TONGUES false teaching.

  • 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.
Dec 21, 2020
61
18
8
I always have brother. It is one of the reasons I left the Pentecostal faith many years ago. I was a good soldier and followed the teachings given to me. Then one day I was led to actually READ the Bible instead of the Pentecostal denominational teachings and the world changed for me.
FWIW, I'm not Pentecostal. You may call me charismatic, but I'm not Pentecostal.
 
Dec 21, 2020
61
18
8
You said...........
"That's why when tongues are spoken aloud in the church, they must be interpreted. You use the words "ecstatic" and "rhapsodie" (sic) because they are belittling terms and you do not believe speaking in tongues is legit.

No sir. I use those terms because what is said that I have witnessed are NOT interpreted and they are then not languages but sounds that are uttered and not words spoken.
You no doubt witnessed situations where people were not paying attention to what the Bible says about how speaking in tongues is to be done in the church. Most Pentecostals don't.
 

oldethennew

Senior Member
Feb 28, 2016
11,250
2,914
113
Roger......I have been on several Christian forums in my journey. I was invited to join this one by one of the members here.

Now maybe it is just me, and maybe it is because it is that I am new "here", but from what I have seen, I am amazed at the lack of Bible understanding I have seen exhibited here so far.

I am grateful that you have shown yourself to be a Bible believing Christian and I hope that you will stay here and help those who need to hear BIBLE DOCTRINE!

As for me.......It is to soon to tell!
============================================
WELCOME, Major...
know for SURE that it isn't just YOU - but, You would have to have know that already, right???
 

breno785au

Senior Member
Jul 23, 2013
5,919
707
113
36
Australia
To show the example of what I am troubled about is Post #660 where Scribe says women are absolutely to be pastors.

But what does the Bible say in 1 Timothy 3:1-2........
"
This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach"

You see......to keep a denominational dogma of false teaching the Bible is completely rejected.

Does that give you any concern at all????
No, not really. It used too but my in m time here (and life in general) I've learned people are going to believe what they believe. You can discuss, debate and whatever but to argue is not worth it.
I'm not worried if people have some things wrong, i may have may say and leave it at that. I'm not much of a debater at all so I'll leave it and trust of God has that much of an issue, He will deal with it as He done with me in the past. I know I've been wrong on things and still am on things I'm not aware of and have been corrected by God Himself!
But to get worked up and worry about someone else thinks thousands of km's away and to allow it to divide us to the point where we forget what we have in common is not worth it imo.
There are some things I won't stand for, but many other things I ignore.
And this is not just about the example you gave, but speaking in general.
 
Mar 21, 2009
3,963
1,528
113
New York
To show the example of what I am troubled about is Post #660 where Scribe says women are absolutely to be pastors.

But what does the Bible say in 1 Timothy 3:1-2........
"
This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach"

You see......to keep a denominational dogma of false teaching the Bible is completely rejected.

Does that give you any concern at all????
Google and read various presentations on the authorial intent of 1 tim2:12. If you read 1 peter 3 slowly and compare it wi 1 Tim 2:11 you might have your understanding illuminated. Many believe that paul is talking about the relationship of wife to husband. Too much is said about 1 Tim 2 :12 That Paul never said.
Of course a man would be a bishop in the first century church. And of course Paul would tell a run away slave to go back to his master in the first century Roman times. And of course you would tell a run away slave to return to his master today. Oh wait...no you wouldn't. You understand that you can interpret Paul's writing about slaves in a cultural context and that you would help a runaway slave stay free today don't you?
 
Mar 21, 2009
3,963
1,528
113
New York
Google and read various presentations on the authorial intent of 1 tim2:12. If you read 1 peter 3 slowly and compare it wi 1 Tim 2:11 you might have your understanding illuminated. Many believe that paul is talking about the relationship of wife to husband. Too much is said about 1 Tim 2 :12 That Paul never said.
Of course a man would be a bishop in the first century church. And of course Paul would tell a run away slave to go back to his master in the first century Roman times. And of course you would tell a run away slave to return to his master today. Oh wait...no you wouldn't. You understand that you can interpret Paul's writing about slaves in a cultural context and that you would help a runaway slave stay free today don't you?
Women speaking in tongues and prophesying in the 1st century was normal, but I don't think they were bishops, however they were deaconesses. And we don't see many women that want to be pastors today because it is still not a culturally acceptable norm. Nevertheless it is God's plan to empower women with the Holy Spirit to witness and to fulfill the great commission as God calls them and I am not opposed to a woman pastoring a church. If you don't want to go to that church don't go. Those that do are not sinning because the pastor is a woman. What are you saying? Is the woman going to hell? Are the people going to hell? If she is preaching the same word of God and the same Gospel except you differe with her interpretation about being a pastor and a female at the same time does that mean she is not saved? If she thinks you're not understanding the scriptures correctly by banning all women from pastoring because of the verse you gave then you and her will have to agree to disagree.

It is what it is. I understand why people think those scriptures say a woman cannot pastor but I do not think those scriptures say a woman cannot pastor. It is a conclusion made using those verses but those verse do not say specifically make that statement.

We have discussed it many times before. Do a search on the threads for it. Probably as many times as we have discussed tongues.

No reason to be shocked to find out that not everyone interprets those scriptures the same way.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
16,727
9,104
113
To show the example of what I am troubled about is Post #660 where Scribe says women are absolutely to be pastors.

But what does the Bible say in 1 Timothy 3:1-2........
"
This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach"
Apparently, you haven't done your homework on this passage. The word "man" is not there; the Greek says, "anyone". In fact, "husband" and "wife" in verse 2 are the only gender-specific words in the entire passage, and given other relevant passages, it is clear that the verse is forbidding polygamists, not females or unmarried men.

There isn't a single passage of Scripture that forbids women from being pastors.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
16,727
9,104
113
The breakdown of those who speak with other tongues were seen in verse 6 and 8. True men and women were all filled but not all speak at that moment.
That does not make sense. Perhaps you could rephrase your statements?
 
Mar 21, 2009
3,963
1,528
113
New York
Google and read various presentations on the authorial intent of 1 tim2:12. If you read 1 peter 3 slowly and compare it wi 1 Tim 2:11 you might have your understanding illuminated. Many believe that paul is talking about the relationship of wife to husband. Too much is said about 1 Tim 2 :12 That Paul never said.
Of course a man would be a bishop in the first century church. And of course Paul would tell a run away slave to go back to his master in the first century Roman times. And of course you would tell a run away slave to return to his master today. Oh wait...no you wouldn't. You understand that you can interpret Paul's writing about slaves in a cultural context and that you would help a runaway slave stay free today don't you?
We know that slaves were under laws during the first century that our culture no longer deals with. Paul had to deal with the culture as it was and sent Philemon back to his owner. Today you would not take Paul's words about this and apply it to a runaway slave anywhere in the world today. Today it would be your christian duty to help them escape.

Women were under laws of the culture even from the Roman's not just Jews. These laws and cultures have changed through history given women more rights and equality in society that was unheard of in the 1st century. Today no one makes an issue of working for a woman business owner or voting for a woman governor. However due to centuries of bad hermeneutics women are not properly respected in religious culture. This results in few women pastors and will continue to be the norm until that day when people get Gods heart on the issue instead of legalism based on bad hermeneutics. Probably not in my lifetime.
 

Sipsey

Well-known member
Sep 27, 2018
753
390
63
We know that slaves were under laws during the first century that our culture no longer deals with. Paul had to deal with the culture as it was and sent Philemon back to his owner. Today you would not take Paul's words about this and apply it to a runaway slave anywhere in the world today. Today it would be your christian duty to help them escape.

Women were under laws of the culture even from the Roman's not just Jews. These laws and cultures have changed through history given women more rights and equality in society that was unheard of in the 1st century. Today no one makes an issue of working for a woman business owner or voting for a woman governor. However due to centuries of bad hermeneutics women are not properly respected in religious culture. This results in few women pastors and will continue to be the norm until that day when people get Gods heart on the issue instead of legalism based on bad hermeneutics. Probably not in my lifetime.
Are you implying that a culture dictates how God’s truths are carried out?
 
Mar 21, 2009
3,963
1,528
113
New York
Are you implying that a culture dictates how God’s truths are carried out?
As it related to sending a runaway slave back to his owner in the 1st century. Yes. The thing to do at that time, sending him back to be in submission to his owner Onesimus until he could be legally freed was the thing to do. Today you would not send a slave back to his owner therefore you would not say Paul said to send him back and use verses in Philemon to say that you were obeying scripture.

I guess some people would do that. I am never shocked by what I hear someone say using scripture to support them.
 
Mar 21, 2009
3,963
1,528
113
New York
As it related to sending a runaway slave back to his owner in the 1st century. Yes. The thing to do at that time, sending him back to be in submission to his owner Onesimus until he could be legally freed was the thing to do. Today you would not send a slave back to his owner therefore you would not say Paul said to send him back and use verses in Philemon to say that you were obeying scripture.

I guess some people would do that. I am never shocked by what I hear someone say using scripture to support them.
We live in a culture where women can have authority over men in the work place and a Baptist not have a problem with it, but a woman must not teach the bible in a room where men are present or she is "usurping authority over a Man" Now I do not believe that is what Paul intended in 1 Tim 2:12 but that is the kind of culture that we live in and as a result I would not suggest that a woman try to pastor a community where that is the mindset. She will not be received well and therefore the spirit of Love that we operate in will find a male pastor for the position in order to reach the most people and not offend unnecessarily.
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
6,073
794
113
Most Americans speak English...would we then need to hear people speaking in tongues in church in that case?
Most Greeks spoke Greek. There is no indication in I Corinthians 14 that speaking in tongues had anything to do with diversity of language speakers in the assembly.
 
Mar 23, 2016
4,035
1,184
113
reneweddaybyday said:
Scripture states that if there is no interpreter in the church, the believer is to speak in tongues silently to God.
That is exactly what the Scripture. That being the case then there should not be any "noise" or chatter or conversation at all.
Agreed????
I have attended church services where the person teaching God's Word asks a question, or asks for an "amen" or a "hallelujah" or a similar statement from the congregation.

I agree that a believer in a church congregation may speak in tongues silently to God just as 1 Cor 14:28 instructs.


1 Corinthians 14:28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.


 
Mar 23, 2016
4,035
1,184
113
Honestly.....I do not know why we are discussing this.
Because in your Post #553 you stated that "None present understand what is being said".

However, according to 1 Cor 14:2, the believer is speaking to God and God understands.

1 Corinthians 14:2 For he that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God:


 
Mar 23, 2016
4,035
1,184
113
If it really is the spirit giving utterance...and I think if that were the case then someone should be able to interpret what she is saying. I never got any indication that anyone knew what she said but she kept talking in that language anyway. So, then if no one knows what she is saying..isn’t it wrong?
1 Corinthians 14:28 tells us But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.


She was not following the instruction given in God's Word. She should just speak in tongues silently to God.
 
Mar 21, 2009
3,963
1,528
113
New York
I have attended church services where the person teaching God's Word asks a question, or asks for an "amen" or a "hallelujah" or a similar statement from the congregation.

I agree that a believer in a church congregation may speak in tongues silently to God just as 1 Cor 14:28 instructs.

1 Corinthians 14:28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
The majority of Greek Scholars will tell you that it does not mean "without any sound" but rather to himself and to God. As in "not addressing the assembly but subdued in a quiet manner to himself and to God"
Logic should also tell you this also, without knowing the Greek, because you cannot SPEAK IN TONGUES without speaking with your tongue.

Therefore a believer who is speaking to themselves and to God in tongues which requires speaking (you can't speak in tongues in your head without using your tongue) while others are also praying and speaking to themselves and to God at the same time in a prayer time or worship time is not out of order and to find fault with it using this verse in a legalistic manner like "ah HA... gotcha ya! You're in violation of the Law" is a misunderstanding of the intent of Paul's instructions.

But those that find fault with the idea of making any sound at all in a prayer meeting are also going to feel uncomfortable in a prayer meeting where everyone is making sounds to themselves and to God in English. They are not accustomed to such noisy prayer meetings. They prefer no sounds except for a prayer leader speaking from a microphone.

Pentecostals believe that there is freedom for the whole prayer meeting to be of people praying in a quiet manner with audible sounds to themselves and to God. You have to get really close to them to hear them but they are not being "silent" praying in their heads only. Pentecostals usually think that prayer is speaking out loud not quiet thinking. Pentecostals imagine the first church prayer meetings to have been noisy not quiet.

If you insist that the word silent in this verse is the main point and means no sound that is your choice. Others do not put the emphasis of the verse on the literal definition of silent being no noise but on "to themselves and to God and not addressing the church" because one must use their tongue to speak in tongues to themselves and to God.

So if you wonder why they pray to themselves and to God in tongues using sound it is because they interpret that scripture differently than you do. Instead of saying "How can they do that and not know they are violating the RULE?" You can now say "I understand that they do not interpret that as meaning "in their minds" but subdued as in a quieter private manner.

Who is correct? We will find out when that which is perfect is come who was right. Until then Pentecostals think they understand it and others find fault. We can agree to disagree and the fault finders can go to churches that don't believe tongues are real. There they will not witness any of these things they think are violations of the rules of tongues which they don't think is real anyway.