Churches that Don't Allow Tongues and Prophecy in Meetings disobey Bible

[presidente]

I have before but it has gotten ignored and again I can put 1 Corinthians within the context of Acts,because there some things in Acts and 1 Corinthians that go together. 1 Corinthians was written about 55 AD,Acts runs from 33 Ad to about 66 AD. Paul is arrested in about 57 AD.

Paul Writes 1 Corinthians in AD 55,in which Paul says tongues,etc will cease, in Acts 19 is the last time Luke records people speaking in tongues about AD 56,somewhere during this time James also writes that if one is sick to go before the elders of the church be anointed with oil.....,so for the next ten years Paul is still preaching,gets shipwrecked on Malta,people get saved but not one mention that they speak in tongues. Why does Acts appear to be in agreement with Paul in 1 Corinthians when he said tongues would cease? This is within the time frame of Acts,1 Corinthians and James and when they were written and what is recorded in Acts.

There is not one shred of evidence in any of these scriptures that tongues had ceased or that God had stopped healing miraculously. There isn't any scripture at all about God not healing miraculously or instantly? Where do you get that idea? You get the idea from a cessationist concept you have-- something from outside of scripture. Maybe you got it from a church that taught cessationism, or maybe you watched a lot of Scooby Doo as a kid. But there is no indication that miracles are supposed to cease.

If you'll notice, on Malta, Publius' father gets healed and so do all the sick people they brought to Paul. So late in the New Testament era, one of those 'and they healed them all' events happened.

Paul also wrote in Romans that from Jerusalem round about unto Illyricum, with signs and wonders, he had fully preached the Gospel of Christ. Acts doesn't tell us about Paul doing miracles in Rome or Illyricum, so he must have been doing a lot of miracles Acts didn't record. It already established the fact that Paul was a miracle worker, so there was no need to repeat this over and over again unless it was important for the story of what happened.

The fact that Acts doesn't mention tongues later in the book is not evidence that tongues had ceased. There is no way anyone would think that way unless they were trying to figure out a way to make tongues cease in Acts. It's a very biased interpretation that doesn't make any sense to those of us who are not of that persuasion. Paul talks about tongues ceasing in the context of the coming of the perfect. He also wrote of coming behind in NO spiritual gift waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Don't you think he knew full well he was going to write about speaking in tongues when he wrote that about 'no spiritual gift' in chapter 1? Whether Paul knew it or not, God did.

Irenaeus wrote of speaking in tongues in his own day in the late second century. It hadn't cased then. Why should it cease before the coming of the perfect?

 

[RickShafer]

Ohh and by the why Rick,I do know I think outside the box a lot so sometimes my train of thoughts don't always make sense to someone else. (Although it makes perfect sense to me) It makes for interesting discussions.

You are a good debater.
I enjoy our interactions.
Well done!

 

[Reformedjason]

I don't know why Benny hinn is being mentioned. Anyone who takes him serious needs a dose of reality. He is a false prophet., a false healer, and drags The Lord's name through the mud.

 

[SarahM777]

There is not one shred of evidence in any of these scriptures that tongues had ceased or that God had stopped healing miraculously. There isn't any scripture at all about God not healing miraculously or instantly? Where do you get that idea? You get the idea from a cessationist concept you have-- something from outside of scripture. Maybe you got it from a church that taught cessationism, or maybe you watched a lot of Scooby Doo as a kid. But there is no indication that miracles are supposed to cease.

If you'll notice, on Malta, Publius' father gets healed and so do all the sick people they brought to Paul. So late in the New Testament era, one of those 'and they healed them all' events happened.

Paul also wrote in Romans that from Jerusalem round about unto Illyricum, with signs and wonders, he had fully preached the Gospel of Christ. Acts doesn't tell us about Paul doing miracles in Rome or Illyricum, so he must have been doing a lot of miracles Acts didn't record. It already established the fact that Paul was a miracle worker, so there was no need to repeat this over and over again unless it was important for the story of what happened.

The fact that Acts doesn't mention tongues later in the book is not evidence that tongues had ceased. There is no way anyone would think that way unless they were trying to figure out a way to make tongues cease in Acts. It's a very biased interpretation that doesn't make any sense to those of us who are not of that persuasion. Paul talks about tongues ceasing in the context of the coming of the perfect. He also wrote of coming behind in NO spiritual gift waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Don't you think he knew full well he was going to write about speaking in tongues when he wrote that about 'no spiritual gift' in chapter 1? Whether Paul knew it or not, God did.

Irenaeus wrote of speaking in tongues in his own day in the late second century. It hadn't cased then. Why should it cease before the coming of the perfect?

But on the other hand you have no shred of evidence to say they did. Remember Paul was an apostle appointed to do what he did. He was still alive and remember the gifts would remain with him till he died,what you do not have one shred of evidence for is that any new believers receiving the gifts. Paul is the only one after Acts 19 that is shown to still have the gifts.

Irenaeus and the early fathers never say themselves they observed it for one and they really don't speak about it. The story about Irenaeus history and where he was from has a bit to do with what he was dealing with and also what he really said.

The correct word is either mature or complete not perfect in our sense. The Greek interlinear Bible translates it as mature. Remember too the whole letter of 1 Corinthians in Paul's own words is that he still has to feed them milk not meat. The whole church was still growing up.

1 Corinthians 3

Brothers and sisters, I could not address you as people who live by the Spirit but as people who are still worldly—mere infants in Christ.2 I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready.3 You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere humans?4 For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not mere human beings?

 

[zone]

Zone, take your judgmental synod and shove it.
How was B.T.K. by the way?
Do you know how the police caught him?
He was using a printer at his Lutheran Church where he was a foremost layperson.
The reporters asked the pastor if he believed in Satan now.(Because the church was amillennialist)
What did the pastor say? - 'No can do'.

A Missouri serial killer who was the lay person of the year one year for a Lutheran Church.
But you continue casting aspersions.

oh dear.

~

how embarrassing for you.
LCMS has nothing to do with ELCA.

ELCA has a lot in common with Charismatics though.
your killer wasn't one of ours.

~

The ELCA has many differences of opinion among its constituent congregations, which have caused a number of disputes over social and doctrinal issues. In part, this is due to the fact that it assimilated three different Lutheran church bodies, each with its own factions and divisions, thus inheriting old intra-group conflicts while creating new inter-group ones. Differences on issues usually reflect theological disputes between various parties.

The ELCA is a very broad denomination. It contains groups of socially conservative or liberal factions with emphases on various topics such as liturgical renewal,[16][17] confessional Lutheranism, charismatic revivalism, moderate to liberal theology, and liberal activism.

The socially liberal segment of the ELCA is represented by independent organizations such as Lutherans Concerned/North America, Extraordinary Lutheran Ministries, and the Evangelical and Ecumenical Women's Caucus A socially conservative Lutheran organization, once within, and now departed from the ELCA opposed to the denomination's stance on openly-gay clergy is the Lutheran Coalition For Renewal (Lutheran CORE).

Adherents of Evangelical Catholicism practice High Church Lutheranism and include the members of the Society of the Holy Trinity. Those oriented toward Confessional Lutheranism, Evangelicalism, or an admixture of the two include the WordAlone network and those involved with Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ. Members of the Charismatic Movement include congregations and pastors associated with the Alliance of Renewal Churches.

ELCA clergy tend not to subscribe to a doctrine of Biblical inerrancy....etc
wiki

 

[zone]

That's very true. The cessationists are arguing from experience. I'm repeatedly pointing out what scripture says.

i don't need you to point out what scripture says.
i've read it.

i need you to prove you have foundational supernatural gifts.
do you plan to?


are tongues known human languages?
sorry - missed you definitive answer...again.

 

[zone]

The fact that Acts doesn't mention tongues later in the book is not evidence that tongues had ceased.

post someone miraculously speaking the Wonderful Works of God in a gentile language (or hebrew - who cares at this point) they didn't learn.

if you can't (and you can not) - they ceased.

are tongues actual languages?
which ones do you speak?
are you a translator?

did ya learn it in school? or did Power come from On High?
let's see the evidence.

 

[Kerry]

Well, lutherans are under the bondage of law, Because they do not accept the Holy Spirit. Freedom can only be truly realised by the acceptance of the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues. Otherwise a demon can say "I am baptised with the Holy Spirit yet I do not speak in tongues". Rick I admire you but, please tell no one to shove it. I understand how frustrating it can be to show someone something they do not believe as they have been taught not to all their life. Yet a muslim can be saved and shown otherwise but, only by the Holy Spirit. Zone is well versed in the scripture but only by the carnal mind. She has not had her eyes opened by the Spirit. Which is the only way one can truly understand the full impact of the word of God. Without the Spirit we look at the word with our own understanding, which is nothing compared to the intention of almighty God. I thank god for Martin Luther, I would not be where I am today without his input. Yet I think he would also reject what his church has become, rejecting the Holy Spirit and saying we have no longer a need for Him because we are intelligent and have the scripture as we interpret it. Go away Holy Spirit we don't need you nor want you.

 

[presidente]

i don't need you to point out what scripture says.
i've read it.

How about believing what it says on this issue then?

i need you to prove you have foundational supernatural gifts.
do you plan to?

Why is this a need of yours? I'm not going to sit around waiting for a word of knowledge for you to prove something. If God wants to give one to me, He can. I've gotten them on occasion, not all the time.

If you want proof, you already have the Bible. Believe that, and then if you want to experience some of these things, ask God to let you and fellowship with some people who operate in these gifts of the Spirit. If you just want to win some kind of imaginary points in a debate (when no one is keeping score), that's kind of silly.

are tongues known human languages?
sorry - missed you definitive answer...again.

I haven't answered this, probably many times. Paul's writings allow for the tongues of both men and angels.

 

[zone]

Well, lutherans are under the bondage of law, Because they do not accept the Holy Spirit.

let's mark this down, kerry.

 

[zone]

Well, lutherans are under the bondage of law, Because they do not accept the Holy Spirit.

Freedom can only be truly realised by the acceptance of the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues.

freedom from what?

are tongues actual literal languages?
have you read Acts 2 yet?

 

[Kerry]

Mr Shafer, Zone tells me that I and my mother in law and my mother were healed by demons. so you understand her not understanding. They ask Jesus the same question, they said you heal by Beelzebub. Jesus swiftly said a house divide cannot stand. How can satan cast out satan. Yet She holds to that theory because I speak in tongues. Tongues are biblical, yet she say's it is of the devil. Have we ever heard a rock star speak in tongues, Have we ever heard a satanist speak in tongues, yet she attributes it to demons. The Lord will forgive because of ignorance and what her leaders have taught. But know she knows better, yet the Lord is merciful.

 

[presidente]

Well, lutherans are under the bondage of law, Because they do not accept the Holy Spirit. Freedom can only be truly realised by the acceptance of the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues. Otherwise a demon can say "I am baptised with the Holy Spirit yet I do not speak in tongues".

Well, if you looked around enough, you could find someone who says they are Lutheran and speak in tongues. Maybe not on this forum. But I don't agree with some of the other stuff you said. What if the demon in your example happens to speak something other than English.

 

[presidente]

post someone miraculously speaking the Wonderful Works of God in a gentile language (or hebrew - who cares at this point) they didn't learn.

if you can't (and you can not) - they ceased.

That's one of the problems discussing this issue with you. The lack of logic in some of your reasoning. If I don't care to dig through YouTube videos or whatever it is you have in mind, that doesn't prove what you say.

are tongues actual languages?
which ones do you speak?
are you a translator?

I can interpret between a couple of human languages naturally. You need to study I Corinthians 14. The speaker in tongues uttered mysteries with his spirit. The speaker's mind was 'unfruitful.' He was even instructed to pray that he might interpret. It wasn't a language he knew. There is no evidence the disciples in Acts 2 knew what they were saying or knew which languages they were speaking in before other people present recognized them.
did ya learn it in school? or did Power come from On High?
let's see the evidence.[/QUOTE]

 

[Kerry]

freedom from what?

are tongues actual literal languages?
have you read Acts 2 yet?

Yes they are, have you read it with the understanding of the Holy Spirit. It is not babble as many of you have proposed. It is the Holy Spirit praying through us with out or will as we yield our tongue to Him. when you pray, do you pray the will of God our do you pray your own will. Paul said we don't know how to pray as we ought, so they Spirit takes over if we allow Him to.

 

[zone]

Well, lutherans are under the bondage of law, Because they do not accept the Holy Spirit. Freedom can only be truly realised by the acceptance of the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues. Otherwise a demon can say "I am baptised with the Holy Spirit yet I do not speak in tongues". Rick I admire you but, please tell no one to shove it. I understand how frustrating it can be to show someone something they do not believe as they have been taught not to all their life. Yet a muslim can be saved and shown otherwise but, only by the Holy Spirit. Zone is well versed in the scripture but only by the carnal mind. She has not had her eyes opened by the Spirit. Which is the only way one can truly understand the full impact of the word of God. Without the Spirit we look at the word with our own understanding, which is nothing compared to the intention of almighty God. I thank god for Martin Luther, I would not be where I am today without his input. Yet I think he would also reject what his church has become, rejecting the Holy Spirit and saying we have no longer a need for Him because we are intelligent and have the scripture as we interpret it. Go away Holy Spirit we don't need you nor want you.

are you having fun?
it's unfortunate you're on such shaky ground. but it's your choice.


"....unintelligible babbling known as “speaking in tongues” in the modern Pentecostal movement is widely practiced in cults and even in non-Christian and pagan religions. Richard Ganz, in 20 Controversies that Almost Killed a Church (p 212) says that this kind of babbling is practiced by Mormons, The Way International, Hindus, Muslims and many others.

But this practice is not only a recent phenomenon, but was common in pagan worship long before Christ came. Robert G. Gromacki, in The Modern Tongues Movement (pp 5-10), documents the history of “speaking in tongues” in antiquity. Some of these ecstatic babbling were reported in the “Report of Wenamon” (about 1100 BC), Plato’s Dialogues (5th century BC), and Virgil’s Aeneid (1st century BC). The Graeco-Roman mystery religions before and after the Christian era most probably practiced these babbling utterances.

Gromacki also documents this phenomenon in modern times among Muslims, Buddhists, and Eskimos..."

- See more at: The Pagan Origins of Modern “Speaking in Tongues”

 

[presidente]

But on the other hand you have no shred of evidence to say they did.

I Corinthians 12-14 shows us that believers, regular believers in Corinth, functioned in these gifts. Paul says 'that ye come behind in no spiritual gift waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.'

Remember Paul was an apostle appointed to do what he did. He was still alive and remember the gifts would remain with him till he died,what you do not have one shred of evidence for is that any new believers receiving the gifts.

Please study the passages we keep referring to over and over again. I Corinthians 12-14. The OP quotes verses that imply that regular believers in the church would speak in tongues, interpret, and prophecy. "Every one of you" is not Paul if Paul is somewhere else not in the meeting. You don't have any evidence that God has cancelled I Corinthians 12. If you can't show that, then you don't have a real argument. Paul never says the gifts would cease when he died. They aremanifestations of the Spirit, not manifestations of Paul.

Paul is the only one after Acts 19 that is shown to still have the gifts.

That's not true. John had all those visions and revelation and prophesied about coming prophesying and miracles.

Irenaeus and the early fathers never say themselves they observed it for one and they really don't speak about it. The story about Irenaeus history and where he was from has a bit to do with what he was dealing with and also what he really said.

That last sentence was vague? Are you talking about his missionary work among the Gauls? Missionary work still goes on, you know.

There is more evidence for prophesying in the second century and afterward. _The Spirit and the Church, Volume I: Antiquity by Burgess is quite a heavy tome full of such quotes if you are sincerely interested.

The correct word is either mature or complete not perfect in our sense. The Greek interlinear Bible translates it as mature. Remember too the whole letter of 1 Corinthians in Paul's own words is that he still has to feed them milk not meat. The whole church was still growing up.

Be that as it may, Paul was waiting for the perfect to come. He wasn't saying he was waiting for the Corinthians to be perfect. If Paul spoke wisdom among them that are perfect, wasn't he 'perfect' himself. (I'm just sticking with KJV language to represent the translated Greek words, hoping the readers understands.) If he was perfect and perfection corresponds with no miracles and no power, why did he continue to do miracles, and write such things as the kingdom of God is not in word but in power.

As long as there is evangelism, there are going to be immature believers. If spiritual gifts were only for the immature, we would still expect to see them. Since Jesus Himself was a great miracle workers and healer, we should not say that miracles are for the immature. The Bible says no such thing about spiritual gifts. Jesus referred to casting out demons as a miracle, and He said if He cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. These manifestations of the Spirit are a way in which the kingdom of God is manifested, something from the future age coming into our age, not merely something for the immature from the past.

 

[zone]

Yes they are, have you read it with the understanding of the Holy Spirit. It is not babble as many of you have proposed. It is the Holy Spirit praying through us with out or will as we yield our tongue to Him. when you pray, do you pray the will of God our do you pray your own will. Paul said we don't know how to pray as we ought, so they Spirit takes over if we allow Him to.

if tongues are real human languages why are you babbling incoherently like the pagans and cults?
it ought to make you quake, since you yourself don't even know what you're muttering.

Paul said we don't know how to pray as we ought, so they Spirit takes over if we allow Him to.

really? He takes over?
what does it sound like?
an answer to this one would be appreciated.
i'll point how how blasphemous you're getting. you're not at all worried.
this is quite concerning, but there's nothing i personally can do for you.

can you get the passage, please?
let's take a good look at it.

 

[Kerry]

are you having fun?
it's unfortunate you're on such shaky ground. but it's your choice.


"....unintelligible babbling known as “speaking in tongues” in the modern Pentecostal movement is widely practiced in cults and even in non-Christian and pagan religions. Richard Ganz, in 20 Controversies that Almost Killed a Church (p 212) says that this kind of babbling is practiced by Mormons, The Way International, Hindus, Muslims and many others.

But this practice is not only a recent phenomenon, but was common in pagan worship long before Christ came. Robert G. Gromacki, in The Modern Tongues Movement (pp 5-10), documents the history of “speaking in tongues” in antiquity. Some of these ecstatic babbling were reported in the “Report of Wenamon” (about 1100 BC), Plato’s Dialogues (5th century BC), and Virgil’s Aeneid (1st century BC). The Graeco-Roman mystery religions before and after the Christian era most probably practiced these babbling utterances.

Gromacki also documents this phenomenon in modern times among Muslims, Buddhists, and Eskimos..."

- See more at: The Pagan Origins of Modern “Speaking in Tongues”

Zone, I love you but, I don't care what your men document say's. Tongues are biblical and reinforced by Paul. Stop looking at men and look to God and the scripture. I know what you have been taught and that is the most difficult thing to go against what you have been taught. But, Zone if you were not ignorant of this fact, you would be endanger of denying the Holy Spirit. But thank God you are not, because you do not understand, you must have the Holy Spirit in order to deny Him.You stand in contest with Paul and all of the Apostles. How did Paul convince Peter that the Gentiles had received the Holy Spirit? I think that Martin Luther would smack you down if he could get his hands on you. He started this or atleast renewed it.

 

[Drett]

Jesus is the way, the truth and the light. Did Jesus speak in tongues ? Always follow the example of the best.