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

[kaylagrl]

There's nothing miraculous about modern gibberish; anyone can do it. It doesn't require a miracle, just open your mouth and start speaking nonsense.

Yes YOU could do that, that's proof of nothing. You're entitled to your opinion, that's all it is.

 

[peldom10]

Copeland, Dollar, Duplantis, Meyers, Haggee, Osteen, students of Oral roberts. i use to listen to these preachers all of the time, they have even helped me in my faith. i don't listen to them much any more. oral roberts was even a guest at a church i use to attend, i couldn't believe the security they had at the church. thought to myself where is the faith now? why all the security? Just wanted to say these teachers have helped me along the way.

Yep...they are all big money makers.

Copeland just recently bought himself another jet....$19 million dollar jet. Has 3 if I remember.
Check here;

https://www.christianpost.com/news/...seeks-19-5m-for-upgrades-and-maintenance.html



https://www.huffpost.com/entry/kenneth-copeland-jet-inside-edition_n_5cf822fee4b0e63eda94de4f



https://www.barstoolsports.com/blog...ecause-commercial-airlines-are-full-of-demons



Unreal!!!!!

 

[kaylagrl]

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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


Like I said before, angelic languages is not random syllables with no language structure. To suggest so is unreasonable.


Something being possible doesn't make the norm. But the norm today is pseudo-language. Do you think that pseudo-language is possible?

All the ones on Youtube, still cracks me up.

 

[peldom10]

...timed out...
Osteen is worse yet.

 

[presidente]

Yep...they are all big money makers.

Copeland just recently bought himself another jet....$19 million dollar jet. Has 3 if I remember.
Check here;

https://www.christianpost.com/news/...seeks-19-5m-for-upgrades-and-maintenance.html



https://www.huffpost.com/entry/kenneth-copeland-jet-inside-edition_n_5cf822fee4b0e63eda94de4f



https://www.barstoolsports.com/blog...ecause-commercial-airlines-are-full-of-demons



Unreal!!!!!

There are many aspects of Copeland's teachings that I do not agree with and some things that are quite alarming to me. I cN harfly stand to watch him for more than a minute if I try.

But he is also apparently a petroleum (gas) billionaire. So some of this wealth that buys these things and pays to kerp him on the air so much.

 

[Jackson123]

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.

I believe rapture after tribulation

 

[Jackson123]

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.

I don't personally know televangelist, but I know some ex friend that involve in charismatic. When they make revival meeting, I remember they use expensive building it was full no more sit in the back, so I try to find empty sit, it was in front sit, the elder not let me, I was think because for the sick so I go back to stand, but then I know that sit are for the rich, to me it is discrimination, not first come first serve

 

[kaylagrl]

I don't personally know televangelist, but I know some ex friend that involve in charismatic. When they make revival meeting, I remember they use expensive building it was full no more sit in the back, so I try to find empty sit, it was in front sit, the elder not let me, I was think because for the sick so I go back to stand, but then I know that sit are for the rich, to me it is discrimination, not first come first serve

Yes, you had a bad experience, that doesn't mean everyone is the same way. I don't know what country you live in. Here in US there are over 10 million Pentecostals. I've personally been in hundreds of churches. Some were wonderful, some were very bad. I don't hold all Baptists responsible for a bad church I might attend.

 

[presidente]

I don't personally know televangelist, but I know some ex friend that involve in charismatic. When they make revival meeting, I remember they use expensive building it was full no more sit in the back, so I try to find empty sit, it was in front sit, the elder not let me, I was think because for the sick so I go back to stand, but then I know that sit are for the rich, to me it is discrimination, not first come first serve

That doesn't sit well with me, thinking of James 2. I wonder if you interpreted that correctly though. In some countries the pastor and his family sit in the very front and I think some churches reserve space for the music team when they get off the stage.

 

[ResidentAlien]

That is about as shallow an assessment as you can get. But since that's your take, perhaps you should write another similar book and make some money.

No, it's not shallow at all, it's the truth.

For example, I recently made the mistake of reading David Jeremiah's The Book of Signs (please don't waste your time or money). In his chapter on the rapture, pg. 160, he says:

"Finally, in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18—Paul's main passage on the Rapture—he affirmed its selectivity in triplicate."​

​

First of all, this isn't Paul's main passage on the rapture, at least in Thessalonians. That would be 2 Thessalonians 2. But Jeremiah doesn't even mention 2 Thessalonians! The reason for this is obvious: it blows a big hole in the pre-tribulation rapture idea. Jeremiah knows about 2 Thessalonians 2; he intentionally omitted it.

Throughout, he quotes other pre-tribulationist authors. This is what they do. They support each other in their books to up sales. The pre-tribulation rapture is a big market and they know it. That's why they write books in favor of it.

 

[Jackson123]

No, it's not shallow at all, it's the truth.

For example, I recently made the mistake of reading David Jeremiah's The Book of Signs (please don't waste your time or money). In his chapter on the rapture, pg. 160, he says:

"Finally, in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18—Paul's main passage on the Rapture—he affirmed its selectivity in triplicate."​

​

First of all, this isn't Paul's main passage on the rapture, at least in Thessalonians. That would be 2 Thessalonians 2. But Jeremiah doesn't even mention 2 Thessalonians! The reason for this is obvious: it blows a big hole in the pre-tribulation rapture idea. Jeremiah knows about 2 Thessalonians 2; he intentionally omitted it.

Throughout, he quotes other pre-tribulationist authors. This is what they do. They support each other in their books to up sales. The pre-tribulation rapture is a big market and they know it. That's why they write books in favor of it.

Yep, bible base doctrine not book by man base.

 

[Jackson123]

I do believe Thessalonians's talking about rapture but not pre trib, it is pos tribe, some say that pos trib is only for Jews, but it is Paul wrote to gentile church, Thessalonians's is gentile church.

 

[TDidymas]

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?

If you read his book, you'll see why there is a difference between language and pseudo-language. I suppose that he asked questions like an investigator, because lots of people helped him with recordings.

So out of 170 accounts you're talking about, is there enough evidence that would pass muster in any of them? That's the key question, and why only that many and not many more? If it is as common and prolific as P/Cs claim that it is and should be, there should be thousands or tens of thousands of cases. But if the vast majority is pseudo-language, then it still proves my point.

 

[SophieT]

I think there is Chaos in several Movements.

One Movement has taken the English Translation of Proverbs 4:4 The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil, and turned that into God made people specifically for Hell.

But, when you look at the Actual Hebrew from the Tanakh, 4 The Lord made everything for His praise-even the wicked man for the day of evil, you clearly see that even on the Day of Judgement, the Wicked will PRAISE GOD/ACKNOWLEDGE God, because His sole Purpose was for His Creation to Praise Him.

And for those who think God created Both Saint and Fuel for Hell, they gain this misinformation from a man whose Character is well known for things No True Example of God would ever have been.

my observation when someone comes out a Calvinist, is that they appear to share the same attitude as Calvin...distain and superiority and will take no exception from anyone...they alone have the truth and the rest of us are lucky to be saved if we actually are saved

this attitude does not appear in every Calvinist but when it does, it is hurtful to others and attempts to take precedence over others with a lack of discussion but rather a false belief in God somehow favoring them above all others ... they are THE chosen afterall

there have been plenty of discussions with regards to Calvinism in this forum and some of them quite heated...with people being banned

 

[SophieT]

IMO the debate between cessationism and continuationism doesn't get anywhere because it doesn't address the heart of the issue. The real issue is the nature of tongues, and the fact that modern tongues is not the same thing as NT tongues. Every time I try to get some P/C to submit their tongues for evaluation, the response is always evasion and hostility. This tells me that I'm poking the heart of the issue. Because all modern P/C tongues that have been evaluated have been found to be a pseudo-language. It sounds like a language, but has no structure or sufficient vocabulary to convey meaning, therefore it is called a false language.

pardon for my quoting only a paragraph of your post. I did read the rest of your post but just want to comment on the above

what you and others miss is the different use of tongues in scripture and the fact that tongues are both a gift and a sign

tongues are also for private use...Paul states praying in tongues edifies the one doing so

the response to questions such as the one in your paragraph, are ALWAYS answered but said answers are often just stepped over with the responder relegated to a nuisance

the heart of the issue is not tongues or those who are blessed with the actual blessing of God, but rather those who interpret certain passages of scripture to suit their own pre-conceived thoughts and or teaching. All so called modern tongues have not been evaluated.

you can call tongues whatever you want, but don't cross the line like MacArthur and state all who speak in tongues do so by a demonic spirit

your report of the response you say you receive from those who speak in tongues is not factual. we have many threads on tongues here and perhaps avail yourself of some by using the search feature. you will see that people have been long in patience responding to people like yourself who desire to negate what they think is not of God

 

[Nehemiah6]

First of all, this isn't Paul's main passage on the rapture, at least in Thessalonians. That would be 2 Thessalonians 2.

2 Thessalonians is not about the Rapture but about the Antichrist. So why would anyone reference that passage?

 

[SophieT]

Because Biblical tongues were languages that people understood. It means what the apostles spoke actually had structure and vocabulary that conveyed meaning. It is the meaning conveyed that proved the miraculous nature of it, and so Peter could say that the house of Cornelius had received the Spirit in the same way they did. In all cases it says they spoke in tongues and prophesied. There might be different ways to surmise what that means, but I think the best idea is that they all spoke in tongues, and their tongues were prophecies that were understood by the apostles. Therefore, the pattern follows the Biblical precedent, that all mentions of tongues in the NT are the same kind that was manifested in Acts 2. If you study it carefully, I think you'll see that this fits all cases, including 1 Cor. 14. And to claim that the gibberish spoken today is described in 1 Cor. 14 is to wrongly apply the text.

brief response here just to state what you say above is not factual

Paul first corrected the misuse of tongues in the Corinthian church (and tongues was far from the only item needing correction) BUT did he say stop it just stop it you are all just blabbering around? NO he did not. rather, he said this:

14 Follow the way of love and eagerly desire gifts of the Spirit, especially prophecy. 2 For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit. 3 But the one who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouraging and comfort. 4 Anyone who speaks in a tongue edifies themselves, but the one who prophesies edifies the church. 5 I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be edified.

Paul speaks of UNKNOWN languages that are identified as mysteries by the Spirit (of God). He say they are NOT speaking to people...as identified in the book of Acts

Paul says he would have everyone speak in tongues and states he does so more than anyone. do we read of Paul on his missionary journeys speaking in tongues to the people he preached to? no we do not because that was not the norm for preaching the gospel in the beginning of the church...yet it seems you and those with whom you agree, would have all tongues be as they were on the day of Pentecost and there is nothing in scripture to suggest that is so

so Paul is referring to the use of tongues in prayer...for the individual believer...in prayer, to edify and build up

don't ignore the above. this is actually the basic and most common use of tongues for the believer

and of course, we have tongues in church given for the edification of all gathered but if there is no interpreter, then no one should be speaking in tongues out loud

so there is an answer for you... no anger or dismissal and this type of response you will find in many threads but those who do not accept what is plainly taught in the Bible seem to just gloss it over and repeat ad infinitum. that all tongues should be interpreted and further. should be known languages only

the above short passage states otherwise and indicates a very different reality


do people abuse tongues? yes they do. not all that much has changed from when Paul corrected the Corinthians, but the other side of the coin, is often an appearance of godliness but without the power given by God to make it acceptable before Him. work that is done in the flesh is not acceptable to God, no matter how glorious it might appear to those who do not seem able to grasp that truth

 

[peldom10]

There are many aspects of Copeland's teachings that I do not agree with and some things that are quite alarming to me. I cN harfly stand to watch him for more than a minute if I try.

But he is also apparently a petroleum (gas) billionaire. So some of this wealth that buys these things and pays to kerp him on the air so much.

Don't try to justify him. He got the money for the oil wells from church. That makes it worse. They said he paid for it with church money.
I can't stand to see or hear him. Yuk.

 

[presidente]

Don't try to justify him. He got the money for the oil wells from church. That makes it worse. They said he paid for it with church money.
I can't stand to see or hear him. Yuk.

I had not read anything about it. I thought it was gas, though, not oil.

 

[presidente]

If you read his book, you'll see why there is a difference between language and pseudo-language. I suppose that he asked questions like an investigator, because lots of people helped him with recordings.

So out of 170 accounts you're talking about, is there enough evidence that would pass muster in any of them? That's the key question, and why only that many and not many more? If it is as common and prolific as P/Cs claim that it is and should be, there should be thousands or tens of thousands of cases. But if the vast majority is pseudo-language, then it still proves my point.

All I have seen of Samarin are academic articles. I have had a look at a few of them in the past few days. I have not read his book that you refer to. Looking at this article from Samarin, https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/69110/1/The linguisticality of glossolalia.pdf

it would seem unlikely that Samarin was analyzing these samples to determine if they were real languages, but would assume they were not real languages and analyze them for what he thought were characteristics of glossalalia. Samarin even rights that xenoglossia, speaking in real languages one does not know, is not of interests to linguists unless it is a dead language, which would allow linguists to know the pronunciation of ancient languages. His paper makes it sound like his focus was different from what you seem to be arguing for. is the book different?

And for Samarin, 'glossalalia' does not mean what the component parts of the word mean in the text of the New Testament. For Samarin, 'glossa' is not a language like it is in scripture, but a kind of regressive speech. 'Glossalalia' is made from words that show up in Acts 2 and I Corinthians 14, but in the jargon used in this subset of sociolinguistics.

For me the more interesting experiment would be to take samples of speaking in tongues and samples of naturally spoken not-well-known human languages and have linguists analyze both and determine which ones are just examples of natural speech. I think taking that sound at least superficially like human languages to include in the samples of speaking in tongues would be appropriate. Also, the natural language samples could be taken from people praying from the same faith-communities the 'tongues' samples were taken from. This might produce two samples with similarities of tone and style.