I told you that I do not want to discuss this subject with Charismatics or Pentecostals, because it only generates arguments. Please just agree to disagree. Why is that so hard for you?
There's good arguments, and there's bad arguments. Paul and Barnabas argued with the Jews. They stood before synagogues and argued the case for Christ.
Then there's throwing plates. That's bad arguing.
Agree to disagree? I don't do that. It doesn't mean anything. If I disagree with something, I don't agree with their disagreeing with me. And I shouldn't agree with people disagreeing with the Bible. What good would that do? We should all agree with the word of God? It seems like you've shut yourself off to discussion on certain parts of the word of God. If someone is arguing against what the Bible teaches, he shouldn't blame others for being argumentative.
Quite frankly, you have convinced me that you most likely would not recognise good eisegesis, if you stumbled over it.
Well, if you think good eisegesis is acceptable, that's the problem. Do you think your reading those ideas into the text, for example that someone MUST have been cursing Jesus by speaking in tongues, when he text doesn't say that? Is that 'good eisegesis.' I believing reading stuff into the text of scripture that isn't there is a bad way of handling the word. I don't know if I could think of an example of 'good eisegesis'.
I suppose one could argue that if he really convinced people of a doctrine that wasn't in the text by his eisegesis, that he did a good job of it.
In fact, it appears to me, that you think that personal experience and the feelings theY generate, are the best way to interpret what is true of false in Scripture"?
That's funny. Your article argued your case largely based on experiences of people. I've been making my case from scripture.
When it comes to experience, experience does count to something. It's in one of those lists of things we are to add to our faith after all. But it isn't our basis for doctrine. It can enrich our understanding of it.
Sorry you are wasting an enormous amount of time typing these posts, like I said, I post here to encourage the brethren who do not believe in the Charismatic experience.
Well, you are typing posts, too. If you think it's a waste of time, you choose what to do with your own time. I realise other people read posts between us, so I certainly hope it isn't a waste of time.
I, like most mainline Christian denominations, believe the Charismatic experience is lowering the GENUINE MIRACLE of the gift of TONGUES to something you can do, and getting all exercised trying in vain to convince us that it really is a miracle. Last time I checked if you can practice it, IT IS NOT A MIRACLE.
What do you mean by 'practice'. Do you mean 'do' or work at it till you get it right. I don't believe in 'practicing' tongues in the sense of working at it to get it right. Jesus did miracles. We might say that there were early Christians who 'practiced' miracles since they did miracles. I'm not saying they kept trying till they got it right.
I do not want to argue with any of you, and I respect your right to believe in your thing.
Why do you suppose you get so angry about it, when we point out that we do not believe your thing, is the real McCoy?
Angry? Do you feel hot under the collar? I'm calm over here on this side of the PC. Are you 'projecting' your own emotions? I don't like seeing you take a passage of scripture and teach points opposite from what the passage teaches. I illustrate this in a post above. You teach people to be afraid they might be cursing Jesus in tongues. Paul said the one who prayed in tongues gave thanks well. Clearly, Paul taught a different attitude toward speaking in tongues that you do.
Doesn't it bother you that it produces so much anger?
Some of the Jews that heard the Gospel got angry. The crowds that stoned Philip got angry. If people get angry over a topic, that doesn't make the topic bad. Anger resides in the hearts of men. We all need to be obedient to the word of God whether people get angry over certain topics or not.
