Tongues Again???

[presidente]

I think she meant, "potentially can be". I documented in my personal, lengthy study of Charismatic Tongues; where two incidences, a couple decades apart, happened when a lady in the Charismatic Congregation, (one was the wife of that Church's Pastor), were actually cursing at someone else in attendance, in a rare foreign language that the Hearer had learned years before. One was a rare African language, heard by a guest missionary that had worked with that tribe, and the other was a rare native american language from a small, remote village in the mountains in the southwest part of the USA; and the hearer was a Forestry Service worker, who has spent a couple years with that tribe, on a lengthy Forestry Service project. In both cases NO ONE in those two Congregations would believe that is what had happened, INCLUDING the Pastors themselves when the incidence was reported.

I had read an article by Dennis Balchome has preached throughout Chinathroughout the years from his base in China. He said he'd heard Chinese villagers speak in English when they spoke in tongues. His daughter sang at a church I attended. Her husband, a pastor in Hong Kong, preached. I spoke to Dennis Balchome's daughter and mentioned reading this in an article he wrote. She said she'd seen it herself.

She said she saw an elderly Chinese village woman speak in tongues in English. I asked her what she said. She said it was a psalm. I said 'Which one?' She said she didn't know if it was one of the Psalms out of the Bible, but it sounded like that.

I also knew (now deceased) missionary who believed in speaking in tongues who was a missionary to the Navajo, but did other Native American missions work. He was preaching to the Cherokee, and he said he had a very strong urge to speak in tongues and he did it. But it wasn't interpreted. Afterwards, people in the meeting asked him how he had learned to speak their language so well. He had rebuked some youths that were planning some mischief. I can't remember if, on this occasion, it was fire crackers under the stage or cutting tent cords. But what he had spoke in tongues was in their language directed at them.

I know of four of five accounts of people speaking in tongues that someone else present understood at the Azusa Street revival, also, and another at a meeting at a different location around that time. There was also an article on the Pneuma Review website which mentions a documented case of speaking in tongues housed at the library of a Lutheran seminary which is not Charismatic.

Jack Heyford, an LA pastor, had an experience where he spoke in tongues on an airplane to an American Indian man who worked in academia who had refused some apologetics type literature and a Bible he wanted to mail to him. He spoke in tongues in a dialect that he said his language derived from about 'light coming down from above'. After hearing these words in his own language, he agreed to accept some literature.

'Spoken by the Spirit'--I forget the subtitle-- by Paul Harris was once online for free through an, IMO, non-user friendly interface. It was a book from 1971 that documented a number of cases from Assemblies of God missionaries and the early Charismatic movement of people understanding speaking in tongues in their own languages. Since it's an older resource, it might not be a good starting point for researching cases oneself, but it is worth reading if one is going to make assertions based on this type of evidence.

You might find cases of demonic speaking in tongues. Considering what the Bible teaches about demons, we should expect fake demonic tongues to be possible. At the least, demons should be able to speak through people in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. But that was possible in the first century and did not make Christian speaking in tongues in the first century false. And the fact that demons may have this ability does not make modern speaking in tongues false, either. Your evidence is not evidence that all speaking in tongues if false. It is evidence that there may be false tongues.

You have to look at the cases of speaking in tongues that aided evangelism, praised God, prayed prayers and gave praises to God, and things of that sort, if you want to examine the evidence.

That was also one of the problems the Corinthian Church was having with counterfeit tongues sneaking it's way into the Church. AND STILL today, Charismatics REFUSE it really happened:

Can you show us which verses you think demonstrate that?

You repeated earlier the idea, if I recall correctly, that singular 'tongue' is fake and plural is real. But Paul commands the Corinthians to interpret the singular 'tongue' in I Corinthians 14:28. He said he spoke in tongues, plural.

Liberals who don't actually believe the details of the text the way we do started these types of theories about the tongues in Corinth being pagan. They prefer to look at cultural historical explanations to the exclusion of supernatural ones.

There were prophets of false gods mentioned in the Old Testament. That doesn't make the Biblical prophets wrong. There are pagans who claimed to do miracles. That doesn't mean Moses', Elisha's, or Jesus' miracles were in the same category. A demon might be able to speaks in a foreign language through people, or there may be chanting or gibberish in certain pagan religious practices. This does not mean that there is no genuine gift of the Spirit.

It's the same thing the liberals do when they say pagan culture had practice X, therefore this reference in the Old Testament was just the same sort of thing.

 

[peacefulbeliever]

That is no evidence that Paul spoke in ecstatic utterances.

Paul himself said under the influence and guidance of the Holy Spirit that he spoke in tongues more than any of them . . . yet this is no evidence that Paul operated the manifestation of tongues, a language he did not know or understand, via the gift of holy spirit?

Paul was likely the best educated of the apostles. Paul would have known the major languages in use at the time. Paul was also an apostle and had the apostolic gifts of prophecy and knowledge. Paul under Holy Spirit penned much of the NT scriptures.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Yep, Paul was a great man of God walking by the Spirit operating all nine manifestations of the gift God had given him.

 

[notuptome]

I would agree with that statement. One of the problems with the particular interpretation you hold to of I Corinthians 13 is that you totally interject an idea that doesn't show up in the book, that doesn't show up in Paul's theology in the New Testament into the text. If we look at the same epistle, Paul says earlier, "So that ye come behind in no spiritual gift, waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." The outpouring of the gift of prophecy is for 'the last days' as Peter interpreted Joel.

Then the dispensationalists who see the two witnesses as two end-time individuals who hold to your view also have to do away with the gift of prophecy and then restart it again. If it ceased why would it exist at the very end of the last days? If Peter interprets Joel to refer to his own time as 'the last day's' and the gift of prophecy is active at the end of 'the last days', then why would one say that the perfect has already come and argue that the gift of prophecy had ceased? It makes no sense to get rid of the gift altogether it and start it back up again. It doesn't make logical sense and that idea doesn't fit with the teaching of scripture either. It doesn't fit with the record we have of church history, either.





I don't see how your random thought fits with the interpretation of I Corinthians 13 that you have been promoting. If reading scripture is prophesying, why would the gift of prophecy have ceased? It's a rather arbitrary redefinition of the term.

Old Testament priests who taught the Law were teaching. The Bible doesn't say they were prophesying. Moses prophesied the law, and others later taught it. Ezra read the Law. Haggai and Zechariah prophesied.

Here are some quotes from Ezra in the NIV.

5
1 Now Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the prophet, a descendant of Iddo, prophesied to the Jews in Judah and Jerusalem in the name of the God of Israel, who was over them.

4:6 a
6 this Ezra came up from Babylon. He was a teacher well versed in the Law of Moses, which the Lord, the God of Israel, had given.

6:10
10 For Ezra had devoted himself to the study and observance of the Law of the Lord, and to teaching its decrees and laws in Israel.

Another example of you using a different lexicon. Prophecy in the NT is not the same a prophecy in the NT. Go find the word prophecy in the Hebrew for me. Then we can compare it to the word prophecy in the Greek.

The OT prophets said "thus saith the LORD". Is that the fashion in which the NT writers or the apostles spoke?

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[notuptome]

Paul himself said under the influence and guidance of the Holy Spirit that he spoke in tongues more than any of them . . . yet this is no evidence that Paul operated the manifestation of tongues, a language he did not know or understand, via the gift of holy spirit?

What I am saying is that Paul never spoke in gibberish. Paul spoke only languages that were human languages and there were people present who knew the language as their native tongue even if Paul did not know the language.

Yep, Paul was a great man of God walking by the Spirit operating all nine manifestations of the gift God had given him.

No one has said anything to the contrary. Paul is with the Lord and we who remain are equipped to minister in the church according to the determinate will and purpose of God. That will and purpose is clearly laid out for us in the word of God. It is made manifest through the Holy Spirit witnessing with our spirit that we are Gods children.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[presidente]

[/COLOR]
What I am saying is that Paul never spoke in gibberish. Paul spoke only languages that were human languages and there were people present who knew the language as their native tongue even if Paul did not know the language.

That contradicts what Paul said, that if any man speak in tongues, no man understandeth him. He said if thou pray in a tongue, thou verily givest thanks well but the other is not edified.

 

[notuptome]

That contradicts what Paul said, that if any man speak in tongues, no man understandeth him. He said if thou pray in a tongue, thou verily givest thanks well but the other is not edified.

No that is your understanding of the matter. Paul never said he spoke in tongues or prayed in tongues that no man understood him. Paul verifies this when he went on to say he would rather speak in a known tongue than speak in unknown tongues. Edification requires understanding and understanding is necessary to come to Christ for salvation.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[VCO]

I had read an article by Dennis Balchome has preached throughout Chinathroughout the years from his base in China. He said he'd heard Chinese villagers speak in English when they spoke in tongues. His daughter sang at a church I attended. Her husband, a pastor in Hong Kong, preached. I spoke to Dennis Balchome's daughter and mentioned reading this in an article he wrote. She said she'd seen it herself.

She said she saw an elderly Chinese village woman speak in tongues in English. I asked her what she said. She said it was a psalm. I said 'Which one?' She said she didn't know if it was one of the Psalms out of the Bible, but it sounded like that.

I also knew (now deceased) missionary who believed in speaking in tongues who was a missionary to the Navajo, but did other Native American missions work. He was preaching to the Cherokee, and he said he had a very strong urge to speak in tongues and he did it. But it wasn't interpreted. Afterwards, people in the meeting asked him how he had learned to speak their language so well. He had rebuked some youths that were planning some mischief. I can't remember if, on this occasion, it was fire crackers under the stage or cutting tent cords. But what he had spoke in tongues was in their language directed at them.

. . .

I do not have a that much of a problem with that last paragraph I quoted, EXCEPT, when the Apostles did it, the HEARERS, heard them proclaiming the mighty works GOD. NOT a rebuking of teenagers.

Posted by RJ Dawson, commenting on Dennis Balchome's review of John MacArthur's book STRANGE FIRE also made this quote that I find disturbing, and I hope you do too. I assume this quote comes from the Author of the Book, REAL CHRISTIANITY.


"The review, or rather the strong critique, is written by Dennis Balcombe, a minister of 45 years in China, who recounts ample evidence of the miraculous work of the Spirit of the Lord used to counteract MacArthur’s perspective.

I am certainly not defending Pentecostal/Charismatic excess, fake revivals, nor the shenanigans of some ministers in that field, but I stand with Balcombe in standing up for the obvious truth of the work of God in the world in these last days.

And remember, though spiritual growth in North America has lagged behind, The Lord has used believers here to sponsor and kick off many of the movements elsewhere, and a national Great Awakening is now beginning to come forth on these shores as well."


KUNDALINI AWAKENING - - - hmmmmm?


Honest presidente, I see a MAJOR take over of the Charismatic Movement, by the KUDALINI AWAKENING, which THE NEW AGE and HINDUISM are pushing into Charismatic Church. I am hoping that you and others like you, can SEE this coming too, and pick up the TORCH OF WARNING and carry it to other Charismatics. I can talk till I am blue in the face, and 99.5 of the Pentecostals and Charismatics will FLAT TUNE ME OUT, because I am from the non-charismatic side of the fence. The WARNING has to come from other Pentecostals and Charismatics, before MANY will head the WARNING. Far, far to many of them erroneously TRUST that everything they see, hear, and experience that appears to be miraculous HAD TO HAVE COME FROM THE HOLY SPIRIT, never realizing that THE NEW AGE and HINDUISM, claims to have a holy spirit TOO.


2 Thessalonians 2:1-5 (NKJV)
[SUP]1 [/SUP] Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you,
[SUP]2 [/SUP] not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come.
[SUP]3 [/SUP] Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition,
[SUP]4 [/SUP] who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
[SUP]5 [/SUP] Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things?

Matthew 24:24-25 (NKJV)
[SUP]24 [/SUP] For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.
[SUP]25 [/SUP] See, I have told you beforehand.

 

[presidente]

That contradicts what Paul said, that if any man speak in tongues, no man understandeth him. He said if thou pray in a tongue, thou verily givest thanks well but the other is not edified.

No that is your understanding of the matter. Paul never said he spoke in tongues or prayed in tongues that no man understood him. Paul verifies this when he went on to say he would rather speak in a known tongue than speak in unknown tongues. Edification requires understanding and understanding is necessary to come to Christ for salvation.

What I wrote followed closely with the text, and you disagreed with it.




My comments, which you disagreed with, follow closely with the text of scripture.




2 For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries.


and
4 He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church.
and


13 Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful.
15 What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding.
I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding.
16 Otherwise, if you bless with the spirit, how will he who occupies the place of the uninformed say “Amen” at your giving of thanks, [/b]since he does not understand what you say?[/b] 17 For you indeed give thanks well, but the other is not edified.


18 I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all;
19 yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue.


So we have this activity that involves speaking in a language that others do not know (v. 2, 16.) Paul is not opposed to it in general outside of church.


He gives several benefits to doing so.
1. He 'edifies himself'
2. 'my spirit prays'
3. thou verily giveth thanks well.


Paul says that he engages in this activity in verse 18.


But notice the words 'in the church'. Paul speaks in a language others do not understand, but in the church, he'd rather speak with the understanding. Why? So that the church may receive edifying.



In other verses, Paul explains that speaking in tongues can be interpreted to edify others.

 

[presidente]

Go find the word prophecy in the Hebrew for me

I looked up naba' for you from Brown Driver Briggs. I thought I'd share it because it keeps mentioning prophesying in an ecstatic state.

Brown-Driver-Briggs
[[FONT=&quot]נָבָא[/FONT]] [SIZE=+1]verb denominative[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]prophesy[/SIZE] (in oldest forms, of religious ecstasy with or without song and music; later, essentially religious instruction, with occasional predictions); —[SIZE=+1]Niph`al[/SIZE] Perfect3masculine singular [FONT=&quot]נִבֵּא Jeremiah 20:1 7t.; 2 masculine singular [FONT=&quot]נִבֵּאתָ[/FONT] Jeremiah 20:6 2t.; [FONT=&quot]נִבֵּיתָ[/FONT] Jeremiah 26:9; 1singular [FONT=&quot]נִבֵּאתִי[/FONT]Ezekiel 37:7; 3plural [FONT=&quot]נִבֵּאוּ[/FONT] Jeremiah 2:8 3t.; [FONT=&quot]נִבָּ֑אוּ[/FONT] Jeremiah 23:21; Imperfect3masculine singular [FONT=&quot]יִנָּבֵא[/FONT] Amos 3:8 9t. Imperfect; Imperative [FONT=&quot]הִנָּבֵא[/FONT]Amos 7:15 27t.; Infinitive [FONT=&quot]הִנָּבֵא[/FONT] Amos 7:13; suffix [FONT=&quot]הִנָָּֽבְאוֺ[/FONT] Zechariah 13:3; [FONT=&quot]הִנָָּֽבְאֹתוֺ[/FONT] Zechariah 13:4, + 4 t. Infinitive; Participle [FONT=&quot]נִבָּא[/FONT] Jeremiah 26:18 20t. Participle; —[/FONT]
[SIZE=+1]1[/SIZE] prophesy under influence of divine spirit:
[SIZE=+1]a.[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]in the ecstatic state, with song[/SIZE] 1 Samuel 10:11; 1 Samuel 19:20 and music 1 Chronicles 25:1,2,3.
[SIZE=+1]b.[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]the word of[/SIZE] [FONT=&quot]׳[FONT=&quot]י[/FONT]: absolute Amos 2:12; Amos 3:8 (emended [FONT=&quot]יחרד[/FONT] We Now needless), Amos 7:12,13; Joel 3:1; Jeremiah 19:14; Jeremiah 26:18; Jeremiah 28:9; Jeremiah 32:3; Ezekiel 11:13; Ezekiel 12:27; Ezekiel 21:19; Ezekiel 37:7; Ezekiel 38:17 but especially in phrase [FONT=&quot]הִנָּבֵא וֶאַמַדְתָּ[/FONT] Ezekiel 12:27; Ezekiel 21:14; Ezekiel 21:33; Ezekiel 30:2; Ezekiel 34:2; Ezekiel 36:3; Ezekiel 37:7,12; Ezekiel 38:14,17; with accusative Jeremiah 20:1; Jeremiah 25:30; Jeremiah 28:6; followed by [FONT=&quot]עַל[/FONT] against Amos 7:16; Jeremiah 25:13; Jeremiah 26:20; Ezekiel 4:7; Ezekiel 11:4; Ezekiel 13:17; Ezekiel 25:2; Ezekiel 28:21; Ezekiel 29:2; Ezekiel 34:2; Ezekiel 35:2; Ezekiel 36:6; Ezekiel 38:2; Ezekiel 39:1; unto Ezekiel 37:4; [FONT=&quot]אֶל[/FONT] unto Amos 7:15; Jeremiah 26:11,12; Jeremiah 28:8; Ezekiel 36:1; Ezekiel 37:9; against Ezekiel 6:2; Ezekiel 13:2; Ezekiel 21:2; Ezekiel 21:7; [FONT=&quot]׳[/FONT][FONT=&quot]בְּשֵׁם י[/FONT] Jeremiah 11:21; Jeremiah 14:15; Jeremiah 23:25; Jeremiah 26:9.[/FONT]
[SIZE=+1]2[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]of false prophets:[/SIZE] absolute Jeremiah 23:21; Ezekiel 13:2; Zechariah 13:3 (twice in verse); Zechariah 13:4; with accusative 1 Kings 22:12 2Chronicles 18:11; [FONT=&quot]שֶׁקֶר Jeremiah 14:14; Jeremiah 23:25; Jeremiah 27:10,14,16; Jeremiah 29:21; [FONT=&quot]לַשָּׁ֑קֶר[/FONT] Jeremiah 27:15; [FONT=&quot]בַּשֶּׁקֶר[/FONT] Jeremiah 5:31; Jeremiah 20:6; Jeremiah 29:9; [FONT=&quot]׳[/FONT][FONT=&quot]נִבְּאֵי הַשּׁ[/FONT] Jeremiah 23:26; compare Jeremiah 23:32; with [FONT=&quot]לֵ[/FONT] Jeremiah 14:16; Jeremiah 23:16; Jeremiah 27:15,16; Jeremiah 29:31; Jeremiah 37:19; followed by [FONT=&quot]אֶל[/FONT] concerning Ezekiel 13:16.[/FONT]
[SIZE=+1]3[/SIZE] compare heathen prophets, [FONT=&quot]בַּבַּעַל Jeremiah 2:8.[/FONT]
[SIZE=+1]Hithpa`el[/SIZE] Perfect2masculine singular [FONT=&quot]הִתְנַבִּיתָ 1 Samuel 10:16; 1singular [FONT=&quot]הִנַּבֵּאתִי[/FONT] Ezekiel 37:10; Imperfect [FONT=&quot]יִתְנַבֵּא[/FONT] 1 Samuel 10:10 7t.; 3 masculine plural [FONT=&quot]יִתְנַבְּאוּ[/FONT] Numbers 11:25 5t.; Imperative [FONT=&quot]הִנַּבְּאוּ[/FONT] Jeremiah 23:13; Infinitive [FONT=&quot]הִתְנַבּוֺת[/FONT] 1 Samuel 10:13; Participle [FONT=&quot]מִתְנַבֵּא[/FONT] Jeremiah 26:20 9t. Participle; —[/FONT]
[SIZE=+1]1[/SIZE] Prophesy under influence of divine spirit:
[SIZE=+1]a.[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]in the ecstatic state[/SIZE] Numbers 11:25,26,27 (J), with music 1 Samuel 10:5,6,10,13, in frenzy 1 Samuel 19:20,21 (twice in verse); 1 Samuel 19:23,24; excited to violence 1 Samuel 18:10 (= [FONT=&quot]מְשֻׁגָּע mad 2 Kings 9:11); Jeremiah 29:26.[/FONT]
[SIZE=+1]b.[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]apart from ecstatic state, absolute[/SIZE] Ezekiel 37:10, with [FONT=&quot]לְ 1 Kings 22:8; Jeremiah 29:27; [FONT=&quot]על[/FONT] 1 Kings 22:18 2Chronicles 18:17,7; 20:37; [FONT=&quot]׳[/FONT][FONT=&quot]בְּשֵׁם י[/FONT] Jeremiah 26:20.[/FONT]
[SIZE=+1]2[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]of heathen prophets of Baal in ecstatic state[/SIZE] 1 Kings 18:29; [FONT=&quot]בַּבַּעַל Jeremiah 23:13.[/FONT]
[SIZE=+1]3[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]of false prophets[/SIZE] 1 Kings 22:10 2Chronicles 18:9; Jeremiah 14:14; Ezekiel 13:17.
[FONT=&quot]נבא (√ of following; see Biblical Hebrew id., but especially Bewer[SUP]Amos. J. Semitic Lang., Jan. 1902[/SUP] who compare Assyrian nabû, tear away, lead forcibly, hence prophets as (figuratively) carried away by divine frenzy, ecstasy, compare 1 Samuel 10:6,10; 1 Samuel 19:20,24).[/FONT]

 

[presidente]

Another example of you using a different lexicon. Prophecy in the NT is not the same a prophecy in the NT. Go find the word prophecy in the Hebrew for me.

I think you made a type-o here. What you type seems to be self-contradictory.

The Hebrew word for prophet, prophesy, and prophecy are translated with the Greek word for prophet prophesy, and prophecy. That's pretty strong evidence that they are talking about the same thing.

Then we can compare it to the word prophecy in the Greek.

The OT prophets said "thus saith the LORD". Is that the fashion in which the NT writers or the apostles spoke?

Let's look at the one example where we have someone actually identified as a prophet give a prophecy in the New Testament.

Acts 21:11
And when he was come unto us, he took Paul's girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.

That's very similar to 'Thus saith the Lord.' Revelation is similar in how it is written to apocalyptic literature in the Old Testament, like Zechariah or parts of Daniel.

 

[presidente]

VCO,

Paul mentions praying in tongues, so apparently there can be some variety in regard to what people say while speaking in tongues. If missionaries in China have heard people saying the Psalms or similar praises to God 'in tongues', then that nullifies your implied argument that all tongues tongues are fake because you heard from someone who heard from someone who said that he heard someone cursing the Lord in tongues. Your argument should become an argument that some tongues are fake, which fits into the world-view of early Christians, Charismatics, and Pentecostals, but not the world-view of cessationists.

Jesus taught that 'if ye being evil know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask Him.' The Luke version says 'give the Holy Ghost to them that ask Him.' This shows us praying to be filled with the Spirit is not wrong. This also shows us that we do not need to be afraid that God will give us something wicked if we pray for spiritual gifts.

In Paul's treatment of spiritual gifts, in no place does he warn that these spiritual gifts may be demonic in nature. He does mention their pagan past when he brings up pneumatika, but he contrasts their pagan past with the manifestation of the Spirit.

 

[VCO]

VCO,

Paul mentions praying in tongues, so apparently there can be some variety in regard to what people say while speaking in tongues. If missionaries in China have heard people saying the Psalms or similar praises to God 'in tongues', then that nullifies your implied argument that all tongues tongues are fake because you heard from someone who heard from someone who said that he heard someone cursing the Lord in tongues. Your argument should become an argument that some tongues are fake, which fits into the world-view of early Christians, Charismatics, and Pentecostals, but not the world-view of cessationists.

Jesus taught that 'if ye being evil know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask Him.' The Luke version says 'give the Holy Ghost to them that ask Him.' This shows us praying to be filled with the Spirit is not wrong. This also shows us that we do not need to be afraid that God will give us something wicked if we pray for spiritual gifts.

In Paul's treatment of spiritual gifts, in no place does he warn that these spiritual gifts may be demonic in nature. He does mention their pagan past when he brings up pneumatika, but he contrasts their pagan past with the manifestation of the Spirit.

NO, I say the vast MAJORITY of Charismatic tongues are psychological phenomena misunderstood to be what the Apostles did. I say that only TONGUES where unbelievers hear in their own dialectos (language and dialects so ACCURATE that even the accent is PERFECT) have the potential of being what the Apostles did. I say, when someone relinquishes control of his or her vocal chords, the POTENTIAL of a demon seizing control of those vocal chords, is there. I say the genuine gift of interpretations could EASILY be tested with someone speaking something in a foreign language that YOU personally know the Interpreter does not know; yet NO ONE IS TESTING THE INTERPRETERS. YES I SAY, GOD'S miracle signs WERE and ARE that much greater than what the NEW AGE, the HINDUS, and other cults are doing, and THAT MUCH GREATER than what the average Charismatic Experiences are doing. THUS, the COUNTERFEITS become obvious when you see they lack that miraculous power. You doubt that I got it right, then show me all the RECORDED TONGUES SPEAKERS who have had a REAL EDUCATED LINGUIST, interpreting the real foreign language they were speaking? Where are they? The Charismatic Movement has had over a hundred years to come up with a few examples, BUT NONE HAS EVER BEEN VERIFIED in that manor that I know of.

HERE is your WARNING that Satan counterfeits the miracles of GOD, WHICH YOU CLAIM IS NOT THERE:

1 Corinthians 12:2-3 (NIV)
[SUP]2 [/SUP] You know that when you were pagans, somehow or other you were influenced and led astray to mute idols.
[SUP]3 [/SUP] Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 6:7-13 (NIV)
[SUP]7 [/SUP] And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words.
[SUP]8 [/SUP] Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.
[SUP]9 [/SUP] "This, then, is how you should pray: "'Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name,
[SUP]10 [/SUP] your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
[SUP]11 [/SUP] Give us today our daily bread.
[SUP]12 [/SUP] Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
[SUP]13 [/SUP] And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.'

2 Timothy 3:8 (NKJV)
[SUP]8 [/SUP] Now as Jannes and Jambres (Paroah's magicians) resisted Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, disapproved concerning the faith;

Exodus 7:9-13 (ESV)
[SUP]9 [/SUP] “When Pharaoh says to you, ‘Prove yourselves by working a miracle,’ then you shall say to Aaron, ‘Take your staff and cast it down before Pharaoh, that it may become a serpent.’”
[SUP]10 [/SUP] So Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and did just as the LORD commanded. Aaron cast down his staff before Pharaoh and his servants, and it became a serpent.
[SUP]11 [/SUP] Then Pharaoh summoned the wise men and the sorcerers, and they, the magicians of Egypt, also did the same by their secret arts.
[SUP]12 [/SUP] For each man cast down his staff, and they became serpents. But Aaron’s staff swallowed up their staffs.
[SUP]13 [/SUP] Still Pharaoh’s heart was hardened, and he would not listen to them, as the LORD had said.


And my guess is you will continue NOT TO HEAR, and NOT TO BELIEVE the WARNING HE PUT IN PLAIN SIGHT.

 

[presidente]

wolfwint,
Correct me if I am wrong, but I wonder the line of reasoning behind some of your posts is the idea that if Pentecostalism is wrong about 'the initial evidence doctrine' that the whole movement is not of God. Am I overstating your position or your way of thinking? Please let me know if I am.


We could apply this line of reasoning to the Great Awakening, too. A Calvinist might think that John Wesley was wrong about certain doctrines related to predestination, prevenient grace or whatever areas of conflict Calvinists typeically have with Methodist thought. Would a Calvinist be justified in concluding that John Wesley's preaching and the Methodist movement were all 'not of God'? Would he be right in saying that George Whitfield's preaching and minsitry was good, but not Wesley's. They were both part of the same movement in spite of their theological differences.


Would it make sense for a Methodist to conclude that George Whitfield's evangelistic ministry or the ministry of John Knox in England were totally not of God based on the fact that they had different views related to predestination?


Doctrinal error is a bad thing. Doctrine is important. But Methodists and Calvinists have a lot more in common than they do differences.


Parham and the majority of Pentecostals since have believed that speaking in tongues is 'the initial physical evidence of the baptism with the Holy Ghost' or words to that effect. (I never read a quote from Parham that said those words in quotes, btw. Parham was not the first to believe that.) I don't know that that is a quote from Parham. It's something I've heard Pentecostals say. If Pentecostals are mistaken about this, does this mean the whole movement is not of God? I would disagree with that idea. After Azusa Street, Pentecostals went throughout the world preaching Jesus Christ and Him crucified. One of the reasons that there are so many Pentecostals worldwide is because of the massive evangelistic efforts of Pentecostals. Many people have heard the Gospel through preachers who were in the Pentecostal movement.


In regard to spiritual gifts, the Bible does command believers to be filled with the Spirit. The Bible encourages believers to be zealous for spiritual gifts and to exercise them to build one another up. Paul warns, "Quench not the Spirit. Despise not prophesyings. Prove all things.'


If Paul warns to 'quench not the Spirit' then is it possible that the Spirit may choose not to grant gifts like prophecy as much if churches quench it? One translation says not to put out the Spirit's fire. From reading early church writings, we see that there was a place for the gift of prophecy to operate in churches. The New Testament is a prime example. Paul gave his instructions which allow for, regulate, and encouraging prophesying in church. Later, he called his instructions 'commandments of the Lord.'


Over time, churches developed liturgies. Priests officiated. Where was room made for prophesying? It could be that, over time, liturgy drowned out the opportunity for prophesying, as no time was scheduled in. These gifts may have died down somewhat as the gospel message was dilluted by new traditions that arose as well.


Many Pentecostals were zealous for spiritual gifts, not just tongues, but also healing, prophesying, interpretation of tongues, and also teaching and the more commonly accepted gifts. If the standard Pentecostal 'initial evidence doctrine' goes to far, does that mean that God does not respond to Christians in the movement who pray and work in faith toward God?

 

[Asekhaen]

Hold fast what you believe... Don't fight for the gospel... live for it. Sometimes I wonder why we claim superiority of belief...

 

[zone]

wolfwint,
Correct me if I am wrong, but I wonder the line of reasoning behind some of your posts is the idea that if Pentecostalism is wrong about 'the initial evidence doctrine' that the whole movement is not of God. Am I overstating your position or your way of thinking? Please let me know if I am....

you are.

wrong.

 

[zone]

wolfwint,
Correct me if I am wrong, but I wonder the line of reasoning behind some of your posts is the idea that if Pentecostalism is wrong about 'the initial evidence doctrine' that the whole movement is not of God. Am I overstating your position or your way of thinking? Please let me know if I am.


We could apply this line of reasoning to the Great Awakening, too. A Calvinist might think that John Wesley was wrong about certain doctrines related to predestination, prevenient grace or whatever areas of conflict Calvinists typeically have with Methodist thought. Would a Calvinist be justified in concluding that John Wesley's preaching and the Methodist movement were all 'not of God'? Would he be right in saying that George Whitfield's preaching and minsitry was good, but not Wesley's. They were both part of the same movement in spite of their theological differences.


Would it make sense for a Methodist to conclude that George Whitfield's evangelistic ministry or the ministry of John Knox in England were totally not of God based on the fact that they had different views related to predestination?


Doctrinal error is a bad thing. Doctrine is important. But Methodists and Calvinists have a lot more in common than they do differences.


Parham and the majority of Pentecostals since have believed that speaking in tongues is 'the initial physical evidence of the baptism with the Holy Ghost' or words to that effect. (I never read a quote from Parham that said those words in quotes, btw. Parham was not the first to believe that.) I don't know that that is a quote from Parham. It's something I've heard Pentecostals say. If Pentecostals are mistaken about this, does this mean the whole movement is not of God? I would disagree with that idea. After Azusa Street, Pentecostals went throughout the world preaching Jesus Christ and Him crucified. One of the reasons that there are so many Pentecostals worldwide is because of the massive evangelistic efforts of Pentecostals. Many people have heard the Gospel through preachers who were in the Pentecostal movement.


In regard to spiritual gifts, the Bible does command believers to be filled with the Spirit. The Bible encourages believers to be zealous for spiritual gifts and to exercise them to build one another up. Paul warns, "Quench not the Spirit. Despise not prophesyings. Prove all things.'


If Paul warns to 'quench not the Spirit' then is it possible that the Spirit may choose not to grant gifts like prophecy as much if churches quench it? One translation says not to put out the Spirit's fire. From reading early church writings, we see that there was a place for the gift of prophecy to operate in churches. The New Testament is a prime example. Paul gave his instructions which allow for, regulate, and encouraging prophesying in church. Later, he called his instructions 'commandments of the Lord.'


Over time, churches developed liturgies. Priests officiated. Where was room made for prophesying? It could be that, over time, liturgy drowned out the opportunity for prophesying, as no time was scheduled in. These gifts may have died down somewhat as the gospel message was dilluted by new traditions that arose as well.


Many Pentecostals were zealous for spiritual gifts, not just tongues, but also healing, prophesying, interpretation of tongues, and also teaching and the more commonly accepted gifts. If the standard Pentecostal 'initial evidence doctrine' goes to far, does that mean that God does not respond to Christians in the movement who pray and work in faith toward God?

a survey of heretics and loonie tunes

 

[presidente]

NO, I say the vast MAJORITY of Charismatic tongues are psychological phenomena misunderstood to be what the Apostles did.

I'm just curious here. Are you allowing for the possibility of genuine speaking in tongues today?

There is no way you could possibly have a basis to make an assertion, aside from divine revelation. Do you claim that? Have you even traveled the world to research this? Most Charismatics are not in the US.

I say that only TONGUES where unbelievers hear in their own dialectos (language and dialects so ACCURATE that even the accent is PERFECT) have the potential of being what the Apostles did.

About dialectos, do you have any evidence that 'dialectos' means having a perfect accent? In English, a dialect can be a specific accent. It can also be something else. Cantonese is a 'dialect' of Chinese, but not one specific accent.

Paul was an apostle, too. In the situation Paul addressed, others were not present who understood the tongue as their own language. A supernatural gift of interpretation was necessary for others in the church to be edified. In this context, Paul said he spoke in tongues more than them all.

Other people being present who understand the language is not part of speaking in tongues. That's something additional. That's whose present. That may be who God arranges to be there. There were two things going on in Acts 2. The disciples spoke in tongues, and there were people present who understood.

If the Spirit empowered me to speak in Lituanian, and no one present understood Lithuanian, I'd still be speaking Lithuanian. If the Spirit empowered me to speak Lithuanian and a native speaker was present who understood, I'd still be speaking in Lithuanian.

Paul wrote of a manifestation of the Spirit called 'divers tongues'. He doesn't call it 'tongues which people present understand.'

If someone were to 'speak in tongues' in Lithuanian in an English-speaking church and no one present understood Lithuanian, and someone else interpreted the message through the spiritual gift of interpretation, that still fits with Paul's instructions in I Corinthians 12.

The Corinthians were speaking legitimate languages, even though there were no speakers present, no man understanding them. We know this because Paul wanted the gift to be interpreted to edify others. The interpretation came not through 'the understanding' which we know because Paul said 'no man understandeth him.'

If I understand two languages, I can interpret one into another. That's my experience. I do not have to pray to be able to interpret. I could pray to do a good job just like I could do if preaching a sermon in English. But I do not have to pray to receive the ability to interpret.

But Paul told the one who speaks in tongues in I Corinthians 14:13 to pray that he may interpret. This is a spiritual gift he is to pray to, a spiritual gift/manifestation of the Spirit mentioned in that list in I Corinthians 12.

I say, when someone relinquishes control of his or her vocal chords, the POTENTIAL of a demon seizing control of those vocal chords, is there.

Yet Paul wrote of the one who prays in tongues that his 'understanding is unfruitful.' But he doesn't warn that a demon might be speaking through him. Instead, he says 'thou verily giveth thanks well.' Paul had no problem with the content of this speaking in tongues. His concern was that gifts be used in an orderly way to edify others. In the church, speaking in tongues does not edify others as well as five words with the understanding, unless the tongue is interpreted.

I say the genuine gift of interpretations could EASILY be tested with someone speaking something in a foreign language that YOU personally know the Interpreter does not know; yet NO ONE IS TESTING THE INTERPRETERS.

It is only easily tested the way you want if God makes sure that someone is present who understands. Based on I Corinthians 14, that does not seem to be the norm. Although God could do such a thing. In Acts 2, there were those present who understood.

A classmate of mine in middle school experienced receiving the interpretation to a tongue. Then someone else gave the same interpretation. He didn't know what was going on at first. My college roommate had this experience as well. This is another way of testing tongues. Pentecostals and Charismatics still seem tied to the pulpit-pew format and those that allow tongues and interpretation or prophecy 'from the floor'. Incidentally, two people sometimes receive the same prophecy at the same time. There is also the gift of discernment of spirits.

YES I SAY, GOD'S miracle signs WERE and ARE that much greater than what the NEW AGE, the HINDUS, and other cults are doing, and THAT MUCH GREATER than what the average Charismatic Experiences are doing.

I don't know what 'the average Charismatic Experiences' are. But going from living in darkness to living in the light of the Gospel is greater than any Hindu religious experience.

THUS, the COUNTERFEITS become obvious when you see they lack that miraculous power. You doubt that I got it right, then show me all the RECORDED TONGUES SPEAKERS who have had a REAL EDUCATED LINGUIST, interpreting the real foreign language they were speaking?

Show me the reports of real educated linguists that evaluated speaking in tongues in Acts 2? Did Paul sit down with the scholars in Athens and speak in tongues for them so they could investigate the phenomenon? If you don't have any record of the Holy Spirit performing in this way for scientists in laboratories, does that mean He does not do such things outside of laboratories. The Wind bloweth where it listeth.

HERE is your WARNING that Satan counterfeits the miracles of GOD, WHICH YOU CLAIM IS NOT THERE:

1 Corinthians 12:2-3 (NIV)
[SUP]2 [/SUP] You know that when you were pagans, somehow or other you were influenced and led astray to mute idols.
[SUP]3 [/SUP] Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.

Verses 4 and onward are about 'manifestations of the Spirit', not false demonic manifestations. Paul does not mention fake prophecies, fake tongues, fake healings, or demonic prophecies, tongues, healings in this book. I'm not saying they can't exist. It's just that Paul doesn't mention them. There are, of course, false prophecies mentioned elsewhere. There were prophets of Baal. But Paul doesn't suggest these things were going on in the Corinthian church. If we insist that Paul were referring to specific cases of cursing Christ, which isn't justified by the context, then given the context, it makes sense that this was going on in their pagan, idolatrous experience before Christ.

No one speaking by the Spirit of God curses Christ, as Paul says in verse 3. The verses that follow tell us about 'manifestations of the Spirit'. It is clear He is speaking about the Holy Spirit in this context. He lists prophesying and speaking in tongues as manifestations of the Spirit. So these are genuine gifts he is talking about. He does not address false prophecies or tongues here. And there is no warning in the chapters that follow that Christians need to worry about being overtaken by an evil spirit while being zealous for spiritual gifts.

Paul warns about fellowship with demons in chapter 10, but this is in regard to participating in idolatrous practices, not in regard to Christians exercising spiritual gifts in church. Jesus teaches that the Father gives His children good things.

Matthew 6:7-13 (NIV)
[SUP]7 [/SUP] And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words.
[SUP]8 [/SUP] Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.
[SUP]9 [/SUP] "This, then, is how you should pray: "'Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name,
[SUP]10 [/SUP] your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
[SUP]11 [/SUP] Give us today our daily bread.
[SUP]12 [/SUP] Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
[SUP]13 [/SUP] And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.'

I posted a link to a Wikipedia article that presents some of the difficulties with your interpretation of Matthew 6:7. You use a dynamic equivalence translation here where the author translates his interpretation-- an interpretation you agree with-- into the text. The KJV says 'vain repetitions.' Basically, you are taking certain author's 'stab' at what the word might mean, and building doctrine on it. That's eisegesis.

Also, Plutarch, who'd been a priest of Apollo in the first century, argued that the oracle of Delphi's utterances could legitimately be prose as opposed to poetry. Herodotus, many centuries before, had said that it was poetry of a specific complicated meter (something hextameter, I think. I posted it before.) The idea that pagans-- especially the average pagans-- regularly spoke in some kind of gibberish as a part of their religion is rather questionable. There is evidence from Greek literature against this theory.

Jesus did teach us to pray as the so-called 'Lord's prayer' instructs, but he did not say to pray only those words. Jesus Himself prayed other prayers in the Gospels. The apostles gave instructions and examples about praying about other issues as well.

If your mother says 'brush your teeth before you go to bed' that doesn't mean she is forbidding you from washing behind your ears, too. Jesus said 'after this manner, therefore, pray ye.' He is not forbidding all the other types of prayer taught in the scriptures.

2 Timothy 3:8 (NKJV)
[SUP]8 [/SUP] Now as Jannes and Jambres (Paroah's magicians) resisted Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, disapproved concerning the faith;

This is warning about those types of men. It is not a warning that the spiritual gifts in I Corinthians 12 are bad.

Exodus 7:9-13 (ESV)
[SUP]9 [/SUP] “When Pharaoh says to you, ‘Prove yourselves by working a miracle,’ then you shall say to Aaron, ‘Take your staff and cast it down before Pharaoh, that it may become a serpent.’”
[SUP]10 [/SUP] So Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and did just as the LORD commanded. Aaron cast down his staff before Pharaoh and his servants, and it became a serpent.
[SUP]11 [/SUP] Then Pharaoh summoned the wise men and the sorcerers, and they, the magicians of Egypt, also did the same by their secret arts.
[SUP]12 [/SUP] For each man cast down his staff, and they became serpents. But Aaron’s staff swallowed up their staffs.
[SUP]13 [/SUP] Still Pharaoh’s heart was hardened, and he would not listen to them, as the LORD had said.

Notice there was a miracle from God, and witchcraft here. It's not ALL witchcraft.

Look at the mistake Pharoah made. He rejected the God behind the true miracle. Maybe he said, like the Pharoah in one of the movies, that what Moses did was just a magic trick. He may have counted it as all the same thing, putting the miracles of God into the same category with the demonic stuff or illusions.

And my guess is you will continue NOT TO HEAR, and NOT TO BELIEVE the WARNING HE PUT IN PLAIN SIGHT.

The viewpoint I have been arguing for is consistent with all these scriptures. What about you? Would you have considered all the sticks turning into snakes on that floor in front of Pharoah to have been from the dark arts?

 

[presidente]

you are.

wrong.

You are not wolfwint. You shouldn't speak for him. I don't care to read the results of your attempted reading of his mind.

 

[presidente]

a survey of heretics and loonie tunes

So, are you saying that Calvinists, Methodists, and Pentecostals are all heretics and loonie tunes? They aren't Lutheran like you call yourself after all.

I Corinthians 3
[SUP]4 [/SUP][FONT=&quot]For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?[/FONT]

I was going to include these groups differences with Luther over anti-semitism and with Luther and Lutheranism over consubstantiation as other examples.

 

[Demi777]

not to forget that luther was ''talking to the devil'' quite a bit..even ''throwing a inkwell' at himm but i guess because that was in old german it doesnt count

So, are you saying that Calvinists, Methodists, and Pentecostals are all heretics and loonie tunes? They aren't Lutheran like you call yourself after all.

I Corinthians 3
[SUP]4 [/SUP]For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?

I was going to include these groups differences with Luther over anti-semitism and with Luther and Lutheranism over consubstantiation as other examples.