Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 345678 LastLast
Results 151 to 175 of 189

Thread: The Gift of Tongues

  1. #151
    RealFakeHair
    Guest

    Default

    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.

  2. #152
    MacG
    Guest

    Default A little DA here.

    Quote Originally Posted by RealFakeHair View Post
    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.

  3. #153
    Senior Member MichaellS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Notre Dame, IN
    Posts
    422

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MacG View Post
    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.

  4. #154
    Senior Member MichaellS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Notre Dame, IN
    Posts
    422

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tdidymas View Post
    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).

  5. #155
    Senior Member MichaellS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Notre Dame, IN
    Posts
    422

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tdidymas View Post
    <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.

  6. #156
    RealFakeHair
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MacG View Post
    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.

  7. #157
    Senior Member MichaellS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Notre Dame, IN
    Posts
    422

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tdidymas View Post
    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?

  8. #158
    MacG
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealFakeHair View Post
    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...

  9. #159
    RealFakeHair
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MacG View Post
    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.

  10. #160
    MacG
    Guest

    Default

    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

  11. #161
    Senior Member MichaellS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Notre Dame, IN
    Posts
    422

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MacG View Post
    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
    Well there you have it, the one that got away. My slip MacG.

  12. #162
    MacG
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealFakeHair View Post
    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?

  13. #163
    Senior Member MichaellS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Notre Dame, IN
    Posts
    422

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MacG View Post
    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.

  14. #164
    Senior Member MichaellS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Notre Dame, IN
    Posts
    422

    Default

    But, would like to hear H's insight too.

  15. #165
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    159

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MichaellS View Post
    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

  16. #166
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    159

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MichaellS View Post
    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

  17. #167
    Senior Member MichaellS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Notre Dame, IN
    Posts
    422

    Default

    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?

    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?
    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.

    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.

  18. #168
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    159

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MichaellS View Post
    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

  19. #169
    Senior Member MichaellS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Notre Dame, IN
    Posts
    422

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tdidymas View Post
    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.

  20. #170
    MacG
    Guest

    Default I have been watching this dialoge

    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.

    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... .

  21. #171
    RealFakeHair
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MacG View Post
    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.

    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... .
    and to another the effecting of miracles
    I wonder why this gift is the one missing from the P/C churches?
    Reason this is the one where, put up or shut up, is most evidenced.

  22. #172
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    159

    Default response part 1

    Quote Originally Posted by MichaellS View Post
    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>

  23. #173
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    159

    Default

    <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

  24. #174
    Senior Member MichaellS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Notre Dame, IN
    Posts
    422

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MacG View Post
    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.

    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.

  25. #175
    Senior Member MichaellS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Notre Dame, IN
    Posts
    422

    Default

    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •