Lord? A double answer in a single question.

I did not reject this statement. In fact, I see it as the most honest thing you have said so far. What I objected to was the flowery and vague language that you wrote all around it. If you had said the single word "peace," you would have said (apparently) all that your honesty could muster, and that would have been enough. But your vague language all around it speaks volumes of pretentiousness.

Well thank you, but “most honest thing”? Here I am affirming the Kingdom of God (II Corinthians 1:20), and you invite others to view me as a false teacher?

If this dialog appears mundane to you, then why don't you just end it?

Let me ask you TDM, Did you really give ample room for an honest answer to that sentence? Once again, what is missing, is each of our loss of a sufficient answer we bring to the table. What happens is that answer becomes divided. One remains mundane (my experience in God), and the other, opening the door of possibilities to the gifts of the Spirit springs to life.

Your 2 Tim. 4:13 ref doesn't appear relevant to this conversation.

You, me and every Christian has I would hope their own record of being blessed in Him from day to day, from “glory to glory” (2 Corinthians 3:18). But as it is said a little later in that p***age: “Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead” (Philippians 3:13) We are all held harmless on this issue whether aggressive or not so aggressive. It is demonic when we begin to teach that what is said concerning these things are they themselves demonic. But the question remains, why should our reasoning remain on the bottom of the dead sea saying I disagree, which is under the same rhetorical spirit being perpetrated all the way from Egypt, where our Lord was crucified?

Give me a reason to accept it!!

Give you a reason? How about an impartial treatment of I Corinthians 12 and 14. If you find those chapters deceptive, I invite you to show me where.

MichaellS

09-11-2013, 02:32 AM

Just warning you to try the spirit. Make sure anything the spirit tells you conforms to the Holy Bible, and not just what you are I want from the spirit. A good book on this is written by David Wilkerson, on why he left the charismatic movement.
The same things he experienced I also saw in the movement. So what I am saying is be very careful with it.

Okay buddy. Yes, I have heard him from broadcast dating back to the 80's.

May I ask, what are say three of the top areas of his defense against these things?

God bless all.

disciple

09-11-2013, 05:27 AM

Okay buddy. Yes, I have heard him from broadcast dating back to the 80's.

May I ask, what are say three of the top areas of his defense against these things?

God bless all.

I think he summed it up himself with this statement, "Anything that cannot be found in Scripture has to be rejected outright--totally rejected."

RealFakeHair

09-11-2013, 08:36 AM

Okay buddy. Yes, I have heard him from broadcast dating back to the 80's.

May I ask, what are say three of the top areas of his defense against these things?

God bless all.

First, was the spirit of lust. I saw this too while working in the religious side of the business. No religious faith is immune to sexual lust, but in the pentecostal, charismatic movement it was in overdrive. There are charismatic leaders who make Joseph Smith jr. seem like a unich. The charismatic movement of the 1980s had more bleach blonde hootchie mamas than the Las Vagas strip.
Second, woman preachers. David gave an example like this; in the Holy Bible we have The Father, Then The Son, and then man, in that order. In the Church man is over the woman in the same way man is over the wife in the family unit.
If you think about it we Christians never think of putting man over Jesus who is the head of the Church, but in today's christian churches many have women pastors. This puts women over man, in the same way we are putting man above God.
Both are wrong and I believe as did David Wilkerson this open the door to evil spirits with-in the churches til this day.
Opening women into the ministery had lead to opening the door to *****s into the ministery, so what is next?
I can't think of an third reason right now..

MichaellS

09-12-2013, 02:08 AM

First, was the spirit of lust. I saw this too while working in the religious side of the business. No religious faith is immune to sexual lust, but in the pentecostal, charismatic movement it was in overdrive. There are charismatic leaders who make Joseph Smith jr. seem like a unich. The charismatic movement of the 1980s had more bleach blonde hootchie mamas than the Las Vagas strip.
Second, woman preachers. David gave an example like this; in the Holy Bible we have The Father, Then The Son, and then man, in that order. In the Church man is over the woman in the same way man is over the wife in the family unit.
If you think about it we Christians never think of putting man over Jesus who is the head of the Church, but in today's christian churches many have women pastors. This puts women over man, in the same way we are putting man above God.
Both are wrong and I believe as did David Wilkerson this open the door to evil spirits with-in the churches til this day.
Opening women into the ministery had lead to opening the door to *****s into the ministery, so what is next?
I can't think of an third reason right now..

Point no.1.

Well then, that is what the ability of speaking in tongues is thought to be, , a movement of lust? Is that what we have to conclude from the hireling response of a few Pentecostal leaders that since they are tied to the liberties of exercising this function in public and also walk improperly that tongues is to be lumped together with it?

Is this what you would want to be understood?

Of course, I’m sure you would have us to be more completely understanding that any act of sin by any member of oversight in any Christ centered facility is to be rooted out.

Point no. 2.

Well Hair, while I won’t say it is synonymous across the spectrum of Pentecostal churches, we just might have a near epidemic of error on this. While the Episcopalian/Anglican sect have led the open charge on this, what I have witnessed is the quiet treatment that surfaces in Pentecostal spheres is because they do tend to sport the informal oversight. When that is questioned as I have openly before elders, you may not get to the bottom of anything, only bristling.

For instance; back about 1987 in OKC, my daughter won the most scriptures memorized award for Sunday School which upon receiving the award she was requested to say a word of thanks to our crowd of about 4500. I refused to allow this, to which the pastor publically held the question without mentioning my name, “I don’t know why”, while the other girls were allowed to speak for other awards.

This is another subject for another thread which also carries stipulations both positions will resist.

God bless.

MichaellS

09-12-2013, 02:17 AM

I think he summed it up himself with this statement, "Anything that cannot be found in Scripture has to be rejected outright--totally rejected."

Good heavens yes. And this is no small area to belittle without cause. My point is what is that cause? With regard to your point, what is it that has been added?

God Bless!

disciple

09-12-2013, 05:54 AM

Good heavens yes. And this is no small area to belittle without cause. My point is what is that cause? With regard to your point, what is it that has been added?

God Bless!

Hi Mike,

Much false doctrine has been added. I dare say that you could go into any church on any Sunday and find something un-biblical, either unintentionally in the form of some tradition or purposely for a variety of reasons. And while there are not many claiming to be prophets today there are plenty of false teachers who are very good at what they do. Peter sums it up nicely.

2 Peter 2:1-3
“But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed. By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words; for a long time their judgment has not been idle, and their destruction does not slumber”.

The primary motive behind such false teaching is greed. They do not hesitate to take hurtful advantage of their followers in order to enrich themselves. Their words promise much, but their ability to deliver is nil, therefore they are properly accused of exploiting by deceit. Their teaching is flattery; their ambitions are financial; their conscience must be dulled, and their aim is deception. Obvious to some, irresistible to many.

RealFakeHair

09-12-2013, 10:01 AM

Hi Mike,

Much false doctrine has been added. I dare say that you could go into any church on any Sunday and find something un-biblical, either unintentionally in the form of some tradition or purposely for a variety of reasons. And while there are not many claiming to be prophets today there are plenty of false teachers who are very good at what they do. Peter sums it up nicely.

2 Peter 2:1-3
“But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed. By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words; for a long time their judgment has not been idle, and their destruction does not slumber”.

The primary motive behind such false teaching is greed. They do not hesitate to take hurtful advantage of their followers in order to enrich themselves. Their words promise much, but their ability to deliver is nil, therefore they are properly accused of exploiting by deceit. Their teaching is flattery; their ambitions are financial; their conscience must be dulled, and their aim is deception. Obvious to some, irresistible to many.

It is one thing it say, "it is my opinion." Quite another to say. " The Lord laid it on my heart to say....ect." Or the Spirit came to me and said, "This or that."
If at any time we say the Spirit or the Lord told us something and we later find out we were wrong, that makes us a false prophet or teacher. I have yet to hear Pat Roberson or Hal Lindsay confess their false prophecy or teachings, have you?

disciple

09-12-2013, 11:10 AM

It is one thing it say, "it is my opinion." Quite another to say. " The Lord laid it on my heart to say....ect." Or the Spirit came to me and said, "This or that."
If at any time we say the Spirit or the Lord told us something and we later find out we were wrong, that makes us a false prophet or teacher. I have yet to hear Pat Roberson or Hal Lindsay confess their false prophecy or teachings, have you?

Hi RFH,
I have never heard anyone on TV or radio admit such a thing, usually their out is to say that the viewers were lacking in faith. We must remember though that most of them are prophets for profit (sorry) and prideful also. In my opinion we have no need of "foretellers" today, what we need are "forthtellers". But false teaching is a very big business and "Christian" self help books are everywhere. Christians should realize that everyone does not speak in tongues, everyday is not Friday, and we can't just name it and claim it. Reality is that we are all parts of the same body with Christ as the head and can do nothing without Him.

RealFakeHair

09-12-2013, 12:26 PM

Hi RFH,
I have never heard anyone on TV or radio admit such a thing, usually their out is to say that the viewers were lacking in faith. We must remember though that most of them are prophets for profit (sorry) and prideful also. In my opinion we have no need of "foretellers" today, what we need are "forthtellers". But false teaching is a very big business and "Christian" self help books are everywhere. Christians should realize that everyone does not speak in tongues, everyday is not Friday, and we can't just name it and claim it. Reality is that we are all parts of the same body with Christ as the head and can do nothing without Him.

You will never hear it, ever! I remember soon after the fall of the Soviet Union, Hal Lindsay, making the statment in front of a large audience that he predicted the fall of the Soviet Union. I saw the look on many of the faces out in the audience, many were very surpised he said it, or better shocked. He never predicted the fall of the Saviet Union, he saw the commies in the final battle at Armagaddon, not the sad weak, and wittering collapsing of an USSR.

MichaellS

09-13-2013, 02:27 AM

I have never heard anyone on TV or radio admit such a thing, usually their out is to say that the viewers were lacking in faith. We must remember though that most of them are prophets for profit (sorry) and prideful also. In my opinion we have no need of "foretellers" today, what we need are "forthtellers". But false teaching is a very big business and "Christian" self help books are everywhere. Christians should realize that everyone does not speak in tongues, everyday is not Friday, and we can't just name it and claim it. Reality is that we are all parts of the same body with Christ as the head and can do nothing without Him.

Believe me Disciple, I don’t wish to antagonize, but is there an area of specific reason you see we should attach the below warning to the implementation of the gift to be able to decipher man’s craftiness not wrought in the truth?

Much false doctrine has been added. I dare say that you could go into any church on any Sunday and find something un-biblical, either unintentionally in the form of some tradition or purposely for a variety of reasons. And while there are not many claiming to be prophets today there are plenty of false teachers who are very good at what they do. Peter sums it up nicely.

2 Peter 2:1-3
“But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed. By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words; for a long time their judgment has not been idle, and their destruction does not slumber”.

The primary motive behind such false teaching is greed. They do not hesitate to take hurtful advantage of their followers in order to enrich themselves. Their words promise much, but their ability to deliver is nil, therefore they are properly accused of exploiting by deceit. Their teaching is flattery; their ambitions are financial; their conscience must be dulled, and their aim is deception. Obvious to some, irresistible to many.

A fine statement. Excellent warning to be equipped with! These such p***ages are so very vital for covering our spiritual backs that if one would say seldom have I ever seen this in the Church these days, then he might not know the hour we live in. I too remember the feelings within when I saw it happen. Like some creepy m*** delusion that causes sadness for them.

I have yet to hear Pat Roberson or Hal Lindsay confess their false prophecy or teachings, have you?

Actually no. They know they would suffer excruciatingly. Although I did see a mention on behalf of Hal by a Christian network head once. Only once.

tdidymas

09-13-2013, 12:52 PM

We have not corrected anything here in my handling of this issue.
I'm not sure what you mean by "we" here. If you mean that I'm trying to correct your errors, but you aren't listening, then I believe you.
If your meaning is that I don't have any valid point against how you have answered, then I disagree. I believe my points are valid and Biblical.

Return and see what you have left behind on attaching doubt on all those statements Paul said concerning that which we should now begin to entrust:

“I do not want you to be unaware, , , I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus is accursed"; and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.” (1 Corinthians 12:1,3)

Have I cursed our precious Lord? A double answer in a single question.

You think this answers my objections? It actually digs up a deeper question here: How do you know you have not cursed the Lord? Since your tongue is unknown, and unknowable seeing you have no interpreter, then how do you know, or how will you ever know (until the day of judgment) what you are saying? You might claim "I speak the language of angels," but how do you know what is being said unless you have an interpreter? Here is where Paul's original meaning of 1 Cor. 14:4 gets sticky, because the only people who claim that "edifieth himself" is a positive action are Pentecostals - the tongue-talkers themselves!! The very ones who despise everyone else who does not practice it, because they are taught "whoever has not spoken in tongues does not have the Spirit," as the Pentecostal dogma says.

If you want to go deeper than the surface and stop smugly saying "I haven't cursed the Lord" (as if that proves anything), just keep in mind that Jesus said "not everyone who calls Me Lord shall enter the kingdom of heaven," which tells me that anyone can parrot the words "Jesus is Lord" and not be speaking from the Spirit of the Lord. Paul's meaning of "No one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Ghost" goes far deeper than parroting words. If you observe the full context, he isn't saying this as a proverb to be taken on its own to apply to anything you want. He is talking about submission to the Lord. He is talking about a conversation of practice and teaching. It has exactly the same discerning meaning as John who wrote "he who does not acknowledge Jesus is not of God," that is, "this is how we determine the Spirit of God..." who is talking about the teaching of someone, whether it be of God or not. They are talking about the teaching of ideas, which come from the spirit of a man. Is that spirit driven by God, or by the devil? The way to discern is by asking the question - does it support Jesus as Lord, Jesus as the Christ?

Therefore, just because you lay claim that your 'gift' is of God, doesn't prove anything in the least. Many Christians who know and understand the basic truths of the gospel have other ideas that are wrong, and their actions show it, and their words prove inconsistent with things that are taught in the scripture. This is why John says "do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they be of God." And I asked one simple and clearly understood question, "what's the fruit," in other words, give me some evidence that your 'gift' actually produces the fruit of the Spirit for others. But instead of answering this question, you have proceeded to tell me (in my words here), "try it, you'll like it" - bro, all I can see is that you're trying to hand me a dung sandwich.

Well thank you, but “most honest thing”? Here I am affirming the Kingdom of God (II Corinthians 1:20), and you invite others to view me as a false teacher?
2 Cor 1:20? Paul is talking about the promises of the gospel, not a gift of languages that is not only not promised to everyone, but is solely contingent on the will of the Spirit! Here again, you reveal your ignorance of the true meaning of scripture, and your willingness to misapply it. Technically, one could say here that you are indeed a false teacher, since you certainly are trying to teach something here. Nevertheless, I will not go as far as to judge you this way, but rather to say that you are certainly ********ly misapplying the scripture here and elsewhere. It is this that renders your statement, "I am affirming the Kingdom of God" as ineffective, since who can listen to someone who doesn't understand the clear language of scripture?

Let me ask you TDM, Did you really give ample room for an honest answer to that sentence? Once again, what is missing, is each of our loss of a sufficient answer we bring to the table. What happens is that answer becomes divided. One remains mundane (my experience in God), and the other, opening the door of possibilities to the gifts of the Spirit springs to life.

Here again, you presume that your 'gift' is of God, rather than some other source. I accept the fact that you believe that, I do not accept that your 'gift' is of the Spirit of God. In my experience, tongue-talking is largely an action of the flesh, and doesn't edify anyone. Just because you lay claim that you feel peace when you do it, doesn't prove anything one way or another. It certainly doesn't prove that you are truly edified in the faith. All your words prove to me is that you are edified in your bias that you believe your 'gift' is of God. The more you avoid answering the simple question 'how is your tongue-talking edifying other people,' the more you prove to me that your practice is fleshly, not spiritual.

Please allow me a suggestion to you: if you want to show someone a reasonable explanation of your practice (as all the apostles did in the NT writings), then stop being mysterious about it - get out of the circular logic of "it's not explainable because it is miraculous, and therefore must be of God," and start seriously considering how to well-explain your practice from a Biblical standpoint. I'm only saying here, that if you are unwilling to do this, then why talk about it at all? If your motivation for talking about it is not to edify people with understanding, then it must be something else - maybe to get converts into your cult! Believe me when I say, if you evade a simple and key question, then it speaks volumes about what your motive is, and people generally ***ume the worst. From their view, if you are mysterious about it, look out, they suspect cultic activity.

You, me and every Christian has I would hope their own record of being blessed in Him from day to day, from “glory to glory” (2 Corinthians 3:18). But as it is said a little later in that p***age: “Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead” (Philippians 3:13) We are all held harmless on this issue whether aggressive or not so aggressive. It is demonic when we begin to teach that what is said concerning these things are they themselves demonic. But the question remains, why should our reasoning remain on the bottom of the dead sea saying I disagree, which is under the same rhetorical spirit being perpetrated all the way from Egypt, where our Lord was crucified?

Whaaat??? I'm wondering where you are coming from with this statement. Are you trying to confuse me? All I said was "doesn't appear relevant" to your ref 2 Tim. 4:13. You can't just acknowledge that you got the ref wrong, and to correct it? At the very least, to explain why you think it is relevant. Instead you go into things that are even more irrelevant to the conversation, however true or untrue your statements are. Since I am called to respond to it, here it is on what I think are 2 relevant points to this:

1. You said "It is demonic when we begin to teach that what is said concerning these things are they themselves demonic." - firstly, I ***ume you say this because I questioned what spirit your 'gift' is from, and secondly that this statement of itself is wrong, since it is contrary to what the Bible says about teachings: "the wisdom from below is fleshly, earthly, demonic" (Jas. 3:15), and 1 Jn. 4 "do not believe every spirit..." But perhaps I misunderstand you, when you say "concerning these things" perhaps you are yet ***uming (due to your bias) that the tongues you speak is from God, and this is what you mean by "these things." Actually, this is the subject matter at hand, that I question your belief that your 'gift' is from God. And for you to say that my questioning that your 'gift' is from God is the same as "teaching that what is said concerning these things are they themselves demonic" would be a false witness, since I said no such thing; or if it is a 'warning' to me not to go too far, then my response would be that you still err, because you have yet to show that your 'gift' is of God from a Biblical standpoint. All you have said thus far is "I'm edified," but you haven't shown in the least that your 'edification' is Biblical. In fact, in my 20 yrs experience fellowshipping with tongue-talkers, this issue has been one of the most divisive issues among churches, and my experience about the reaction to my questioning that 'gift' has been nothing but "envy and strife" (the very context of James's "wisdom from below"). It tells me I've touched a sacred cow.

<continued in the next post>

tdidymas

09-13-2013, 12:59 PM

<continued from previous post>

2. You said, "...Egypt, where our Lord was crucified" - I take it you are using Egypt as a metaphor for Jerusalem? Then, are you not doing the same thing you accuse me of by your rhetoric? I get that your bias is equally as strong as mine in this matter. Or are you claiming that you have an open mind that your 'gift' might not be from God? I've already stated that I am open to receiving your testimony that your 'gift' is of God, I'm simply stating that I need some Biblical evidence of it which you have not yet produced (except for a biased and out-of-context interpretation typical of Pentecostal teaching). So then, if you claim that I am saying "I disagree" with a dead-sea period, it appears to me from where I am looking that you are the one saying it.

Give you a reason? How about an impartial treatment of I Corinthians 12 and 14. If you find those chapters deceptive, I invite you to show me where.

I do not find the scriptures deceptive. But what I do find deceptive is the Pentecostal teaching about the gift of tongues. There are certain scriptures that are taken out of context and the meaning twisted out of shape just to support the modern practice of it among Pentecostals and Charismatics. And where I am trying to show you is in the simple question "how is it edifying others." If how you are interpreting 1 Cor. 14:4 is your strongest evidence that your 'gift' is from God, then my response is "you are treading on thin ice," since I do not see that the edification that Paul is talking about in that chapter is limited to a feeling of peace (or even is a feeling of peace), since such a thing is pretextual to that p***age. Saying that experiencing peace in the practice of it might (or might not) do yourself some real good, but it does absolutely nothing for someone else's good. The argument is extremely weak. When I compare your argument with that of the apostles in the NT, it falls far short.

Further, what was the purpose of all the flowery and vague language you originally responded with? I simply objected to it, at the time I did not accuse you of being deceptive. But if you weren't actually intending to be deceptive (to persuade me of the legitimacy of your practice), then why use flowery and vague language? Why not clearly lay out the evidence from a Biblical standpoint? Such a response only causes me to be suspicious of your practice. In fact, what it reminds me of is the cult of Simon the Sorcerer, who was called "the mighty power of God" by his followers because they figured that his mysterious ways were miraculous as opposed to deceptive. Here again, please don't ***ume that I am accusing you of it, I'm just saying what it looks like from my POV. It looks the same as the Mormon claim that they "know" the BoM is of God because they feel a "burning in the bosom" (and they invite you into their cult by saying "try it").

So then, if you want some substance ("show me where") that I believe Pentecostal teaching is deceptive, here are 7 points which is not an exhaustive list:

1. The Bible says "as the Spirit gave utterance" in which there was no teaching in the matter, no prepping, no command or coaxing or coaching for anyone to speak in tongues, they just did it "as the Spirit gave utterance." But Pentecostals and Charismatics to the contrary still teach people to speak in tongues, typically saying things like "speak, but not in English" and have taught so from the beginning of the movement in the early 20th century. In fact, some have taught how to talk tongues in a "priming the pump" fashion of parroting someone else's gibberish, to the extent that it actually became a joke among Charismatics about "kick starting" tongues with phrases like "retie my bowtie" and "sella my honda," which indicates the spiritual nonsense of people who prey on the ignorance of the untaught and unlearned.

2. Self-edification as a result of tongue-talking is cited as one of the strongest evidences that the practice is of God; but such edification is never explained in the context of serving others, which is the main thrust of Paul's instruction in 1 Cor. 12-14. At the very least, such self-edification is self-centered and self-focused. It appears to serve only the self. Any edification in the churches appears to be limited to supporting one's belief in the practice of tongues, as opposed to real edification in the faith once delivered to the saints.

3. The subject is extremely divisive. Those who practice the art claim that they have the Spirit, and have the audacity to claim that others don't. Although the Bible clearly states how to know someone has the Spirit - by the fruit of their lifestyle, and by what they teach - Pentecostals focus on their "initial evidence" theory, to the exclusion of real Biblical evidence. And when this theory is questioned, the at***ude of the tongue-talker becomes hostile and judgmental.

4. Statistically speaking, whenever there is an interpretation of the tongues spoken in a public setting, the two sound nothing alike. The unknown tongue is always repe***ive babbling. If the tongues was an actual language saying something intelligible, it would sound as such. Even when we don't understand a language, we can readily and easily determine that what is being said is intelligible to someone, since we hear the inflections, intonations, and other sounds of a real language. Modern tongues (statistically speaking, say 99% of it all) is repe***ive gibberish that not only sounds meaningless when spoken, but ends up being meaningless in reality as far as the universal church is concerned. The closest thing to babbling in the Bible is "mene mene tekel upharsin" which is a pronouncement of judgment. The prophecy about "strange tongues" does not mean "meaningless babbling." This prophecy clearly refers to known intelligible languages as the apostle Peter testified in Act 2.

5. The interpretation of a tongue in a public setting (among those normally acceptable to Christians, which excludes those 'interpretations' that are wildly beyond any semblance of truth) almost always is a quote from scripture, or a paraphrase of a scriptural truth. Here again, why is a tongue and interpretation needed, if the message is merely a quote from known scripture? Why not simply use the scripture to edify the church? Why does it have to come in the form of 'tongues and interpretation' unless the real agenda is to 'edify' the church in their belief in tongues? Strengthening a belief in the tongues practice is not real edification of the church, because the thrust of Paul's teaching about it in 1 Cor. 12-14 is all about edification in the knowledge of Christ and the love of the brethren. Pentecostals, in my experience, love only Pentecostals; they don't appear to love all the brethren, especially when their theory about "initial evidence" is questioned.

6. Narrow-mindedness: Pentecostals have the regular practice of using (misusing) scripture for the sole purpose of supporting their dogmas. Their personal experience with modern tongues is used as the ruler to measure how they interpret scripture. When an alternate interpretation to theirs is presented, it is immediately p***ed off as wrong without any consideration of what scripture's original meaning is. Such is typical practice of Pentecostal and Charismatic teaching. They seem to think that when they read scripture, just any idea that pops into their mind about it just has to be "the Holy Spirit." Paul calls this at***ude "heady, highminded" as something to be avoided (2 Tim. 3:4).

7. Typical modern practice of public speaking in tongues is often contrary to Paul's teaching about order of worship in 1 Cor. 12-14. The reason is because of the Pentecostal belief that the Holy Spirit is always sponteneous and unplanned - always a surprise. This belief peppers their teaching and language. They seem to be fixated on the idea that anything planned well in advance and choreographed cannot possibly be the leading of the Holy Spirit. In fact, they call it "dead" if they fail to be "inspired" (usually) by the free-style spontaneity of their loud, boistrous, and wild worship styles. Thus, they tend to disregard the order that Paul orders concerning worship practice.

Is this enough for you to see where I am coming from, that I ask a simple question that does not really require excessive thought (if you know the scripture and have the wisdom of God with you): how is your practice of tongues edifying others?
:)TD

RealFakeHair

09-13-2013, 01:10 PM

MacG

09-13-2013, 02:58 PM

All I can say is for my fifty+ years in, out and around the P/C church, and tent meetings I have never witness a true example of speaking, and translation of tongues. I have seen those folks who believe at the time they had the gift, but never any proof that they really did.
I've offten wondered if God of the Holy Bible is or isn't please with their inadequate attempt at the practice.

If you have never heard a real tongue/interpretation, how you know if you did? I mean what are the hall mark of genuine tongues? I have heard a bunch of Shanananashnananana in some meetings and dismiss that nothing more than stammering 'in the spirit' :) Perhpas better suited for closet praying. I have heard nothing which has linguistic cadence to it but other than that how does one know? Come to think of it I have not anyone speak in the African tribal languages where they use clicks and pops interspersed with vocalizations.

MichaellS

09-14-2013, 07:33 AM

If you have never heard a real tongue/interpretation, how you know if you did? I mean what are the hall mark of genuine tongues? I have heard a bunch of Shanananashnananana in some meetings and dismiss that nothing more than stammering 'in the spirit' :) Perhpas better suited for closet praying. I have heard nothing which has linguistic cadence to it but other than that how does one know? Come to think of it I have not anyone speak in the African tribal languages where they use clicks and pops interspersed with vocalizations.

Are these “clicks and pops” crucial components for them to commune?

Not too many months ago a Lutheran Pastor I was speaking with concerning this referred back to a report from a missionary testifying of this spontaneous account that happened after a particular service. What country, I just don't recall, but where one of the congregation members came up to the missionary and gave a message in his own native tongue no one, including the deliverer had any knowledge of. But these reports are so few and far between.

How does one know? Or as I have repeatedly asked with nominal response; how does one know it’s not actual?

The bulk response to this one would appear weak if not lame, but it is God who inspects the affairs of man:

Because if His Spirit “bears witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God”, then it most likely is not so hard for Him to bear a strike or affirmation within us.

MichaellS

09-14-2013, 08:20 AM

I'm not sure what you mean by "we" here. If you mean that I'm trying to correct your errors, but you aren't listening, then I believe you.
If your meaning is that I don't have any valid point against how you have answered, then I disagree. I believe my points are valid and Biblical.

Possibly, you either don’t recognize or refuse to permit someone’s spirit of brotherhood included in comment. Here, once again, you fail to see how I grant you the benefit to lead me in the way of correction, which collectively consist of “we”. I agree, quite uncustomary when one party would rather spend time injecting unconfirmed (from the other party (me)) reports of biblical revelry and heresy as you have to date. Through your desperate need to dismiss any possibility of these gifts being found today just as God had determined by stereotypical and individual character attacks you do now express that refined end-time trait known as “faithless”. For as you know, but will further refuse to admit what that would entail.

You think this answers my objections? It actually digs up a deeper question here: How do you know you have not cursed the Lord?

This is a preposterous entry without coming close to answering my question. Every Christian in his most question position still can say with the Apostle, “I think I have the Spirit of God”, all the way to the inward confirmation and persuasion of that confidence, “I know in whom I have believed”, remember? Oh, I forgot, I’m fostering a “cult” based on bias of a fleshly mindset and not on the Bible.

Since your tongue is unknown, and unknowable seeing you have no interpreter, then how do you know, or how will you ever know (until the day of judgment) what you are saying? You might claim "I speak the language of angels," but how do you know what is being said unless you have an interpreter? Here is where Paul's original meaning of 1 Cor. 14:4 gets sticky, because the only people who claim that "edifieth himself" is a positive action are Pentecostals - the tongue-talkers themselves!! The very ones who despise everyone else who does not practice it, because they are taught "whoever has not spoken in tongues does not have the Spirit," as the Pentecostal dogma says.

And off we go attacking people with an invitation to join their bitterness rather than why the meaning of self-edification isn’t meant for us today. Why? Because that boat don’t float so well though they try as they must. Yes, it is logic tried to an anchor at the bottom of the Dead Sea that proves this unfounded disgust to me personally every day from my own friend-base who would willingly go all the way to their death-bed of pride trying to prove the absence, than to agree with God, the Apostles, the people of faith that God would grant this same work as seen in the Bible. Walter Martin would at least admit to God’s miraculous work following his faith. I heard him say it live, now you see me say it in vain, don’t you?
Is this possibly the nut of your displeasure with regard to tongues, because your faith can’t quite find the reason to believe that God would actually allow in the body of Christ? To think we should actually allow this to happen in his followers? To think we should allow something so foreign that would rise above our methods? The hard answer given in love brother is we are still unwilling to let that corner of our mind let go of the carnal, but guard it by attacking and run from it by the belittling sight-of-hand comments.
This last entry of necessity you posted doesn’t stand popular at all in the largest of Pentecostal ***emblies I am familiar with. I am not saying it doesn’t exist, it does and much to their own damage of uninterested congregants. So let’s recognize your stereotypical lump-it-all-together for what it is, an attempt to discredit the whole for the error of a few.

If you want to go deeper than the surface and stop smugly saying "I haven't cursed the Lord" (as if that proves anything), just keep in mind that Jesus said "not everyone who calls Me Lord shall enter the kingdom of heaven," which tells me that anyone can parrot the words "Jesus is Lord" and not be speaking from the Spirit of the Lord. Paul's meaning of "No one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Ghost" goes far deeper than parroting words. If you observe the full context, he isn't saying this as a proverb to be taken on its own to apply to anything you want. He is talking about submission to the Lord. He is talking about a conversation of practice and teaching. It has exactly the same discerning meaning as John who wrote "he who does not acknowledge Jesus is not of God," that is, "this is how we determine the Spirit of God..." who is talking about the teaching of someone, whether it be of God or not. They are talking about the teaching of ideas, which come from the spirit of a man. Is that spirit driven by God, or by the devil? The way to discern is by asking the question - does it support Jesus as Lord, Jesus as the Christ?

What else could be said from someone overcome with hate for someone or something they may not realize actually lives within them; a fear of the truth that these things are so. The rhetoric continues in baseless form against the movement out of fear for the success of its alignment of the truth which is so.

Therefore, just because you lay claim that your 'gift' is of God, doesn't prove anything in the least. Many Christians who know and understand the basic truths of the gospel have other ideas that are wrong, and their actions show it, and their words prove inconsistent with things that are taught in the scripture. This is why John says "do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they be of God." And I asked one simple and clearly understood question, "what's the fruit," in other words, give me some evidence that your 'gift' actually produces the fruit of the Spirit for others. But instead of answering this question, you have proceeded to tell me (in my words here), "try it, you'll like it" - bro, all I can see is that you're trying to hand me a dung sandwich.

Here again more of my granting you the upper-hand of instruction to lead (I actually thought you knew where these things are taught in the scriptures), but as you have shown, this isn’t your area of expertise. You show yourself to be incapable of knowing the two areas to profit from the gift:

1. Universally (To the hearing Church)
2. Singular (Self)

You have shown yourself to malign the definition of faith out of your fear of the truth concerning God’s gifts.

“Now faith is the ***urance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” (Hebrews 11:1)

But you would have us believe in an effort to prove all things, which we should, but if you had your way also means we should perform this in a fashion wherein all biblically unrestricted areas involving faith are to be removed from the possibility of soundness. For every time Paul declares “I will” with the gift, you are right there to say ‘I will not’ by your comments. So then, it would read from your present responses:

‘Now faith is the ***urance of things discovered, the conviction of things seen.’

How absurd. But there you will undoubtedly go and disconnect these gifts from faith. But that is why you can’t find contentment in discussing these things with me because not for reason of not proving something, but because of reason of your “evil heart of unbelief”, the fruit we know a person by is what that person actually is as our Lord did say, and it is imperative you repent of this without delay, for as you know, without faith, it is “impossible to please God”.

2 Cor 1:20? Paul is talking about the promises of the gospel, not a gift of languages that is not only not promised to everyone, but is solely contingent on the will of the Spirit! Here again, you reveal your ignorance of the true meaning of scripture, and your willingness to misapply it. Technically, one could say here that you are indeed a false teacher, since you certainly are trying to teach something here. Nevertheless, I will not go as far as to judge you this way, but rather to say that you are certainly ********ly misapplying the scripture here and elsewhere. It is this that renders your statement, "I am affirming the Kingdom of God" as ineffective, since who can listen to someone who doesn't understand the clear language of scripture?

Please review, because this could provide the footing you seek. Your extraction of the “will of the Spirit” is hardly amusing. By attempting to apply it to the heading of “promises” and not back to where it belongs, in the distribution of the promised One’s gifts is increasingly biased. The OT, Gospels and Acts spoke of the promise being the Holy Spirit (Gal. 3:14).

MichaellS

09-14-2013, 08:26 AM

<continued from previous post>

Here again, you presume that your 'gift' is of God, rather than some other source. I accept the fact that you believe that, I do not accept that your 'gift' is of the Spirit of God. In my experience, tongue-talking is largely an action of the flesh, and doesn't edify anyone. Just because you lay claim that you feel peace when you do it, doesn't prove anything one way or another. It certainly doesn't prove that you are truly edified in the faith. All your words prove to me is that you are edified in your bias that you believe your 'gift' is of God. The more you avoid answering the simple question 'how is your tongue-talking edifying other people,' the more you prove to me that your practice is fleshly, not spiritual.

Even if it were possible for me to ascend above the provisions God provides (remember?) and actually prove for you a handful of benefits (which any Christian isn’t capable in ordinary terms of producing), , what would that show of your intent? That you wanted all along to prop-up a cult-head figure to quickly dismiss? Disgusting hatred, yes you and all out of fear of the truth, Repent!

Please allow me a suggestion to you: if you want to show someone a reasonable explanation of your practice (as all the apostles did in the NT writings), then stop being mysterious about it - get out of the circular logic of "it's not explainable because it is miraculous, and therefore must be of God," and start seriously considering how to well-explain your practice from a Biblical standpoint. I'm only saying here, that if you are unwilling to do this, then why talk about it at all? If your motivation for talking about it is not to edify people with understanding, then it must be something else - maybe to get converts into your cult! Believe me when I say, if you evade a simple and key question, then it speaks volumes about what your motive is, and people generally ***ume the worst. From their view, if you are mysterious about it, look out, they suspect cultic activity.

Here we see your formula marched out again in vain. Why make faithless waves? Here you are giving out as the only one qualified to speak for the m***es with clear vision, yet incapable of citing my aversion of answering you.

1. You said "It is demonic when we begin to teach that what is said concerning these things are they themselves demonic." - firstly, I ***ume you say this because I questioned what spirit your 'gift' is from,

Absolutely not. I say this to all who holds what the Bible says about tongues is “demonic”. Get it? Do you see this slight-of-hand everyone? Don’t try and turn that into me being defensive, but a proactive statement to declare what is really going on here, the immense danger of the unpardonable “sin”. What else does one stand to profit to deceptive meanings? Of course, a movement.

2. You said, "...Egypt, where our Lord was crucified" - I take it you are using Egypt as a metaphor for Jerusalem? Then, are you not doing the same thing you accuse me of by your rhetoric? I get that your bias is equally as strong as mine in this matter. Or are you claiming that you have an open mind that your 'gift' might not be from God? I've already stated that I am open to receiving your testimony that your 'gift' is of God, I'm simply stating that I need some Biblical evidence of it which you have not yet produced (except for a biased and out-of-context interpretation typical of Pentecostal teaching). So then, if you claim that I am saying "I disagree" with a dead-sea period, it appears to me from where I am looking that you are the one saying it.

Thank you for the acknowledgment. And why not, God also established the spiritual lingo, not me and my rhetoric. (Rev. 11:8)

I do not find the scriptures deceptive. But what I do find deceptive is the Pentecostal teaching about the gift of tongues. There are certain scriptures that are taken out of context and the meaning twisted out of shape just to support the modern practice of it among Pentecostals and Charismatics. And where I am trying to show you is in the simple question "how is it edifying others." If how you are interpreting 1 Cor. 14:4 is your strongest evidence that your 'gift' is from God, then my response is "you are treading on thin ice," since I do not see that the edification that Paul is talking about in that chapter is limited to a feeling of peace (or even is a feeling of peace), since such a thing is pretextual to that p***age. Saying that experiencing peace in the practice of it might (or might not) do yourself some real good, but it does absolutely nothing for someone else's good. The argument is extremely weak. When I compare your argument with that of the apostles in the NT, it falls far short.

Your statements are rife with contempt for those who practice this, thereby the gifts themselves. Therefore, you continue to am*** a swelling thought to be for people in error when the root of your concern is to distance yourself from the gifts. This has been your narrative right along, but fear not, God knows your heart and what gifts would suit it.

Further, what was the purpose of all the flowery and vague language you originally responded with? I simply objected to it, at the time I did not accuse you of being deceptive. But if you weren't actually intending to be deceptive (to persuade me of the legitimacy of your practice), then why use flowery and vague language? Why not clearly lay out the evidence from a Biblical standpoint? Such a response only causes me to be suspicious of your practice. In fact, what it reminds me of is the cult of Simon the Sorcerer, who was called "the mighty power of God" by his followers because they figured that his mysterious ways were miraculous as opposed to deceptive. Here again, please don't ***ume that I am accusing you of it, I'm just saying what it looks like from my POV. It looks the same as the Mormon claim that they "know" the BoM is of God because they feel a "burning in the bosom" (and they invite you into their cult by saying "try it").

What’s the hurry at this point? You certainly shed some comments before arriving so verbose if that even matters.

Suspicious? That is one thing to beware. But after a season of refusing the truth, that suspicion turns into superst-i-tion fed in the carnal approach of refusing the truth. But the redundancies here exhaust life from the subject itself.

“[T]ry it”? Thanks a lot. How counter-productive, hate promoting, attack-based can one be? You keep bring up “Biblical standpoint” without being able to squelch mine. And we haven’t even begun to open them up because that is the way of the Gospel. If you don’t have any footing whatsoever on the fundamental entrance, the condition will only compound to exacerbate itself if continued.

All you seem to be able to do is attack, not correct out of the word, , ,think: II Tim 3:16.

So then, if you want some substance ("show me where") that I believe Pentecostal teaching is deceptive, here are 7 points which is not an exhaustive list:

****out! Would you mind getting to my question oh’ TDM, the one who hates evasiveness. Like of where in ch. 12 and 14? Can’t? Must continue your attack because you can’t refute the scriptures? You know, I gotta agree with you there, that would be one heckuva chore – Repent!

1. The Bible says "as the Spirit gave utterance" in which there was no teaching in the matter, no prepping, no command or coaxing or coaching for anyone to speak in tongues, they just did it "as the Spirit gave utterance." But Pentecostals and Charismatics to the contrary still teach people to speak in tongues, typically saying things like "speak, but not in English" and have taught so from the beginning of the movement in the early 20th century. In fact, some have taught how to talk tongues in a "priming the pump" fashion of parroting someone else's gibberish, to the extent that it actually became a joke among Charismatics about "kick starting" tongues with phrases like "retie my bowtie" and "sella my honda," which indicates the spiritual nonsense of people who prey on the ignorance of the untaught and unlearned.

Honestly now, keeping the two areas of tongues separate which you do seem to want to combine when convenient, I still prefer Paul’s method as I mentioned and you refuse. God is able.

2. Self-edification as a result of tongue-talking is cited as one of the strongest evidences that the practice is of God; but such edification is never explained in the context of serving others, which is the main thrust of Paul's instruction in 1 Cor. 12-14.

The deception of meaning here is astounding because of your incessant demand not to prove the gift is real, but to prove your intent to trample faith underfoot. “Never explained”? Do you not know the ends of God provision by faith which is required to be blessed in it (Col 1:27, Rm 9:23)?

At the very least, such self-edification is self-centered and self-focused. It appears to serve only the self. Any edification in the churches appears to be limited to supporting one's belief in the practice of tongues, as opposed to real edification in the faith once delivered to the saints.

People who need an extra-Biblical explanation to frame their independent goal needs to repent and recognize the truth as it has been written for all. The attempt here to distort that truth tells everyone what this charade is all about – suppression of the Spirit’s work.

RealFakeHair

09-14-2013, 08:40 AM

If you have never heard a real tongue/interpretation, how you know if you did? I mean what are the hall mark of genuine tongues? I have heard a bunch of Shanananashnananana in some meetings and dismiss that nothing more than stammering 'in the spirit' :) Perhpas better suited for closet praying. I have heard nothing which has linguistic cadence to it but other than that how does one know? Come to think of it I have not anyone speak in the African tribal languages where they use clicks and pops interspersed with vocalizations.

One of the most overlooked gifts of the Church body is the gift of decernment. I don't know why I have it, but my guess is my openness to accepting the truth or not of the practice of speaking in tongues.
It was when I came up with the technical process to prove or dis-prove the ability to speak and or interrupt tongues.
As of this date I have not had one single P/C church or individual accept my offer to put them to the test.
I can't blame them, I wouldn not want to be put to the test of decernment.

MichaellS

09-14-2013, 08:40 AM

3. The subject is extremely divisive. Those who practice the art claim that they have the Spirit, and have the audacity to claim that others don't. Although the Bible clearly states how to know someone has the Spirit - by the fruit of their lifestyle, and by what they teach - Pentecostals focus on their "initial evidence" theory, to the exclusion of real Biblical evidence. And when this theory is questioned, the at***ude of the tongue-talker becomes hostile and judgmental.

Your evidence of it not being is where? Hey, I thought you were going to provide something challenging??

4. Statistically speaking, whenever there is an interpretation of the tongues spoken in a public setting, the two sound nothing alike. The unknown tongue is always repe***ive babbling. If the tongues was an actual language saying something intelligible, it would sound as such. Even when we don't understand a language, we can readily and easily determine that what is being said is intelligible to someone, since we hear the inflections, intonations, and other sounds of a real language. Modern tongues (statistically speaking, say 99% of it all) is repe***ive gibberish that not only sounds meaningless when spoken, but ends up being meaningless in reality as far as the universal church is concerned. The closest thing to babbling in the Bible is "mene mene tekel upharsin" which is a pronouncement of judgment. The prophecy about "strange tongues" does not mean "meaningless babbling." This prophecy clearly refers to known intelligible languages as the apostle Peter testified in Act 2.

Translated, disobedience on display by forbidding to speak with tongues (1 Corinthians 14:39)!

5. The interpretation of a tongue in a public setting (among those normally acceptable to Christians, which excludes those 'interpretations' that are wildly beyond any semblance of truth) almost always is a quote from scripture, or a paraphrase of a scriptural truth. Here again, why is a tongue and interpretation needed, if the message is merely a quote from known scripture? Why not simply use the scripture to edify the church? Why does it have to come in the form of 'tongues and interpretation' unless the real agenda is to 'edify' the church in their belief in tongues? Strengthening a belief in the tongues practice is not real edification of the church, because the thrust of Paul's teaching about it in 1 Cor. 12-14 is all about edification in the knowledge of Christ and the love of the brethren. Pentecostals, in my experience, love only Pentecostals; they don't appear to love all the brethren, especially when their theory about "initial evidence" is questioned.

When someone spends the overwhelming bulk of their time singling out “Pentecostals”, then they are the ones who express the true love for all the brethren?

Let’s see, you say almost always yet don’t cite the source? And how far do you think you have to travel to find error in two denominations? Three? Ten? A hundred? If your going after unity, better stop targeting people and begin work at the literal level, or support the best efforts of those who have. But that being treated as it is, carnally, would only incite more unfounded insult.

Take this position’s attempt to steer away from the simplicity of the statement of one’s own self-edification (I Cor 14:4):

“One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church.”

Again, why does your pride prevent you from accepting the scripture on this? Shroud in continual exchanges of wanting “evidence”.

Paul saw that very as you say “evidence”, why would we allow our pride take control to conflict with God’s word?

6. Narrow-mindedness: Pentecostals have the regular practice of using (misusing) scripture for the sole purpose of supporting their dogmas. Their personal experience with modern tongues is used as the ruler to measure how they interpret scripture. When an alternate interpretation to theirs is presented, it is immediately p***ed off as wrong without any consideration of what scripture's original meaning is. Such is typical practice of Pentecostal and Charismatic teaching. They seem to think that when they read scripture, just any idea that pops into their mind about it just has to be "the Holy Spirit." Paul calls this at***ude "heady, highminded" as something to be avoided (2 Tim. 3:4).

This is a serious warning for a laughable ***essment, yet largely inadmissible due to so many generalities, nor citations.

Watch this example to cross-over your impenetrable line; together, we could correct it, if need be rebuke it “before all”. Will you rise above the traditional bias, or even give hint to it being on your mind?

7. Typical modern practice of public speaking in tongues is often contrary to Paul's teaching about order of worship in 1 Cor. 12-14. The reason is because of the Pentecostal belief that the Holy Spirit is always sponteneous and unplanned - always a surprise. This belief peppers their teaching and language. They seem to be fixated on the idea that anything planned well in advance and choreographed cannot possibly be the leading of the Holy Spirit. In fact, they call it "dead" if they fail to be "inspired" (usually) by the free-style spontaneity of their loud, boistrous, and wild worship styles. Thus, they tend to disregard the order that Paul orders concerning worship practice.

I disagree with both this and whomever crafted this. Since the Holy Spirit is a living “Comforter”, but won’t, dare I say, can’t intrude on things being done “decently and in order”. His leading and that order must each have their place as the scriptures declare. God is able if only we are willing.

Is this enough for you to see where I am coming from, that I ask a simple question that does not really require excessive thought (if you know the scripture and have the wisdom of God with you): how is your practice of tongues edifying others?

Enough? Have I seen enough? Has the conduct of faith been belittled enough through your disgust?

You are one of the many prime examples of erecting doubt by this display of demanding proof from someone who has next to nothing to add to what it is God does:

“For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things.” (Romans 11:36) Not some cult-head figure.

Although I went out of my way to accommodate your request again, in the Spirit of brotherhood only to be rejected time and again makes this whole attempt to respond in vain which I use the liberty provided to once again accommodate.

If you don’t see me respond any further, please note my concern for what is beginning to show, and not what is being or ever will be corrected.

For you have proven nothing of this gift nor the others to be resisted till He returns. At best, it is carnal, at worst unforgivable as I have shown. Or do you need the instructions there as well?

MacG

09-14-2013, 09:56 AM

One of the most overlooked gifts of the Church body is the gift of decernment. I don't know why I have it, but my guess is my openness to accepting the truth or not of the practice of speaking in tongues.
It was when I came up with the technical process to prove or dis-prove the ability to speak and or interrupt tongues.
As of this date I have not had one single P/C church or individual accept my offer to put them to the test.
I can't blame them, I wouldn not want to be put to the test of decernment.

A little more DA:

"It was when I came up with the technical process to prove or dis-prove the ability to speak and or interrupt tongues."

I had thought of discernment but was not aware the a spiritual gift was a technical process...

RealFakeHair

09-14-2013, 10:02 AM

A little more DA:

"It was when I came up with the technical process to prove or dis-prove the ability to speak and or interrupt tongues."

I had thought of discernment but was not aware the a spiritual gift was a technical process...

What comes after an event is when you can use modern technical process. Something the early church didn't have.
Remember it is all Biblical because we are allowed to try the spirit.

MacG

09-14-2013, 10:07 AM

Heya Michael,

Tongues like our word love has several meaning as you are aware. I was not thinking of what I call 'evangelical' tongues where every man heard the gospel in their own language but rather the practice of speaking a word of knowledge or prophecy in an unknown tongue only to have it interpreted by someone who themselves had no knowledge of said tongue.

The pops and clicks are part of the language not a village with Turrets. Not being a lingust however they may simply be punctuation as demonstrated by this Dane: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bpIbdZhrzA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bpIbdZhrzA)

MichaellS

09-14-2013, 10:59 AM

MacG

09-14-2013, 04:12 PM

What comes after an event is when you can use modern technical process. Something the early church didn't have.
Remember it is all Biblical because we are allowed to try the spirit.

I guess I do no tunderstand what technical process you are referring to. Will you elaborate?

MichaellS

09-15-2013, 07:59 AM

I guess I do no tunderstand what technical process you are referring to. Will you elaborate?

Somewhat related, this thing crossed my mind not too long a ago MG. Back in the NT times for instance, they didn’t have modern forms of retrieving and recording. The best they could hope for when say they were about to judge a prophesy within Church, they could only do so based upon the spirit of the message and fragmented messages. Lest they were more numerous and smaller.

If Paul were transposed to us today, would he again say “all things are lawful for me”, including the use of voice recorders?

God bless.

MichaellS

09-15-2013, 08:03 AM

But, would like to hear H's insight too. :confused:

tdidymas

09-17-2013, 03:09 PM

Possibly, you either don’t recognize or refuse to permit someone’s spirit of brotherhood included in comment. Here, once again, you fail to see how I grant you the benefit to lead me in the way of correction, which collectively consist of “we”. I agree, quite uncustomary when one party would rather spend time injecting unconfirmed (from the other party (me)) reports of biblical revelry and heresy as you have to date. Through your desperate need to dismiss any possibility of these gifts being found today just as God had determined by stereotypical and individual character attacks you do now express that refined end-time trait known as “faithless”. For as you know, but will further refuse to admit what that would entail.

This is a preposterous entry without coming close to answering my question. Every Christian in his most question position still can say with the Apostle, “I think I have the Spirit of God”, all the way to the inward confirmation and persuasion of that confidence, “I know in whom I have believed”, remember? Oh, I forgot, I’m fostering a “cult” based on bias of a fleshly mindset and not on the Bible.

And off we go attacking people with an invitation to join their bitterness rather than why the meaning of self-edification isn’t meant for us today. Why? Because that boat don’t float so well though they try as they must. Yes, it is logic tried to an anchor at the bottom of the Dead Sea that proves this unfounded disgust to me personally every day from my own friend-base who would willingly go all the way to their death-bed of pride trying to prove the absence, than to agree with God, the Apostles, the people of faith that God would grant this same work as seen in the Bible. Walter Martin would at least admit to God’s miraculous work following his faith. I heard him say it live, now you see me say it in vain, don’t you?
Is this possibly the nut of your displeasure with regard to tongues, because your faith can’t quite find the reason to believe that God would actually allow in the body of Christ? To think we should actually allow this to happen in his followers? To think we should allow something so foreign that would rise above our methods? The hard answer given in love brother is we are still unwilling to let that corner of our mind let go of the carnal, but guard it by attacking and run from it by the belittling sight-of-hand comments.
This last entry of necessity you posted doesn’t stand popular at all in the largest of Pentecostal ***emblies I am familiar with. I am not saying it doesn’t exist, it does and much to their own damage of uninterested congregants. So let’s recognize your stereotypical lump-it-all-together for what it is, an attempt to discredit the whole for the error of a few.

What else could be said from someone overcome with hate for someone or something they may not realize actually lives within them; a fear of the truth that these things are so. The rhetoric continues in baseless form against the movement out of fear for the success of its alignment of the truth which is so.

Here again more of my granting you the upper-hand of instruction to lead (I actually thought you knew where these things are taught in the scriptures), but as you have shown, this isn’t your area of expertise. You show yourself to be incapable of knowing the two areas to profit from the gift:

1. Universally (To the hearing Church)
2. Singular (Self)

You have shown yourself to malign the definition of faith out of your fear of the truth concerning God’s gifts.

“Now faith is the ***urance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” (Hebrews 11:1)

But you would have us believe in an effort to prove all things, which we should, but if you had your way also means we should perform this in a fashion wherein all biblically unrestricted areas involving faith are to be removed from the possibility of soundness. For every time Paul declares “I will” with the gift, you are right there to say ‘I will not’ by your comments. So then, it would read from your present responses:

‘Now faith is the ***urance of things discovered, the conviction of things seen.’

How absurd. But there you will undoubtedly go and disconnect these gifts from faith. But that is why you can’t find contentment in discussing these things with me because not for reason of not proving something, but because of reason of your “evil heart of unbelief”, the fruit we know a person by is what that person actually is as our Lord did say, and it is imperative you repent of this without delay, for as you know, without faith, it is “impossible to please God”.

I'll just sum this up, since I'm not in the mood for spending a lot of time responding to your every statement here. In all this, you are long on accusation and short on substance. Notice I said "if" and then you ***ume I am accusing you, and then you accuse me of being full of bitterness and hate, and all such things as Jesus said "rejoice when you are accused falsely on account of My name." You just don't see that my love for the scripture speaks volumes of my love for Christ, and when I attempt to show you what it says you suddenly are saying that I malign it. I merely said "if" because I'm just trying to find out your real meaning. What I wrote above is my honesty, laying cards on the table, and then you react to it like I'm venting rage at you and what you stand for. Hey, bro, why not simply see what is being said and respond in a Biblical manner? I see your attempt at it, but your accusation that I "malign the definition of faith" is simply wrong, and here is why: because I'm doing exactly what James did to those who had the wrong def. of faith. He demanded that such people prove their claims to Christianity. "Faith without works is dead." Therefore, since anyone can make a claim to being a Christian, having the Spirit, etc. etc., the works they do are the proof of the pudding. But now you are making my stand with James as something evil. I just asked a question, and it has gotten to this. It looks like the deeper we get into it, the worse it looks. Why not just answer the question? Are you unable?

Please review, because this could provide the footing you seek. Your extraction of the “will of the Spirit” is hardly amusing. By attempting to apply it to the heading of “promises” and not back to where it belongs, in the distribution of the promised One’s gifts is increasingly biased. The OT, Gospels and Acts spoke of the promise being the Holy Spirit (Gal. 3:14).

The promise is for the Holy Spirit Himself, NOT speaking in tongues. Not one of the gifts of the Spirit is promised to anyone. He distributes "as He wills" according to the apostle. Do you agree?
:)TD

tdidymas

09-17-2013, 03:56 PM

Your evidence of it not being is where? Hey, I thought you were going to provide something challenging??
The evidence of the Spirit is the fruit of the Spirit, which I don't see among many Pentecostals and Charismatics, in 20 yrs experience with them.

Translated, disobedience on display by forbidding to speak with tongues (1 Corinthians 14:39)!
This is an attempt at avoiding the issue, and is a false accusation. Your response indicates that you cannot, or will not, consider the issue as stated.

When someone spends the overwhelming bulk of their time singling out “Pentecostals”, then they are the ones who express the true love for all the brethren?

Let’s see, you say almost always yet don’t cite the source? And how far do you think you have to travel to find error in two denominations? Three? Ten? A hundred? If your going after unity, better stop targeting people and begin work at the literal level, or support the best efforts of those who have. But that being treated as it is, carnally, would only incite more unfounded insult.

Take this position’s attempt to steer away from the simplicity of the statement of one’s own self-edification (I Cor 14:4):

“One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church.”

Again, why does your pride prevent you from accepting the scripture on this? Shroud in continual exchanges of wanting “evidence”.

Paul saw that very as you say “evidence”, why would we allow our pride take control to conflict with God’s word?

I'm simply stating the issues as I have seen it. Yet you nitpick at it as if that answers the OP or original question I asked. I agree that we need to get to the scriptures that address the real issue. One of my objections is the misinterpretation and misuse of the scripture that is typical among those who separate themselves from the universal brethren. So since you quote 1 Cor. 14:4 here, let's talk about that.

Why do you not see that this statement is a rebuke from Paul? That Paul is not encouraging them to edify themselves, that he is instructing them to edify the church? After all, he just got through saying "I will show you a more excellent way." The theme of the p***age is not for instructing people to speak in tongues to edify themselves. The statement "one who speaks in a tongue edifies himself" is incidental to what Paul is telling them. "He who prophesies edifies the church" is what he is encouraging them toward. It's like saying that it is far better to care about someone else's health than about one's own. This isn't to say that one's own health is to be neglected, because it is obvious that one's own health must be maintained, even Jesus ate food and took baths. If I compare this with the story of Jesus feeding the 5000, it's like saying "the boy who eats his lunch edifies himself, but he who gives his lunch to feed others glorifies God." So do you get how I am interpreting 1 Cor. 14:4, that Paul is in the middle of rebuking the Corinthian church for their selfishness?

So then, they way you have been using this p***age is wrong, I am saying. You are using it to teach others to speak in tongues (me included, since you suggested that I try it), rather than understanding that the scripture does not command, encourage, nor teach anyone to speak in tongues. Instead, the scripture teaches this is a function that the Holy Spirit decides whether someone will or will not do it.

This is a serious warning for a laughable ***essment, yet largely inadmissible due to so many generalities, nor citations.

Watch this example to cross-over your impenetrable line; together, we could correct it, if need be rebuke it “before all”. Will you rise above the traditional bias, or even give hint to it being on your mind?

I disagree with both this and whomever crafted this. Since the Holy Spirit is a living “Comforter”, but won’t, dare I say, can’t intrude on things being done “decently and in order”. His leading and that order must each have their place as the scriptures declare. God is able if only we are willing.

It has only been recently that I have heard people like John MacArthur teaching on the subject. What I cited as these issues I did not get from anyone, it is my personal experience of what I saw for 20 years among Pentecostals and Charismatics. Again, I'm just being honest about what I have seen.

Enough? Have I seen enough? Has the conduct of faith been belittled enough through your disgust?

You are one of the many prime examples of erecting doubt by this display of demanding proof from someone who has next to nothing to add to what it is God does:

“For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things.” (Romans 11:36) Not some cult-head figure.

Although I went out of my way to accommodate your request again, in the Spirit of brotherhood only to be rejected time and again makes this whole attempt to respond in vain which I use the liberty provided to once again accommodate.

If you don’t see me respond any further, please note my concern for what is beginning to show, and not what is being or ever will be corrected.

For you have proven nothing of this gift nor the others to be resisted till He returns. At best, it is carnal, at worst unforgivable as I have shown. Or do you need the instructions there as well?

I really have to ask what you mean by "spirit of brotherhood." I just asked a question, and what I got from you is evasion and then hostility. Your statement that you "went out of your way to accommodate my request" is ludicrous, since you haven't made one attempt to answer my question "how does your practice edify others"? When you quote 1 Cor. 14:4 (obviously focusing on the part "one who speaks in a tongue edifies himself") are you admitting that your practice does not edify anyone else in any way? Is this the truth you are couching?
:)TD

MichaellS

09-17-2013, 07:00 PM

tdidymas

09-18-2013, 11:21 AM

Even if it were possible for me to ascend above the provisions God provides (remember?) and actually prove for you a handful of benefits (which any Christian isn’t capable in ordinary terms of producing), , what would that show of your intent? That you wanted all along to prop-up a cult-head figure to quickly dismiss? Disgusting hatred, yes you and all out of fear of the truth, Repent!
What I believe here at this point (and you have proceeded to prove to me), that no tongue-talking Christian is able to produce in ordinary terms any proof that tongue-talking has any benefit whatsoever. Thanks for bringing this up, I certainly believe that at this point. But in fact, everyone who has a true and authentic gift from the Holy Spirit is able to produce proof of benefit of their gifts in ordinary language!! It is done all the time. The apostles performed miracles, and people were converted. When people teach the truth of the Word of God, people are educated, faith is established, and the church has real growth. I've yet to see any tongue talking produce any fruit of the Spirit or any growth in churches. All it appears to do from my experience is encourage people to believe in tongue-talking, and it has no other benefit that I can see. Here again, it appears unexplainable in a practical sense, and therefore remains suspect.

Here we see your formula marched out again in vain. Why make faithless waves? Here you are giving out as the only one qualified to speak for the m***es with clear vision, yet incapable of citing my aversion of answering you.
So now you finally admit to aversion. Did you do this by mistake?

Absolutely not. I say this to all who holds what the Bible says about tongues is “demonic”. Get it? Do you see this slight-of-hand everyone? Don’t try and turn that into me being defensive, but a proactive statement to declare what is really going on here, the immense danger of the unpardonable “sin”. What else does one stand to profit to deceptive meanings? Of course, a movement.
Are you accusing me of this? Note there is a difference between saying what the Bible says about it, and saying what Pentecostals say about it. I don't equate Pentecostals' opinions or experiences equal to Biblical truth. On the other hand, do you equate your POV as equal to Biblical truth? If so, then you would naturally see my difference of opinion as blasphemy.

Thank you for the acknowledgment. And why not, God also established the spiritual lingo, not me and my rhetoric. (Rev. 11:8)
Except you didn't acknowledge my point here.

Your statements are rife with contempt for those who practice this, thereby the gifts themselves. Therefore, you continue to am*** a swelling thought to be for people in error when the root of your concern is to distance yourself from the gifts. This has been your narrative right along, but fear not, God knows your heart and what gifts would suit it.
You keep saying things like this as if you believe that your -'belief that your gift is of God'- will become my belief if you say things like this. So far you haven't given me proof that your 'gift' is of God, therefore to me it is suspect and worthy to be rejected, since I know that the authentic gifts of the Spirit have definite and explainable results. What I distance myself from is the modern Pentecostal teaching and practice about tongues which differs from the Biblical construct of it. I do not distance myself from the true and authentic gifts of the Spirit, in which I am open to accept and desire to participate in. I question if the modern-day tongues (i.e. 99% of it) is an authentic gift of the Holy Spirit. I suggest that it could be something of the natural mind that is counterfeiting the Biblical gift. I doubt if the sincerity of Pentecostal Christians makes the practice authentic. (i.e. 99% of it, since I am not a cessationist and am still open minded that the Holy Spirit can and possibly does operate this way today). I suspect they are deceived into thinking it is an authentic gift when in fact it is not (so the evidence tells me from my POV). And this continues to be my stand concerning your remaining remarks.

After all, Jesus talked of people who believed they cast out demons and performed miracles, yet were not known by Him.

What’s the hurry at this point? You certainly shed some comments before arriving so verbose if that even matters.

Suspicious? That is one thing to beware. But after a season of refusing the truth, that suspicion turns into superst-i-tion fed in the carnal approach of refusing the truth. But the redundancies here exhaust life from the subject itself.

“[T]ry it”? Thanks a lot. How counter-productive, hate promoting, attack-based can one be? You keep bring up “Biblical standpoint” without being able to squelch mine. And we haven’t even begun to open them up because that is the way of the Gospel. If you don’t have any footing whatsoever on the fundamental entrance, the condition will only compound to exacerbate itself if continued.

All you seem to be able to do is attack, not correct out of the word, , ,think: II Tim 3:16.

****out! Would you mind getting to my question oh’ TDM, the one who hates evasiveness. Like of where in ch. 12 and 14? Can’t? Must continue your attack because you can’t refute the scriptures? You know, I gotta agree with you there, that would be one heckuva chore – Repent!

Honestly now, keeping the two areas of tongues separate which you do seem to want to combine when convenient, I still prefer Paul’s method as I mentioned and you refuse. God is able.

The deception of meaning here is astounding because of your incessant demand not to prove the gift is real, but to prove your intent to trample faith underfoot. “Never explained”? Do you not know the ends of God provision by faith which is required to be blessed in it (Col 1:27, Rm 9:23)?

People who need an extra-Biblical explanation to frame their independent goal needs to repent and recognize the truth as it has been written for all. The attempt here to distort that truth tells everyone what this charade is all about – suppression of the Spirit’s work.

Funny you should mention supers***ion, seeing that folks from my side of the room see modern tongues as supers***ion.

Actually I'm trying to correct you, but you're not listening. Every point I make from scripture you either p*** off or completely avoid, or disagree based on your biased reading.

Here are the facts concerning Biblical tongues:
1. Joel's prophecy about signs is cited by Peter to have been fulfilled by the speaking of tongues on the day of Pentecost.
2. Isaiah's prophecy that God would speak to the Jews through a people with "another tongue" and "stammering lips" is the same event, since they spoke to Jews.
3. It was a speaking miracle, i.e. the tongues spoken were not known or understood by the speakers; however they were real intelligible languages which were understood by the hearers.
4. Subsequent tongues-speaking in acts were equivalent to the day of Pentecost, since the apostles said they spoke in tongues "as we did."

The conclusion to make about Biblical tongues is that it always is an actual human language that can be understood by hearers, even though the hearers who could understand it might not be there. The apostles discerned that those speaking tongues authentically had the Holy Spirit. I shouldn't need to reiterate all the details I said before about this. My conclusion about tongues in 1 Cor. 12-14 is consistent with this conclusion about tongues I find in Acts. Modern day tongues speaking simply doesn't measure up to this standard, since it is (99%) meaningless repe***ive gibberish.

Here is an exerpt from a study by an expert witness Spanos, Nicholas P.; Cross, Wendy P.; Lepage, Mark; Coristine, Marjorie (February 1986). "Glossolalia as learned behavior: An experimental demonstration". Journal of Abnormal Psychology

Our findings that glossolalia can be easily learned through direct instruction, along with demonstrations that tongue speakers can initiate and terminate glossolalia upon request and can exhibit glossolalia in the absence of any indexes of trance[…] support the hypothesis that glossolalia utterances are goal-directed actions rather than involuntary happenings.
And this really does make sense, seeing that people in other religions do the same.
:)TD

MichaellS

09-19-2013, 02:53 AM

Biblical tongues is that it always is an actual human language that can be understood by hearers

Heresy.

“For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in [his] spirit he speaks mysteries.” (1 Corinthians 14:2)

“without controversy great is the mystery of godliness, ,” (I Timothy 3:16)

For not only is self-edifying tongues given by the Holy Spirit and to God in mystery, but so also is our own speech.

"When they arrest you and hand you over, do not worry beforehand about what you are to say, but say whatever is given you in that hour; for it is not you who speak, but it is the Holy Spirit.” (Mark 13:11)

Did you get that? Again, God gets the glory, not man in any measure but only by the Spirit.

If Biblical self-edifying tongues is only to “be understood by hearers”, then either you or God is setting out to not only confuse us but overthrow the teaching for the weaker.

“I know that the authentic gifts of the Spirit have definite and explainable results.“

Blasphemy against the Spirit! It appears this is shipwreck is well past free-fall.

As the Spirit supplies His work:

“For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit,
and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit;
to another faith by the same Spirit,
and to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit,
and to another the effecting of miracles,
and to another prophecy,
and to another the distinguishing of spirits,
to another [various] kinds of tongues,
and to another the interpretation of tongues.”
(I Corinthians 12:8-10)

If the “results” were given, tell me what spiritual limelight do you exhibit the deep things of God out from?

I thought there may have been some redeeming qualities come into this discussion with you over this subject. Knowing what I now know of you, one who has at one point back there reared his heart up against and separated himself from all sensitivity of God’s Spirit.

You cannot wash away all you doubt with “I do not distance myself” and “open minded that the Holy Spirit can” when the true spectacle of that doubt has been laid bare:

I question if the modern-day tongues (i.e. 99% of it) is an authentic gift of the Holy Spirit. I suggest that it could be something of the natural mind that is counterfeiting the Biblical gift. I doubt if the sincerity of Pentecostal Christians makes the practice authentic. (i.e. 99% of it, since I am not a cessationist and am still open minded that the Holy Spirit can and possibly does operate this way today). I suspect they are deceived into thinking it is an authentic gift when in fact it is not (so the evidence tells me from my POV).

You are not here to show others the joy of being enabled by the Spirit, you are here to promote doubt for the hearer to the point of overthrowing this office of the Holy Spirit’s work.

This goes for all you who continue to stain with insult the blessed enablement God gives, but puffed up minds refuse. With all the references of “question”, “authentic”, “sincerity”, “evidence” and “doubt”, yet tips ever closer to hinting to the reader “demonic” activity, but won’t dare tell us what it is they use to decipher “authentic” from “counterfeiting”. Then it is you who is the counterfeit who wishes harm on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit.

“the immense danger of the unpardonable “sin”

Are you accusing me of this?

Your own words are when you said the following in comment no.136:

“Should I try something that for all practical purposes may be something of a fleshly source (or worse, demonic)?

An unashamed push of insult against the Holy Spirit is something I will not be partaker of. For any who wishes to partake of this direction of Blasphemy, then to the devil (I Timothy 1:20) we are told by the Holy Spirit is their lot.

MacG

09-19-2013, 10:20 AM

RealFakeHair

09-19-2013, 11:55 AM

tdidymas

09-19-2013, 02:39 PM

Heresy.
You think by writing this word that you have some "slam dunk" win in your argument? Your feeling that you have clear truth to refute my question is pure fantasy.

“For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in [his] spirit he speaks mysteries.” (1 Corinthians 14:2)
Such is truth for the authentic gift, I am questioning if yours is authentic. Besides, you are simply misinterpreting this verse and inserting the pretext that your gift measures up to it merely because of the similarity of "no one understands." The fact is, Paul says "no one understands" because of the report he was receiving that people in the Corinthian church were practicing this for no purpose other than a prideful at***ude of "look at what I can do." This is the whole reason for this entire section of the epistle. The setting is that people were doing it in the church meeting, and no one (except the speaker) was benefitting from it. Thus, there was no interpreter who understood the language, and they really didn't care about that because their focus was on themselves and the benefit it brought themselves. This is why he says "no one understands." Further, you misuse it if you claim this as a general principle that "no one can understand" (meaning your modern glossalalia), and that Paul is referring to this, because the tongues of that day was fundamentally different than the modern practice in that it was a real language that could be understood by someone, else, he would not have said "before you do this, make sure you have an interpreter." Even when the interpretation is from someone who gets a hearing miracle from God, it does not in any way indicate that the speaker is speaking the kind of gibberish that is commonly done among Pentecostals and Charismatics today.

Again, your quote of this is not at all a "slam dunk" refutation of my question. The at***ude you portray in writing the term "heresy" is divisive to say the least. It speaks loudly of the same kind of "insult" against the Spirit of Truth that you accuse me of. Would I not be just in throwing "hypocrisy" back in your face at this?

“without controversy great is the mystery of godliness, ,” (I Timothy 3:16)
Your misuse of this verse of scripture is disgusting. I don't even think it deserves a corrective response to it, except to say that you took it completely out of context and misapplied it, as is typical of Pentecostals' usage of scripture.

For not only is self-edifying tongues given by the Holy Spirit and to God in mystery, but so also is our own speech.
Speech that is Biblical in nature, that is, and it goes for Biblical tongues. I'm simply questioning that your tongues is Biblical. Other than admitting that you get a feeling of peace about it, you've yet to tell me how it edifies. I suggested that the only edification it gives people (besides some subjective inner feeling) was the belief in the practice. Which means that other than the limited 'edification' clearly stated here in this thread, it has no other benefit, no godly fruit. If it had, then you would have been able to clearly state it, if indeed you had the wisdom of the Holy Spirit (and a prayerful at***ude about it), but you are proving here by your responses that you have neither. Are you willing to change your at***ude and start answering the question at hand?

Further, just because you can cite some similarity with the word "mystery" doesn't make your practice authentic. Obviously no one understands gibberish. It doesn't make it the "mystery" that Paul was talking about in this p***age. I ***ume that you are wanting to prove that your practice is authentic, and is the reason why you are engaged in this debate. In order to show that, your practice can't just have "some similarity" to the authentic gift that Paul was talking about, since counterfeit practice does that. It has to measure up to ALL the criteria described therein. The single objection of how it sounds could be a clear indicator. Does it sound like a real language with all the intonations, inflections, and other language articulations that make it obvious that it is intelligible to someone? Or is it like repe***ive meaningless babbling such as what toddlers do?

"When they arrest you and hand you over, do not worry beforehand about what you are to say, but say whatever is given you in that hour; for it is not you who speak, but it is the Holy Spirit.” (Mark 13:11)

Did you get that? Again, God gets the glory, not man in any measure but only by the Spirit.
Again, your audacious misuse of scripture is proving more and more that my objection to the whole modern Pentecostal idea about tongues is true (the more you talk the more you prove it). This verse is talking about the Holy Spirit giving intelligible wisdom to someone in the midst of persecution, such as was given to Paul, Steven, et. al. when they appeared before the magistrates. The fact that you use it in ref. to your meaningless babbling tongues practice is a gross misrepresentation.

If Biblical self-edifying tongues is only to “be understood by hearers”, then either you or God is setting out to not only confuse us but overthrow the teaching for the weaker.
It is actually you and your Pentecostal cronies that have confused the matter. The prophecies about it and the fulfillment of it in Acts simply prove that the gift of tongues is "for unbelievers" as Paul stated, and as is confirmed in the NT by speaking to the unbelieving Jews. Therefore, Biblical tongues is given as a two-fold purpose (1) to tell the unbelieving Jews that the prophecy of their rejection and the new covenant has been fulfilled, and (2) to speak intelligibly by miraculous power to the church for its edification. The incidental usage of "edifying oneself" is your primary purpose, and this falls far short of the Biblical description. Furthermore, when Paul said "I speak in tongues more than you all," how do you know that he was practicing the private babbling that you practice? How do you know he wasn't talking about speaking in intelligible tongues with interpretations in the church setting as he was describing in 1 Cor.? Can you prove anything against this question from a Biblical standpoint?

Blasphemy against the Spirit! It appears this is shipwreck is well past free-fall.

As the Spirit supplies His work:

“For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit,
and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit;
to another faith by the same Spirit,
and to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit,
and to another the effecting of miracles,
and to another prophecy,
and to another the distinguishing of spirits,
to another [various] kinds of tongues,
and to another the interpretation of tongues.”
(I Corinthians 12:8-10)

If the “results” were given, tell me what spiritual limelight do you exhibit the deep things of God out from?
Here again, your cry of "blasphemy" falls ineffectively to the ground. Your prejudice is obvious here, since you jumped on the slander and did not simply ask the question. Just quoting the list of gifts doesn't prove anything. In fact, I already said what the results were, if you had only paid attention. For the edification of the church, the building up of the body of Christ, the fruit of the Spirit, godliness, education of the saints, for the common good, for the expression of love (13:1), even convincing the apostles themselves that certain rejected groups of people had received the Spirit (although this is incidental and not the purpose for which it was given).

But what is the fruit of your 'gift'? Have you prayerfully and humbly answered my questions? At the very least been professional in your answers? Instead I see you spewing out slander and sarcasm in this response.
<continued in the next post>

tdidymas

09-19-2013, 02:40 PM

<continuation from the previous post>

I thought there may have been some redeeming qualities come into this discussion with you over this subject. Knowing what I now know of you, one who has at one point back there reared his heart up against and separated himself from all sensitivity of God’s Spirit.

You cannot wash away all you doubt with “I do not distance myself” and “open minded that the Holy Spirit can” when the true spectacle of that doubt has been laid bare:

You are not here to show others the joy of being enabled by the Spirit, you are here to promote doubt for the hearer to the point of overthrowing this office of the Holy Spirit’s work.

This goes for all you who continue to stain with insult the blessed enablement God gives, but puffed up minds refuse. With all the references of “question”, “authentic”, “sincerity”, “evidence” and “doubt”, yet tips ever closer to hinting to the reader “demonic” activity, but won’t dare tell us what it is they use to decipher “authentic” from “counterfeiting”. Then it is you who is the counterfeit who wishes harm on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit.
The only thing that would be redeeming from your POV is if I become a "yes, yes" man to your subjective opinion, which is the way it appears to me. What you are doing here is nitpicking at words and writing it off as unbelief, rather than expressing counterobjection to the points made. The conclusion you force me to is that you yet again avoid the real issues and just want to win an argument about it. Further, the reason why you can't see what is meant by "authentic" and "counterfeit" is because your ears are closed, since I have defined it clearly. What I actually doubt is your willingness to agree to the truth about the matter which the Bible is really teaching. But what I am here for is not what you claim, but rather to arrive at Biblical truth.

Your own words are when you said the following in comment no.136:

An unashamed push of insult against the Holy Spirit is something I will not be partaker of. For any who wishes to partake of this direction of Blasphemy, then to the devil (I Timothy 1:20) we are told by the Holy Spirit is their lot.

Was I not telling the truth in all honesty when I said that your biased stand causes you to see my questioning manner as blasphemy? I ask a question and then you scream "Blasphemy!!" Your response is typical of Pentecostal fear of the confrontation of truth.

I'm sorry that it has to get to this point, but it always does, this is stark reality. What is typical of Pentecostal MO is that if they can't defend their practice of speaking in tongues (and other similar things they do) from a proper Biblical standpoint, they start yelling "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit," as if that will incur supers***ious fear in the questioning party that will make them concede. Such MO is a strategy to silence anyone who questions their practice or motives.

So then my question at this point is, are you willing to change your at***ude, to get off the "heresy" and "blasphemy" judgments and start answering the objections and questions with mature Biblical exegesis?
:)TD

MichaellS

09-20-2013, 03:12 AM

Michael,

I have been watching to see where you two are missing each other. Somewhere it seems to me T picked up on the idea from you that he should "try it". I do not think that the people in the New Testament had to 'try it', rather it happened through them - in particular on Pentecost. I doubt that when in Acts they baptized they had to be coached as I was in a UPC church with whispers in my ear of sssshannanna etc. If the Spirit is filling one, what is this coaching all about? The gift of tongues as recorded in the New Testament is neither a taught nor learned behavior. The first recipients were not coached and if it is the same Spirit then we shall not have to be coached either. It seems this is the kind of thing which T is wary of and where it may lead: Kenneth Copland and Rodney Howard Browne (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixOr_bT0mOk).

To be sure I am not saying that tongues is not for today. I am just not sure what we see in most Churches is the Spirit of God. Not saying that you are not spirit filled either. Since not all have the gift of tongues but some do have the gift of service, hospitality, mercy, administration etc. it is just as difficult to say whether those gifts are the Spirit or natural abilities. Same goes for discernment or just being suspicious - it is difficult to know unless one has the true gift. Then there is convincing the brethren... :).

Howdy.

Possibly in your watching, you too missed the point that goes beyond that coaching hysteria which I have a different take on. If it is coaching that people run from, fine. Then go back to the biblical method.

Comment 129:

1It happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul p***ed through the upper country and came to Ephesus, and found some disciples. 2He said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said to him, “No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.” 3And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” And they said, “Into John’s baptism.” 4Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying. 7There were in all about twelve men. (Acts 19:1-7)

In closing, let there be no coaching, but only by this example. Then, if God will so bless, it will be less of the coach and more of the promise. Then if the evil heart of unbelief wants to gainsay that also, he will do so to his own shame.

It is by God. May His Spirit bless you.

MichaellS

09-20-2013, 06:28 AM

Upon reflection of my own closing comments to TDM, leaves one matter for the fruit of the Spirit to be presented; “kindness” (Galatians 5:22).

While the Apostle did say:

“There is a sin leading to death; I do not say that he should make request for this.” (1 John 5:16B)

Then where is “kindness” to appear? I believe as if I myself too were caught under the same weight. I would have to head off such described calamity. I would have no other choice but to lay further fully responsible claim for that limelight just as though I had the capability of it, just as though I had knowledge of it, just as though God might honor it at some point, and admit this was done by the gift of:

“the word of wisdom through the Spirit, , ,” or,
“the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit, ,”
(I Corinthians 12:8)

I believe it is possible for God to honor this without such intercession (for our own conscience), but within the realm of mercy (for theirs).

To God be the glory.

tdidymas

09-20-2013, 05:18 PM

TD, You don’t strike me as one who is easily overwhelmed from challenge. But what you just selectively responded to tells me you are not seeing the whole council and fulfilling what the Apostle said he most certainly would not do, “shun” to declare anything of God’s will. By selectively responding to only the important points, you have missed the point to be had. As he said; V19 ”however, in the church”, knowing which scriptures are to be applied to public tongues for prophesy, and which are to be used for oneself. You are still blurring the two when you ask "how does your practice edify others"? I have explained this at length.

Can I try a little something? Take for instance the following:

13Therefore let one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. 14For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. 15What is [the outcome] then? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also.

Two things come to mind here for me concerning your position.

1. Because it says “my mind is unfruitful” I’m pretty confident you are all eager to ***ume this is bad, evil or isn’t of God. That this is something He doesn’t want for His people.

2. If so, you then intersect to override “unfruitful” with “mind” so you don’t have meddle with “unfruitful” any longer. Is that what you have done?
I understand the part about "in the church." And no, you are wrong about your confidence of what I ***ume. The point I was trying to make was that Pentecostals (i.e. in my observation of 20 yrs of fellowshipping with them) often and regularly practice what Paul rebuked the Corinthians for in ch. 12-14. The point I was making is that Pentecostals major on minors and minor on majors. The minor point being the incidental thing that Paul said about self-edification, and the major point being about how, when, and where it should be practiced. It seems that P's want to disregard the major theme of what Paul wrote about, and then want to focus in on the minor and incidental things - which shows that they just want to use scripture as a proving ground for their subjective experience. This is the point I was trying to make here. It has nothing to do with whether or not I accept that authentic tongues really does edify.

If you can see so clearly, why can’t you see why I can’t see? Quite plainly, it is not supported in contextual remarks surrounding it for any such notion.
This was a rhetorical question. I do see why you can't see it, because you simply refuse to look, and like I said above you are focusing on the wrong thing.

Or consider this one:

18I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all; 19however, in the church I desire to speak five words with my mind so that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue.

For obvious reasons, I can see your point here if I were directed that way being overly simple, or early on. That is not a criticism, I am working towards a point here. “However” in V19 does not alleviate V18. Yes, and I will restate, it is preferred and better to edify the Church by the Spirit. But where do you find ample justification to cancel verse 18? Or with what do you set orderliness to refuse God’s will for self-edification from the scriptures? I think you might be willing to put prophesy at 100% of being God’s will to edify the Church with. And if you tried real hard, might put pre-messaging tongues at maybe 1 or 2%. Well, since it is by the Spirit also, maybe we could bump it up to 99.99%.

When you state Paul is not encouraging self-edification, why would he confuse us with V18? Because the confusion is not with V18, but with that same hidden corner we just can’t say yes to.

Yes:

“I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also” V15.

Not: I will stop with the spirit so I can pray fully with the mind. Or he would have said so.

While it is said to “desire” Spiritual gifts, I no longer want to insult His presence with it not being something we can just approach non-aggressively. Repent! I just did.

Again here also, you make presumptions based on your bias, which causes you to read the scripture with prejudice. Are you ***uming Paul speaks tongues in private? Him saying "however in the church" does NOT automatically mean his previous statement means "in private." The contrast is NOT about LOCATION, it is about PURPOSE.

Nevertheless, I'll go with you in your ***umption that it means "in private" (:18). It still does not prove that your tongues is authentic. Some similarities to what is described in the scripture doesn't make it authentic.

Actually, I'll consider you repentant when you start acknowledging and addressing the real issues of how modern tongues is not like the original.
:)TD

RealFakeHair

09-22-2013, 10:22 AM

Man has this dead horse been beatin to death. I think it is time to agree to dis-agree, but then again that aint no fun.

MichaellS

09-23-2013, 01:26 AM

I think it is time to agree to dis-agree, , .

Never! Are you also to be hailed as the one Late Great "coach"-cancellation deniers (Comment 174)? Will you also keep quiet?

RealFakeHair

09-23-2013, 07:51 AM

Never! Are you also to be hailed as the one Late Great "coach"-cancellation deniers (Comment 174)? Will you also keep quiet?
I am the know-it-all of all knowing, so yes, I am the Greatest "Coach". Now go set on the bench....I'll call you when it is your turn to play.

MichaellS

09-23-2013, 06:03 PM

I am the know-it-all of all knowing, so yes, I am the Greatest "Coach". Now go set on the bench....I'll call you when it is your turn to play.

God bless you coach, ,!

“You are already filled, you have already become rich, you have become kings without us; and indeed, I wish that you had become kings so that we also might reign with you. For, I think, God has exhibited us apostles last of all, as men condemned to death; because we have become a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men. We are fools for Christ’s sake, but you are prudent in Christ; we are weak, but you are strong; you are distinguished, but we are without honor. To this present hour we are both hungry and thirsty, and are poorly clothed, and are roughly treated, and are homeless; and we toil, working with our own hands; when we are reviled, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure; when we are slandered, we try to conciliate; we have become as the scum of the world, the dregs of all things, even until now.” (I Cor 4:8-13)

“Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.”, , “I did away with childish things” (I Cor 11:1, 1 Corinthians 13:11)

RealFakeHair

09-24-2013, 08:08 AM

God bless you coach, ,!

“You are already filled, you have already become rich, you have become kings without us; and indeed, I wish that you had become kings so that we also might reign with you. For, I think, God has exhibited us apostles last of all, as men condemned to death; because we have become a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men. We are fools for Christ’s sake, but you are prudent in Christ; we are weak, but you are strong; you are distinguished, but we are without honor. To this present hour we are both hungry and thirsty, and are poorly clothed, and are roughly treated, and are homeless; and we toil, working with our own hands; when we are reviled, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure; when we are slandered, we try to conciliate; we have become as the scum of the world, the dregs of all things, even until now.” (I Cor 4:8-13)

“Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.”, , “I did away with childish things” (I Cor 11:1, 1 Corinthians 13:11)

You did all right up and until you got to the rich part. I am so poor I can't even spell abel.........

Christian

01-03-2014, 10:42 AM

buck gardner posted:
We speak in tongues as led by our Lord. He and he alone gives us his Spirit and wemay get it as the finishing act of his work or before we finish what we have been commanded as seen in ACTS 8,10 AND 19.

No place in acts 8, 10, or 19 commands you to speak in tongues in any way at any time. If you think I am mistaken, please cite the specific scriptures that do so. There is no command in the whole Bible to speak in tongues.
ALL MUST AND WILL SPEAK IN TONGUES IF SAVED, if not, a person is a pretender and liar.

So you ignore 1 Corinthians 12:30. I seeeeee.

You will be lost and split hell wide open and eventually be cast into the Lake of Fire for not being saved and speaking in tongues as the Spirit gives the utterance.

I have been saved by faith in Jesus Christ, not by speaking in tongues. No scripture anywhere requires tongues for salvation.

1 CO. 12:30 This is speaking of a Gift of The Spirit which God gives severally (singularly) as he wills and is not the Spirit baptism promised and given to all and in the same way of speaking in tongues 1 CO. 12;13, MARK 16:16, ACTS 2:38-39
read those and don't just skirt them.

None of those p***ages makes any requirement for tongues speaking. Neither does any of those p***ages make tongues in those cases a different gift than the tongues that not everyone speaks according to 1 Corinthians 12:30.

Your manmade requirement that people speak in tongues to be saved is demonic, since it places manmade requirements for salvation that Jesus already purchaced for us.

Christian

01-21-2014, 06:39 PM

Jim posted:
Why not? Has God taken some gifts away from His Church? I have had many tell me that tongues were given so that the gospel could be spread to all the peoples of the world no matter what their language. The only problem with holding that tongues is always a language the is understood by people of this world at least in some corner of the world is that Paul spoke is an UNKNOWN tongue. And when He spoke in tongues he wasn't speaking to men but to God:

1 Cor 14:2
For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

Jimbo you have a PROBLEM. the word "unknown" in that p***age does not appear in any of the original-language GREEK TEXTS; it was an INSERT WORD, inserted without warrant by the kjv translators. IN REALITY the word 'unknown' doesn't belong there.

While I see that it is far better to teach and preach the word of life than to speak in tongues, speaking in an unknown tongue can't be denied as a Biblical spiritual gift. Even though this gift adds no edification to the Church, it does edifiy those that it has been given.

ONLY if it is GENUINE tongues, not the gibberish and mindless babbling of the pentcostal versions.

Personally I have not been given this gift, I will never try to fake or force it.

You mentioned that tongues 'edifies the believer,' and asked if that wasn't a good enough reason. . .

WHERE IN SCRIPTURE does it make 'self-edification' a good reason for anything? We are to be SERVANTS to each other and the LORD. Not self-centered idiots.

in the Name of Jesus Christ,
morefish

RealFakeHair

01-22-2014, 02:38 PM

Christian

02-23-2014, 05:55 PM

Oneness folks.
Did you speak in tongues before or after you were saved? Please include scripture.
How do you interpret 1 Cor.12:30?
Do you teach all must speak in tongues? If so, why?
What happens if other christians don't receive this gift?

God bless,
p2

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah !

THERE! Did I just speak in tongues?

Just about as much as those I have heard in many pentecostal churches! What's different?

No REAL meaning. The same phonemes repeated over and over again. If you want to pretend to 'interpret' it, go ahead!

MichaellS

08-17-2014, 07:27 AM

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah !

THERE! Did I just speak in tongues?

Just about as much as those I have heard in many pentecostal churches! What's different?

No REAL meaning. The same phonemes repeated over and over again. If you want to pretend to 'interpret' it, go ahead!

More ignorant spite against a gift awarded by the Spirit, not man. Or did you not notice Jean’s request of v30?

“distributing to each one individually just as He wills.” (I Cor 12:11)

Just because it is seen as abused, (and I believe it has to some extent), is no reason to imperil yourself with I Cor 14:39. But maybe so if by willing decree subject the good sense God gave you somehow spoil the mind from something so foolish that He never intended for contemporary man. Yes, how foolish to think we are “all that are afar off” (Acts 2:39) for such an enablement.

But then, maybe that handling of “foolishness” was His plan as well to retain a method to know obedience by (I Cor 2:14). Do you pray as I that those in the valley of decision sort this out correctly?

Saxon

10-15-2014, 01:20 PM

The unknown tongue is also unknown to the speaker.

1 Corinthians 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

1 Corinthians 14:14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

Saxon

10-15-2014, 02:31 PM

well.........its a lonely reason.

The context of where this type of personal edification is talked about in the Text is such that while there is some good merit for private use of the gift....its not actually the aim of God for this gift to be a private gift.

Actually it is the aim of God for this type of tongues is for personal edification. 1Corinthians 14:2 says that the speaker is not speaking to men but to God for no man understands. 1 Corinthians 12:10 says that there is divers kinds of tongues, so if you hear of tongues being used in one fashion, don’t think that it is the only way for tongues to be used.

1Corinthians 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

1 Corinthians 12:10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:

The gift was aimed at "SPREADING" the good news across the world to different lands and peoples...

In Acts chapter two that was the purpose of tongues, but that is not the only purpose. (See 1Corinthians 14:2 and 12:10)

This other idea, (that we are to seek the private use of the gift as part of a way to receive personal / private edification) seems to me to be like saying that God wants you to stay home from church so you can clean garage.

Yes, having a clean garage is nice...."For You!"
But it has no effect at all at building up the community of faith in your church....
and your lack of attendance and personal input in your church is more of an issue now beyond any personal gain you may receive by getting all the old paint cans lined up by color in your garage.

Why would you even think that? Didn’t Paul make that idea disappear when he said not forsaking the ***embling of ourselves together? (See Hebrews 10:25)

The scripture is clear that this is the way it works. It is not that we are seeking edification; it is the result of speaking in tongues. Why do you want to make it seem to be a greed issue on the believer’s part when we are told to do it? (See 1Corinthians 14:5 I would that ye all spake with tongues)

Hebrews 10:25 Not forsaking the ***embling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching

1Corinthians 14:4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.

1Corinthians 14:5 I would that ye all spake with tongues but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

Speaking to me in an unknown tongue may edify you, but its worthless to me until I find out what you said...

In this situation when speaking in tongues you were not invited or you too would have been edified.

And if I cant ever find out what you said, then I would suggest you dont bother speaking at all in the first place...

That would depend on what the occasion for speaking in tongues is.