Speaking in tongues

[garee]

That there sums up today's world.

Of course his response doesn't address anything you said. People today are trained not to read with the intent of listening, but with the intent to respond - 99% of the time with something they intended to say before they even glanced at your missive. Discussion is of no avail, that's why I'm mostly a lurker here. Take in what I can, but as far as wasting my time saying something no one cares to hear, (like this I'm sure ), it's just that. I told myself a couple years ago that I wouldn't carry an exchange with somebody for more than 3 exchanges, unless there was something special going on. That's why I don't talk with many here these days.

Proofread. Ha. You must be 50 or more. Phonics pretty much killed off grammar and spelling, and technology pretty much killed off the desire to care ... or to focus long enough. Brining, bringing, wtdiatsaw.

People scare me, even Christians these days.

Perhaps you would like to address it?

LOL Focus long enough to what? Hear the word of God, prophecy?

 

[Dino246]

Yet those who claim to speak in tongues are not held to any reasonable standard. Who could have figured? You will never accept any case that corrects your position on tongues.

Two fallacies: tu quoque and ad hominem. Do some homework, get some integrity, and stop trying to make this personal.

Personal? Really you want to go there? Nothing fallacious in what I have stated. You are the one accusing on the personal level.

When someone makes a criticism of your position, and you respond by asserting that a third party does something "worse", you are employing a tu quoque fallacy. It is an attempt to throw attention off your position.

When you make a comment like, "You will never ... " you are attacking the person, not the argument. That is the essence of an ad hominem fallacy.

So yes, there are fallacious things in your post. Perhaps you don't understand the term adequately?

As for "personal attacks", I have not attacked you personally; I have no interest in doing so. I question and criticize your position and your views, but that is not attacking you.

The reason Paul uses will cease is that the NT was not completed when he wrote to the Corinthians. Less than fifty years later John completed the Revelation and the apostolic era was drawing to a close.

Yet another unfounded assertion on Paul's motivations, not based on anything actually in the Bible. Get some evidence.

I know simple observations are too simple. Historical evidence supports the contention that John wrote Revelation about fifty years after Paul wrote Corinthians.

I addressed Paul's writing, not John's, and I said nothing contradictory about historical facts. Your comment is therefore irrelevant.

 

[Dino246]

Don't give up Rickyz, I understand in these days the good will get better, the bad will get worse, we are charged with "wearing well to the end".
The sheep are being separated from the goats.

While I can have a chuckle at your post, I honestly don't think it helps anything. I don't doubt that Roger and Garee are Christians. I just strongly disagree with their position on this matter, as they do with mine. When we are discussing a secondary doctrine, and start suggesting that our position on this matter determines our eternal spiritual status, it adds unnecessary heat to the conversation.

 

[Dino246]

That there sums up today's world.

Of course his response doesn't address anything you said. People today are trained not to read with the intent of listening, but with the intent to respond - 99% of the time with something they intended to say before they even glanced at your missive. Discussion is of no avail, that's why I'm mostly a lurker here. Take in what I can, but as far as wasting my time saying something no one cares to hear, (like this I'm sure ), it's just that. I told myself a couple years ago that I wouldn't carry an exchange with somebody for more than 3 exchanges, unless there was something special going on. That's why I don't talk with many here these days.

Proofread. Ha. You must be 50 or more. Phonics pretty much killed off grammar and spelling, and technology pretty much killed off the desire to care ... or to focus long enough. Brining, bringing, wtdiatsaw.

People scare me, even Christians these days.

I hear you. I can usually decipher Garee's posts, and I don't think he is being intentionally obtuse. I'm just asking him to try to write better. I'm under 50 but was raised by a very bright English major.

As for discussing/debating, I have no problem continuing a conversation as long as the other party is being respectful. If it goes south, I usually find something more interesting to do.

 

[garee]

While I can have a chuckle at your post, I honestly don't think it helps anything. I don't doubt that Roger and Garee are Christians. I just strongly disagree with their position on this matter, as they do with mine. When we are discussing a secondary doctrine, and start suggesting that our position on this matter determines our eternal spiritual status, it adds unnecessary heat to the conversation.

Now you can see into the hearts of others?

LOL. nothing personal. I think you are more educated than I am. I have respect for you and your opinions.

How much heat is needed to cleanse away the impurities with prophecy? Do the parables as prophecy that hide the spiritual understanding from the lost, cause any heat?

I was reminded of a parable in Revelation 3

Some believers like it lukewarm like I enjoy my coffee with a little half and half . I am careful, to cold I spue it out, or to Hot.

I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. Revelation 3:15-16

 

[Dino246]

Now you can see into the hearts of others?

Please explain how you read that I claim to "see into the hearts of others" in my post.

 

[notuptome]

When someone makes a criticism of your position, and you respond by asserting that a third party does something "worse", you are employing a tu quoque fallacy. It is an attempt to throw attention off your position.

When you make a comment like, "You will never ... " you are attacking the person, not the argument. That is the essence of an ad hominem fallacy.

So yes, there are fallacious things in your post. Perhaps you don't understand the term adequately?

As for "personal attacks", I have not attacked you personally; I have no interest in doing so. I question and criticize your position and your views, but that is not attacking you.

Perhaps you could be so circumspect with how you handle the word of God then you would not argue to support a behavior that is not biblical. Since you make the argument it is not an attack to associate the author with the post unless of course you are citing a third party source.

I addressed Paul's writing, not John's, and I said nothing contradictory about historical facts. Your comment is therefore irrelevant.

I will attribute sufficient intellect to you as to not accuse you of being obtuse. Of course you must take all of the bible into the context. Corinthians does not exist in a vacuum. The same Holy Spirit moved both men to write what they wrote. The same Holy Spirit who guided Paul's hand and mind knew what John was going to write and how the two would compliment and complete each other.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[garee]

Please explain how you read that I claim to "see into the hearts of others" in my post.

Sorry, I mis-read what you wrote. Hope you can forgive.

 

[Dino246]

Sorry, I mis-read what you wrote. Hope you can forgive.

I forgive you. I've made that mistake before.

 

[Dino246]

Perhaps you could be so circumspect with how you handle the word of God then you would not argue to support a behavior that is not biblical.

It's a very long stretch to suggest that "speaking in tongues" is not biblical.

Since you make the argument it is not an attack to associate the author with the post unless of course you are citing a third party source.

I honestly don't know what you're trying to say here.

Of course you must take all of the bible into the context. Corinthians does not exist in a vacuum. The same Holy Spirit moved both men to write what they wrote. The same Holy Spirit who guided Paul's hand and mind knew what John was going to write and how the two would compliment and complete each other.

Agreed; however, I still don't agree that Paul's words in 1 Cor 13 were about the completion of the canon. Why would "the same Spirit" guide Paul to admonish the Corinthians to "eagerly desire to prophesy", knowing that none of them would "speak Scripture into existence" and that Paul's words would still be read two thousand years later? That just doesn't follow.

 

[notuptome]

It's a very long stretch to suggest that "speaking in tongues" is not biblical.

Well that's more of a wish than a reality. Tongues never were for Gentiles but they had to end that hearing the word of God would be the basis for grace which produces salvation.

I honestly don't know what you're trying to say here.

Hyper sensitivity or taking everything as a personal attack.

Agreed; however, I still don't agree that Paul's words in 1 Cor 13 were about the completion of the canon. Why would "the same Spirit" guide Paul to admonish the Corinthians to "eagerly desire to prophesy", knowing that none of them would "speak Scripture into existence" and that Paul's words would still be read two thousand years later? That just doesn't follow.

This is clearly a misinterpretation of scripture. Prophecy of speaking scripture into existence is not what Paul is desiring in the Corinthian believers. Prophecy that Paul is desiring in the Corinthian believers is that they should speak forth the word of God declaring Jesus as Messiah from the existing scriptures and recounting the first hand accounts of the apostles. The Holy Spirit produces faith from the hearing of Gods word according to Romans 10 and 1 Cor 1.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[garee]

It's a very long stretch to suggest that "speaking in tongues" is not biblical.



I honestly don't know what you're trying to say here.



Agreed; however, I still don't agree that Paul's words in 1 Cor 13 were about the completion of the canon. Why would "the same Spirit" guide Paul to admonish the Corinthians to "eagerly desire to prophesy", knowing that none of them would "speak Scripture into existence" and that Paul's words would still be read two thousand years later? That just doesn't follow.

To prophesy is to declare prophecy, the word of God. When we offer the gospel we are prophesying. His word is living .Do we need more than he has given?

During the 400 year silent period between the old and the New testament many believed so . Catholicism has a different cannon more books or chapters of the whole or perfect. They are still adding with what they call private interpretation .

 

[Dino246]

Well that's more of a wish than a reality. Tongues never were for Gentiles but they had to end that hearing the word of God would be the basis for grace which produces salvation.

"Hearing the word of God" was "the basis for grace which produces salvation" in Paul's time, when he wrote to the Corinthians. Nothing has changed other than that the initial set of apostles have died. So once again, your reasoning for tongues ending is... unreasonable.

Hyper sensitivity or taking everything as a personal attack.

Are you accusing me of that?

This is clearly a misinterpretation of scripture. Prophecy of speaking scripture into existence is not what Paul is desiring in the Corinthian believers. Prophecy that Paul is desiring in the Corinthian believers is that they should speak forth the word of God declaring Jesus as Messiah from the existing scriptures and recounting the first hand accounts of the apostles. The Holy Spirit produces faith from the hearing of Gods word according to Romans 10 and 1 Cor 1.

To the bolded part, is that what Agabus was doing? Um, no.

 

[Dino246]

To prophesy is to declare prophecy, the word of God. When we offer the gospel we are prophesying. His word is living .Do we need more than he has given?

If this is so, then prophesying is not a gift of the Spirit, for all are called to share the gospel, but not all prophesy.

 

[notuptome]

"Hearing the word of God" was "the basis for grace which produces salvation" in Paul's time, when he wrote to the Corinthians. Nothing has changed other than that the initial set of apostles have died. So once again, your reasoning for tongues ending is... unreasonable.

Unreasonable is continuing in a behavior which is not biblical. There have been titanic changes in the church since the first century. The church today is primarily Gentile. In the apostolic era it was mostly Jewish. Tongues have always been for Jews not Gentiles. That has not changed.

Are you accusing me of that?

I don't know are you guilty?

To the bolded part, is that what Agabus was doing? Um, no.

Something that is no longer done today. Joel does say that it will return at the end of the tribulation but the tribulation is a Jewish event and not aimed at the Gentiles.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[notuptome]

If this is so, then prophesying is not a gift of the Spirit, for all are called to share the gospel, but not all prophesy.

Those who prophecy today are those who preach the gospel. It certainly is a gift and so are those whom the Lord gifts to the church to be preachers and evangelists. You are able to witness and testify of what Christ has done for you when He saved your soul. You may not have the gift to prophecy to the church assembly and to teach but you can and ought to witness to the gospel in your life.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Dino246]

Those who prophecy today are those who preach the gospel. It certainly is a gift and so are those whom the Lord gifts to the church to be preachers and evangelists. You are able to witness and testify of what Christ has done for you when He saved your soul. You may not have the gift to prophecy to the church assembly and to teach but you can and ought to witness to the gospel in your life.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

"Evangelist" is a gift listed in Scripture. "Preacher" is not. Almost anyone can learn to craft and deliver a good message. Prophecy only comes about by the Holy Spirit. Paul tells Timothy to "preach the gospel; be ready in season and out of season". You can't prophesy whenever you feel like it or whenever there is an audience. Preaching today is not equivalent to prophesying in the NT. If you think it is, you must account for Agabus.

 

[Dino246]

I don't know are you guilty?

That's cowardly. Man up and either make an accusation or drop the innuendo.

 

[notuptome]

"Evangelist" is a gift listed in Scripture. "Preacher" is not. Almost anyone can learn to craft and deliver a good message. Prophecy only comes about by the Holy Spirit. Paul tells Timothy to "preach the gospel; be ready in season and out of season". You can't prophesy whenever you feel like it or whenever there is an audience. Preaching today is not equivalent to prophesying in the NT. If you think it is, you must account for Agabus.

Agabus was a special event limited to the apostolic era. You are endeavoring to create a scriptural foundation for a behavior that is not yours to begin with. We are not in the apostolic era and we do not seek signs such as is seen in Agabus. To do so is to invite all kinds of heresy.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[notuptome]

That's cowardly. Man up and either make an accusation or drop the innuendo.

Only in your opinion. There are always more than one way to read a response. Personal bias often leads to conflicts.

For the cause of Christ
Roger