Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 189

Thread: The Gift of Tongues

  1. #76
    Adelphos
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tdidymas View Post
    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

  2. #77
    Adelphos
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tdidymas View Post
    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.

    [quote]"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!

    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

  3. #78
    Adelphos
    Guest

    Default Tongues Without Interpretation

    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

  4. #79
    Adelphos
    Guest

    Default

    Adelphos,

    Why did the Apostles allow tongues without interpretation take place in other p***ages?
    Quote Originally Posted by tdidymas View Post
    Show me where
    Acts 10 and Acts 19

  5. #80
    Adelphos
    Guest

    Default Individual Prayer in Tongues

    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).

  6. #81
    Adelphos
    Guest

    Default Speaking in tongues has multiple purposes

    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

  7. #82
    Adelphos
    Guest

    Default

    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

  8. #83
    Adelphos
    Guest

    Default Reading into texts causes interpretation problems

    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

  9. #84
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    159

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adelphos View Post
    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.
    TD

  10. #85
    Adelphos
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tdidymas View Post
    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.
    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

  11. #86
    James Banta
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BuckGardner View Post
    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

  12. #87
    James Banta
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kentuckypreacher View Post
    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

  13. #88
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by James Banta View Post
    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.

  14. #89
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by James Banta View Post
    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....

  15. #90
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by James Banta View Post
    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...

  16. #91
    James Banta
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    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

  17. #92
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by James Banta View Post
    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....

  18. #93
    James Banta
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    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

  19. #94
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    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...
    ...

    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.
    Last edited by alanmolstad; 08-03-2012 at 06:41 PM.

  20. #95
    James Banta
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jean View Post
    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

  21. #96
    Jean Chauvin
    Guest

    Default : )

    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).

  22. #97
    James Banta
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jean Chauvin View Post
    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

  23. #98
    Senior Member MichaellS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Notre Dame, IN
    Posts
    422

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tdidymas View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adelphos View Post
    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).

  24. #99
    Senior Member MichaellS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Notre Dame, IN
    Posts
    422

    Default

    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.

  25. #100
    Tom Boots
    Guest

    Default

    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.

Posting Permissions

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