Modern Chaos: The Charismatic and Pentecostal Movements (5:35)

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
7,060
1,100
113
#41
To claim that they spoke gibberish, and that Peter assumed it was languages is one of those alternate interpretations I don't go for, because it's a feeble attempt to justify today's error. No, Peter said it was the same thing they received, so it was languages. Do you question the inspiration and truth of written scripture?
That's a straw man and not what I was saying. Any language you do not know sounds like gibberish, but you might be able to recognize that it is a language. Acts does not say whether Peter understood the languages Cornelius and those with him spoke. But what language would they have spoken that Peter also know that they might not be able to have learned naturally, anyway? Hebrew might have been unlikely for them to have known, but Cornelius was a God-fearer, so maybe.


They think they have the same gift as what the apostles received, even though the contrary has been proven.
You have not proven all speaking in tongues to be fake, psychological gibberish, or whatever. Such a claim on the evidence you have presented or alluded to is illogical.

But they claim tongues of angels because they are grasping at straws trying to justify their practice.
No, it is in the Bible. Anti-Pentecostals, cessationists, etc. are being unreasonable by ruling out the possibility of tongues of angels. Insisting that it _must_ be hyperbole appears to be a reactionary interpretation, reactionary against Pentecostalism, maybe even earlier movements.

I just pulled up a couple of ancient commentaries on the passage, both early 400's, from John Chrysostom and Ambrosiastor. Here is a quote from John Chrysostom:

Do you see how one void of love is like to things inanimate and senseless? Now he here speaks of the tongues of angels, not investing angels with a body, but what he means is this: should I even so speak as angels are wont to discourse unto each other, without this I am nothing, nay rather a burden and an annoyance. Thus (to mention one other example) where he says, To Him every knee shall bow, of things in heaven and things on earth, and things under the earth, Philippians 2:10 he does not say these things as if he attributed to angels knees and bones, far from it, but it is their intense adoration which he intends to shadow out by the fashion among us: so also here he calls it a tongue not meaning an instrument of flesh, but intending to indicate their converse with each other by the manner which is known among us.
John Chrysostom does not have a problem with angels having a language, just with the idea of their having physical tongues.

Ambrosiaster wrote,
It is a great gift to be able to speak in different languages. To speak with the tongues of angels is even greater.{/quote]

Neither expressed an objection to anyone speaking in tongues of angels as something that could not be real.

These are both from https://www.catenabible.com/1cor/13

Click on verse 1.
Furthermore, your argument is weak because anyone who listens to it carefully can distinguish between a language and gibberish. That is, if they aren't trying to make it into a language, calling it Chinese or something when it's not. Either it conveys a message or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then it's just gibberish.
Any language that you do not know that is not similar to one you know conveys no message to you. It will sound like gibberish to you. There are plenty of languages that sound like gibberish, certainly to the untrained ear. Try listening to Vietnamese or some of the click languages from Africa.

So why not provide the translation? What's the big deal? But what has been analyzed so far shows pseudo-language. All people can go on is that a sample of 100's of tongues recorded are all pseudo-language, so it can be reasonably assumed that it's a valid sample showing that all tongues are pseudo-language. I'm just saying that statistically it's the only conclusion that people can come to, and that's all we have to go on.
Records of actual events where people spoke in tongues and others understood it are evidence also. Samarin's clips are not all we have to go on. I have not read his book. The part of his methodology (if I recall correctly that it was his) that dismissed tongues that were monotone that lacked intonation seemed a spurious methodology in my opinion, since, as I have said, I have heard prayer in English in the same high pitch monotone and understood it.

Those were my concerns as well. The Acts 2 situation did not fit Paul's instructions either, but that appears to have been more of an evangelistic situation than what we think of as a church meeting.
I don't agree. Everyone heard and understood what was said.
Have you actually read I Corinthians 14 then? Paul describes speaking in tongues. Someone speaks in tongues. No one understands him. The speaking in tongues has to be interpreted (and there is a gift for that) in order for others to understand and be edified. Much of the chapter is spent persuading the Corinthians that speaking in tongues need to be interpreted to edify others before giving instructions along these lines in verse 27-28. In Acts 2, the disciples spoke and others presents heard them speaking in their languages, without interpretation. These were different contexts. Paul's instructions have to do with church gatherings.


At least at that level, a lot of speaking in tongues does not fit the criteria that some linguist critics level at speaking in tongues. Some of it does not only use the phonemes of the speakers language. Some if it is not just repetitive sounds. Some of it does sound like real languages, to my ears as someone with linguistic training and in this case also to this academic who studied and taught Arabic and knew Farsi.
Our paths diverge here, because your argument is not convincing. Putting some professor on the spot and asking what language it is, is going to cause him a bias of looking for a language and poking a guess at it, just like anyone would.
But that is a fair way to go about it. Linguists who do this sort of thing knowing what the research area is should be subjected to double-blind tests, using the same methodology on natural languages unfamiliar to them that they use on speaking in tongues. A linguist with an anti-supernatural bias is a prime target for confirmation bias. A linguist who analyzes 'speaking in tongues' with the assumption that it is a real language may be more likely to treat it like a real language.

Right, that was one of Parham's errors. Another was guessing that what they heard was real languages, which as far as I can tell from the accounts, was pseudo-languages as it still manifests today.
A historian who studied it (PhD from UGA) told me that one of Agnes Ozman's tongues was verified to be Chinese by someone who worked in a Chinese laundry. I have also read a few days later of a Bohemian hearing her speak in Bohemian (now known as Czech.)

So how was it identified? Where is the detail? Was it just guessing, or was it actually understood and translated? If you don't provide the detail, how can this be taken as something other than urban legend?
I am pressed for time, but I found Garr's account of this online some time ago. You really overuse the term 'urban legend.' An urban legend is a specific kind of thing, not just a case when someone alludes to something and does not provide full evidence.

You cited The Apostolic Faith, it was Parham's publication.
I looked it up and I vague remember reading it. Parham did have a publication by that name. Seymour used the same name for his newsletter. I don't know whether Parham's newsletter survived or not, but you can find copies of Parham's newsletter on line. I believe the A/G's Flower's Pentecostal heritage library is where I downloaded the copies that i looked at. I do not know if Parham's newsletter had these kinds of accounts. People mailed in various experiences that Seymour published and he published about the revival there at Azusa as well.
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
7,060
1,100
113
#42
@TDidymas

But what has been analyzed so far shows pseudo-language. All people can go on is that a sample of 100's of tongues recorded are all pseudo-language, so it can be reasonably assumed that it's a valid sample showing that all tongues are pseudo-language.
Your conclusion is ridiculous and illogical. And I can tell you at least at the program I was trained at, we were cautioned against claiming we had 'proven' anything. A lot of the research I was trained made use of statistics, p-values, etc. You present evidence against a certain statistical standard, but it is not 'proof.'

If Samarin was not able to find patterns of human language he was looking at in a sample of 100, the problem could be a large number of cases of speaking in tongues are not genuine, or it could be that he was trying to find patterns of human language in angelic tongues, or there could be a problem with his methodology. It is not evidence that the Spirit never gifts individuals to speak in tongues, including in real human languages.

What you should be looking at is cases of genuine tongues in human languages to see if it occurs, not looking at cases where the researcher found no evidence... that is if your research question has to do with whether tongues as human languages occurs at all, as opposed to something else.

I am also curious as to whether you really paid $470 for that book. Have you ever posted your own Amazon affiliate link in a conversation like this. :) It was over $100 at a used site. I would definitely be considering interlibrary loan or something similar if I were to read this book.
 

Lafftur

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2017
6,046
3,194
113
#43
@TDidymas



Your conclusion is ridiculous and illogical. And I can tell you at least at the program I was trained at, we were cautioned against claiming we had 'proven' anything. A lot of the research I was trained made use of statistics, p-values, etc. You present evidence against a certain statistical standard, but it is not 'proof.'

If Samarin was not able to find patterns of human language he was looking at in a sample of 100, the problem could be a large number of cases of speaking in tongues are not genuine, or it could be that he was trying to find patterns of human language in angelic tongues, or there could be a problem with his methodology. It is not evidence that the Spirit never gifts individuals to speak in tongues, including in real human languages.

What you should be looking at is cases of genuine tongues in human languages to see if it occurs, not looking at cases where the researcher found no evidence... that is if your research question has to do with whether tongues as human languages occurs at all, as opposed to something else.

I am also curious as to whether you really paid $470 for that book. Have you ever posted your own Amazon affiliate link in a conversation like this. :) It was over $100 at a used site. I would definitely be considering interlibrary loan or something similar if I were to read this book.
I agree with @presidente

This is a perfect example of the “natural man” or human reasoning/intellect trying to understand something that can only be understood by the “spiritual man” giving understanding by God’s Word and Holy Spirit... the natural and spiritual shall NEVER agree - always opposed to each other…just simply casting pearls before swine….a waste of time.
 

Lafftur

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2017
6,046
3,194
113
#44
The “natural” man interprets scripture with human reasoning/intellect, whereas the “spiritual” man totally relies on the Holy Spirit to open the scriptures and give understanding.

The “spiritual” man does NOT go searching and reading every commentary they can find…instead, they just simply acknowledge their need for the Holy Spirit to teach them so that they can know the Truth.

The “spiritual” man brings ALL their questions to The Spirit of Truth who is the Holy Spirit - the Teacher, NOT man.
 

lawrence101

Active member
Jan 25, 2019
236
70
28
canada
#45
Yes, of course. But look at the vrerse where 'not appointed unto wrath' comes from and you may understand my cquestion.
Yes i know where the verse comes from and i can see what you are getting at. Here is the whole verse : 1 Thessalonians 5:
9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ.
We both agree with this verse , yes ?
God's wrath will be poured out on the unbeleiving world during the great tribulation that doesnt mean no one can be saved. Actually many will be saved out of it, they shall be as the sand of the sea shore for multitude.
John was puzzled " who are these standing before the throne ?"
" these are they that have come out of the great tribulation...."
I beleive also that they have not taken the mark of the beast nor have bowed down and worshipped his image. They will enter into the millennial reighn of Christ to repopulate the world.
This has nothing to do with the bride of Christ for they were raptured or snatched away in the twinklimg of an eye to be forever with the Lord before these things took place.
 

Jackson123

Senior Member
Feb 6, 2014
10,838
1,201
113
#46
The “natural” man interprets scripture with human reasoning/intellect, whereas the “spiritual” man totally relies on the Holy Spirit to open the scriptures and give understanding.

The “spiritual” man does NOT go searching and reading every commentary they can find…instead, they just simply acknowledge their need for the Holy Spirit to teach them so that they can know the Truth.

The “spiritual” man brings ALL their questions to The Spirit of Truth who is the Holy Spirit - the Teacher, NOT man.
Even if we use human reasoning we believe miracle. If we christian
As a Christian we believe Jesus create human, mean He able to fix if He's creation sick, easy to Him
 
Oct 27, 2021
98
26
18
#47
If 99% of modern tongues is 'meaningless glossalalia' and the rest is genuine xenoglossic glossa lalien, then based on your won description above, aren't you lying? You have made some rather broad blanket statements.
No, you're assuming I said that all tongues are meaningless glossolalia, which I never said. Can you point to where I said that? I actually said that all the ones evaluated so far, and shown on youtube are all pseudo-languages. If they weren't, there would be translations of them. I'm still hoping I see some evidence of real tongues beyond peoples' claims. Can you at least show me a link to a youtube video of tongues (for example), where someone commented "hey, this is the ----- language." That could be very helpful.

Considering that, according to the Bible, 'divers tongues' is a genuine gift of the Spirit distributed as He wills, you need to leave some room in your belief system for the Spirit actually giving this gift to some individuals. Urban legends generally cannot be traced back to an individual source and verified as accurate. There are specific accounts of individuals speaking in tongues in known languages. I mentioned a documented at Concordia Seminary. I haven't gone to their library to check it out. But there are things to check out out there. If you were so inclined and had whatever time, effort and resources necessary, you could research the cases described in this article, which might be excerpts from a book:
https://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/Is...q2fPu-lz1aXUEnBdznUW468xu4Z36axSUg0qabw_ug0hE

I have met one of individuals in that article. I heard him preaching on the radio in the 1980's. I went to a Bible study led by a pastor who had gone to Asbury with Rutland. My dad knows him, probably not well, but has spoken to him a number of times.
The way these testimonies are written, simply matter-of-fact, without flowery language, and almost no religious jargon, they appear more credible than any other testimonies I've heard or read about.

I'd like to make some observations: firstly, they sound like sparse occasional miracles that God does actually do sometimes. That doesn't validate pseudo-language practiced regularly. Secondly, in the conclusion they make the typical assumption that the pseudo-language is unknown to anyone, quoting 1 Cor. 14:2 out of context. I understand that men are fallible, and people have their pet ideas.

How is not making room in your worldview for the Spirit doing something the scripture teach the Spirit does 'conservative'? Do you mean theologically conservative.
I mean strict interpretation, not interpreting based on experience. The way I see P/C interpretation is that they have to read their experience into the text. Because if the text is read and interpreted solely on textual observance, it conflicts with P/C experience and doctrine. Case in point: Paul makes it clear that not all speak in tongues, and yet P/Cs not only expect everyone to do it, it's in their dogma. "The baptism of the Holy Spirit with evidence of speaking in tongues" is not a Biblical teaching.

If eyewitness testimony does not fit your worldview, then it is just an 'urban legend'?
In 25 years of fellowship with P/Cs I've heard so many urban legends that weren't true, it still makes me sick thinking about it. Even some P/Cs acknowledge that 80% of prophecies never come true. Yes, I think it justifies calling them urban legends until proven otherwise.

First of all, if Jesus meant moving mountains as some kind of metaphor, what he said was quit possible. And talking about 'the history of mankind', look up the Egyptian Orthodox tradition of St. Simon the Shoemaker, who, according to their tradition, performed a miracle of moving the Mokkatam Mountain after the Calif threatened to wipe them out if they didn't move a mountain. There is at least a historical claim it happened.
Do you actually believe that happened? No, I don't think so. I think your argument is a straw man. God can do anything, so anything is possible. That doesn't make pseudo-language angelic or anything else having meaning.

As far as interpretation of the passage goes, it is very possible to give all to the poor and to give ones body to be burned. So insisting that just 'tongues of men and of angels'... or just the angels part is hyperbole gets no support from the context. It rests on the fact that the interpreter insists it must be hyperbole. This shows up in a list of mostly, if not all, possible 'extremes' that believer might do. Hand I think we would agree that speaking in tongues of men is possible. If you do not agree, just read this out loud.
Our paths diverge here. We aren't reading the text the same. Paul is not teaching the Corinthians to speak in tongues even of men, nor is he teaching them to speak in tongues of angels. He said "if" which is a logical argument. No, he is teaching them that they are wrong to practice tongues as they are. He's telling them shut up if there is no interpreter. He's telling them to love others by edifying them and stop being self-centered. This is what he is teaching. He is not teaching them that their tongues is angelic.

The concept of angelic languages also shows up in intertestamental literature, the Testament of Job. It might have another occurrence in the Dead Sea Scrolls but my memory is fuzzy on that point.
Like I said before, angelic languages is not random syllables with no language structure. To suggest so is unreasonable.

Do you think it is impossible to give all to the poor? Is it possible to allow oneself to be burned to death for sake of the gospel? I am thinking of the Christians Nero called 'human candles', and also of John Huss.
Something being possible doesn't make the norm. But the norm today is pseudo-language. Do you think that pseudo-language is possible?
 
Oct 27, 2021
98
26
18
#48
@TDidymas



Huh? How so?

You are the one making the broad assumptions and assertions about what God is not doing. We do not
And who is "we"?


A linguist might find some patterns, but there is no way to get vocabulary without some kind of context, for example someone speaking and pointing to something, some events going on to go with the spoken word, some translate text, some recognizable cognates? An Arabic speaker might get some context from a Hebrew speaker using a triliteral root that has a cognate in Arabic.

The Ancient Egyptian language in hieroglyphics was undecipherable without some context. The Rossetta Stone was discovered and this combined with the study of Coptic which had evolved from Ancient Egyptian. The hieroglyphics on the wall would have remained a mystery apart from some context to give meaning to the symbols. Sounds are similar in this regard.
This argument is not convincing. It was long before known that those languages were languages because they saw the patterns of it.

I am not sure what your concern is. I used familiar KJV language to refer to a specific verse. In the overall context of the epistle, speaking in these languages was a supernatural gift, not mere mundane speech.
It sounded to me like you were using the term to claim that pseudo-language was "divers tongues," as many P/Cs do. I was merely clarifying what the text actually means.

The Assemblies of God article has names of individuals who can be looked up and interviewed. I believe there may be a recent book containing these testimonies also. There was the 1971 book 'Spoken by the Spirit' but it has been so long, looking this up may be difficult. You could see if you could look up the case at the Concordia Seminary. You could also look at academic writing in the Pentecostal theology journals.

I would like to see some work done in social science journals. The irony would be with secular editors, the better your evidence, my guess is the less likely you would be to get published in a non-Christian peer reviewed situation. It can be hard enough to get published if a non-supernatural theory upsets the status quo to much.
Are you assuming that analysis would be done by non-Christians?

How do you know that? Isn't that a claim to near omniscience? As far as I know, there are just a few articles in academic journals that analyze speaking in tongues in this way. There might be some I am not aware of. There are also articles that are more along the lines of occult activity that deal with the topic of xenoglossy. This is not my area, but I have poked around Google scholar in the past.
It looks to me like you are not reading what I wrote objectively. Did I say all tongues? or did I say "all tongues analyzed"? Aren't you reading with bias to nitpick what I say?

Would you therefore conclude that speaking in tongues in Acts 2 was fake, because Samarin did not find evidence using his criteria that speaking in tongues in the sample set he used was not a genuine language?
Now you're grasping at straws. We're talking about what happens today, not 2000 years ago.

Your epistomological approach is similar to that of a New Atheist when it comes to evidence. If he had rejected spiritual gifts, he would be biased. If you have a worldview that allows for the Spirit to operate in these ways, then you do not reject the evidence. If someone speaks a language you do not recognize, that does not create a problem. The issue is whether he could hear and understand the language. If they let nonstudents and nonfaculty use the library, you could see if you can examine the information for yourself. Do you know Hebrew and Aramaic?
I disagree. I have that worldview. No, I don't know those languages (but I can tell when someone is speaking an actual language as opposed to gibberish). My problem is the prolific pseudo-languages spoken today, and claimed to be angelic just because it's mysterious.


I would not know enough about their curriculum to know if it is required. And I would be extremely surprised if they had all actually studied Aramaic enough to speak the language. In a university context, Aramaic might be offered to students who have had the full regular course of Hebrew classes. I could ask one of my in-laws, but hers was a five-year undergraduate program. I suspect there are plenty of seminary students who do not really know the Biblical languages, even after having had classes.
My pastor can translate Greek, and probably could Hebrew if given some time with it.

If you assume human languages only.... though Paul suggests angelic languages as a possibility... and trust the Linguists methodology and assume they have the specifics of 'universal grammar' all worked out, then that is a valid assumption. But I see a problem with at least one of those assumptions.
Can you articulate your problem?

But either way, you still have the same question. If some tongues are genuine... if indeed the Spirit gifts some members with 'divers tongues' as He wills as scripture teaches... and if some are fake, then you can still ask why God allows counterfeits.

You could also ask why God doesn't answer everyone's prayers the way they want or why there is false prophecy or why there is evil. There are many questions we could ask.
I don't believe that God allows His miracles to be buried under a mountain of counterfeit, just so the "elite few" can see the miracles. There is something wrong with the picture.

So what? It might convince one skeptic but not another. I saw a clip on Facebook where a guy says if God is real, he'll make it thunder in 3, 2, 1, thunder cracks. Atheists who saw that didn't believe in God. An atheist's grandmother could be miraculously healed in the name of Jesus, and if he is so inclined, he might still reject the gospel. There is a created world all around us testifying to the existence of the Creator, and skeptics are still skepticism.
The idea that you can't convince all skeptics doesn't justify failing to try. Even if one single skeptic is convinced, is that enough to do something?

And some people are extremely skeptical of spiritual gifts. Just our having the Bible and what it teaches should at least make us all open to the idea that God works in these ways, because it is Biblical.
Your term "these ways" appears vague. I'm not objecting to miracles. I'm objecting to calling pseudo-language a gift of the Spirit.
 
Oct 27, 2021
98
26
18
#49
That's a straw man and not what I was saying. Any language you do not know sounds like gibberish, but you might be able to recognize that it is a language. Acts does not say whether Peter understood the languages Cornelius and those with him spoke. But what language would they have spoken that Peter also know that they might not be able to have learned naturally, anyway? Hebrew might have been unlikely for them to have known, but Cornelius was a God-fearer, so maybe.




You have not proven all speaking in tongues to be fake, psychological gibberish, or whatever. Such a claim on the evidence you have presented or alluded to is illogical.
I don't have to prove it's all fake. I gave plenty of evidence that everything analyzed so far is pseudo-language. It's perfectly logical.


No, it is in the Bible. Anti-Pentecostals, cessationists, etc. are being unreasonable by ruling out the possibility of tongues of angels. Insisting that it _must_ be hyperbole appears to be a reactionary interpretation, reactionary against Pentecostalism, maybe even earlier movements.
No, I disagree. It's hyperbole.

I just pulled up a couple of ancient commentaries on the passage, both early 400's, from John Chrysostom and Ambrosiastor. Here is a quote from John Chrysostom:

John Chrysostom does not have a problem with angels having a language, just with the idea of their having physical tongues.

Ambrosiaster wrote,

Any language that you do not know that is not similar to one you know conveys no message to you. It will sound like gibberish to you. There are plenty of languages that sound like gibberish, certainly to the untrained ear. Try listening to Vietnamese or some of the click languages from Africa.
People are fallible.
 
Oct 27, 2021
98
26
18
#50
@TDidymas



Your conclusion is ridiculous and illogical. And I can tell you at least at the program I was trained at, we were cautioned against claiming we had 'proven' anything. A lot of the research I was trained made use of statistics, p-values, etc. You present evidence against a certain statistical standard, but it is not 'proof.'

If Samarin was not able to find patterns of human language he was looking at in a sample of 100, the problem could be a large number of cases of speaking in tongues are not genuine, or it could be that he was trying to find patterns of human language in angelic tongues, or there could be a problem with his methodology. It is not evidence that the Spirit never gifts individuals to speak in tongues, including in real human languages.

What you should be looking at is cases of genuine tongues in human languages to see if it occurs, not looking at cases where the researcher found no evidence... that is if your research question has to do with whether tongues as human languages occurs at all, as opposed to something else.

I am also curious as to whether you really paid $470 for that book. Have you ever posted your own Amazon affiliate link in a conversation like this. :) It was over $100 at a used site. I would definitely be considering interlibrary loan or something similar if I were to read this book.
I bought the book used about 5 years ago. It could be in a library.

But I disagree that my conclusion is illogical or ridiculous. It seems to me that 10 million cessationists in the US would heartily agree with it. And I didn't say it was proof. I said it's the only reasonable conclusion that can be made, if you're objective.
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
7,060
1,100
113
#51
Yes i know where the verse comes from and i can see what you are getting at. Here is the whole verse : 1 Thessalonians 5:
9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ.
We both agree with this verse , yes ?
God's wrath will be poured out on the unbeleiving world during the great tribulation that doesnt mean no one can be saved. Actually many will be saved out of it, they shall be as the sand of the sea shore for multitude.
John was puzzled " who are these standing before the throne ?"
" these are they that have come out of the great tribulation...."
I beleive also that they have not taken the mark of the beast nor have bowed down and worshipped his image. They will enter into the millennial reighn of Christ to repopulate the world.
This has nothing to do with the bride of Christ for they were raptured or snatched away in the twinklimg of an eye to be forever with the Lord before these things took place.
Will God's wrath be against the tribulational saints?

Consider these words in Revelation 7

13 And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they?
14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
15 Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them.
16 They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat.

Are these saints 'appointed unto wrath' or to 'obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ'?
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
7,060
1,100
113
#52
I bought the book used about 5 years ago. It could be in a library.

But I disagree that my conclusion is illogical or ridiculous. It seems to me that 10 million cessationists in the US would heartily agree with it. And I didn't say it was proof. I said it's the only reasonable conclusion that can be made, if you're objective.
Personally, between what I have read and people I have spoken with and testimony I have heard, there are probably 20 testimonies to having heard tongues in one's language or having a tongue one spoken in as a language. I know of about 150 other recorded accounts in books I have not read yet. There is a lot of evidence.

One example of it proves it. A linguists sample does not. Why would you think his sample is representative anyway?
 

Jackson123

Senior Member
Feb 6, 2014
10,838
1,201
113
#53
Will God's wrath be against the tribulational saints?

Consider these words in Revelation 7

13 And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they?
14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
15 Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them.
16 They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat.

Are these saints 'appointed unto wrath' or to 'obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ'?
I believe those saint there during great tribulation, some ace killed by the antichrist some jailed. That is why verse 14 say that out from great tribulation.
Say I am out from Mexico, mean was in Mexico
God not wrath to them, great tribulation is not wrath of God. May be wrath of God happen after great tribulation.
Antichrist make a war with saint first and according rev 13 he win than God wrath
 

lawrence101

Active member
Jan 25, 2019
236
70
28
canada
#54
Will God's wrath be against the tribulational saints?

Are these saints 'appointed unto wrath' or to 'obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ'?
OK two questions ? the answer to the first , No i wouldn't say so, i'm sure God would have no trouble avoiding judgment on them , after they repented during the tribulation ( they washed their robes ).

As to the second question im not sure what your getting at, it appears to be just another form of the first question ?
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
7,060
1,100
113
#55
God not wrath to them, great tribulation is not wrath of God.
If the saints in the Great Tribulation are not appointed unto wrath then, 'Not appointed unto wrath' is not an argument that the rapture occurs before the tribulation.
 

kaylagrl

Senior Member
Oct 18, 2014
17,706
4,975
113
#56
Finished the movie finally.

I can see those claiming that which is perfect has come to mean completion of Scripture, has completely forgotten and missed out, the end of Scripture ends when all Prophecy has been fulfilled. Scripture is completed when every Prophecy has been fulfilled. Sad to believe that Leaders in the Church, False Prophets, could make a bold statement like the completion of Scripture, and CHOOSE to ignore that Prophecy within the Scripture had not ended.

Evidently, the False Teachers must be full blown preterist. They are the only ones who believe in such garbage.

Has the Second Coming happened?
Has the Day of White Throne Judgement happened?
Has this Earth passed away for a New Jerusalem?
Has the Beast made its appearance?
Has the Mark of the Beast been issued?
There are over 30 major prophecies left. But those False Teachers are claiming the Scriptures have been Complete?

They twist it all into one Scripture, when the perfect has come. Nothing is perfect down here yet. The subject is not tongues, the subject is love, everything else will pass away in the future, but love. There is nothing that says tongues ended on a certain day or time. They are simply assuming based off what someone else had told them. Then they go on and claim it's fake or demon power.
 

kaylagrl

Senior Member
Oct 18, 2014
17,706
4,975
113
#57
If Completion has come, why are we fulfilling Daniel's Prophecy that Knowledge will be Increased?

The Verse used to claim Tongues has Ceased also mentions Knowledge will Vanish Away.

Has Knowledge Vanished?
Absolutely Not!
If Knowledge is more prevalent Today and Increased, how can Tongues be Ceased?

The Ignorance is "Real" towards those misinterpreting, Perfect has Come, to mean the Bible is completed and Written!

Exactly, what does Paul say? Forbid not!!
 

Heaven_Bound

Active member
Dec 29, 2021
866
195
43
#58
They twist it all into one Scripture, when the perfect has come. Nothing is perfect down here yet. The subject is not tongues, the subject is love, everything else will pass away in the future, but love. There is nothing that says tongues ended on a certain day or time. They are simply assuming based off what someone else had told them. Then they go on and claim it's fake or demon power.
Amen!
 

kaylagrl

Senior Member
Oct 18, 2014
17,706
4,975
113
#60
I personally believe miracle still happen but the greates gift is love 1 cor 13
In my experience deal with charismatic people, too me they don't have love, they love to the rich and act like rich, the preacher drive expensive car to demonstrate God bless them.
If they love the poor why drive $100000 car why not regular car and have enough to help to the poor

Very unfair comment from you. How many people do you personally know? You're talking about televangelists. There are a whole lot more charismatic/ Pentecostals than that.