Tongues???

[presidente]

I believe you INTERPRET IT WRONG, because you are desperately trying to justify your personal experience, because of wonderful feelings it generates,

I can't say I feel any more wonderful praying in tongues than I do praying in English or singing in English. My faith is not feelings-based, though I do appreciate joy, peace, and other fruits of the Spirit.

In fact Plato centuries before Christ, used to speak in tongues in the Greek Mystery Religion that he attended.

The Bible refers to speaking in tongues and says they spoke in tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance. It is talking about the Holy Spirit, not some pagan spirit. If you get those confused, your interpretation is very confused. Based on one of the very poor sources you cite in your message, I'm wondering if you believe that the Corinthian's speaking in tongues, the very speaking in tongues in the Bible, was not genuine.

You quoted the John MacArthur commentary below. John MacArthur's commentary is sensible on some issues, but his sermons and commentaries are some of the worst sources I've ever seen when it comes to commentary on speaking in tongues. The approach to scripture is similar to what homosexuals use to justify homosexuality, the same sort of abuse of the historical and cultural approach to scripture that some of the liberals use. His interpretation of I Corinthians 14 does not stand up to a simple reading of the text.

You quoted MacArthur's commentary:

14:2-39 Although it is not indicated consistently in some translations, the distinction between the singular tongue and the plural tongues is foundational to the proper interpretation of this chapter. Paul seems to use the singular to distinguish the counterfeit gift of pagan gibberish and the plural to indicate the genuine gift of a foreign language (see note on v. 2).

One of his sermons describes Corinthian tongues as 'pagan tongues' comparing them to the utterances of the Oracle at Delphi. This is an outlandish interpretation, where he is so prejudiced against the gift that he even calls the exercise of the gift by Christians as recorded in scripture 'pagan'! That is really over the top, and a very poor and dangerous approach to the topic. Maybe some of his editors vetted some of the more outlandish elements of his argument. I don't know. That sermon was still on his website the last I checked.

The assertion in this commentary does not hold up to a simple reading of the chapter. This interpretation reminds me a bit of some of the false assertions I've heard Charismatics make about the 'rhema/logos' distinction, except you need a concordance to debunk that with a simple reading of the text. Here you just have to read the chapter in the KJV.

This verse debunks the assertion in the MacArthur commentary.

I Corinthians 14
13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.

That is the exact same grammatical form of the Greek word, case and all, as in verse 2. Here, we see Paul wanted him to speak in an unknown 'tongue', singular, to pray that he may interpret. If the 'tongue' here were a false pagan tongue, how would interpreting it edify other people? Why would Paul want it interpreted?


I'm assuming the note on verse 2 argues that the 'tongue' by which one speaks mysteries in the Spirit is a bad thing, false thing, or pagan thing, because in one of his sermons, he considered this to be 'pagan tongues.' (A gift of the Spirit being called a pagan tongue is close to blasphemy if it has not crossed the line!)

But if you think singular 'tongue' is good and 'tongues' is false, then Paul says,

18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:

Notice Paul speaks in plural 'tongues.' Since God speak to the people with men of other 'tongues', we shouldn't say 'tongues', plural is bad. (The KJV is consistent with it's use of plurals on this issue.)

If we really look at the chapter, then it makes more sense to interpret the plural of 'tongues' as referring to more than one language, and the singular to one language.

It makes sense to interpret singular to mean singular and plural to mean plural. Go figure. Really think about it. You are being duped by a commentary that argues that the singular of a word refers to something bad--instead of the singular, and the plural refers to something good-- instead of the plural? Talk about an irrational, arbitrary argument.

If you really have to resort to such absurdity to hold on to this particular belief, you should question your belief.

More from the John MacArthur commentary:

It was perhaps in recognition of that, that the King James Version (KJV) translators added consistently the word “unknown” before every singular form (see vv. 2, 4, 13, 14, 19, 27).

Most of us who use the KJV can see that that word is in italics. I've seen straw man arguments made of this before, but it would be rare indeed for a Pentecostal or Charismatic to make an argument based on the presence of the word 'unknown' in the KJV. No doctrine rests on it. Maybe the KJV writers put that in there because in the context, the tongue is unknown, and they were trying out a bit of their version of dynamic equivalence.

The implications of that distinction will be noted as appropriate. Against the backdrop of carnality and counterfeit ecstatic speech learned from the experience of the pagans,

Paul makes no reference to pagan ecstatic speech of the pagans. Why use something Paul makes no mention of as the 'exegetical key' to understand the passage? What's really bad is when people do such things to argue against the plain sense of the text, and John MacArthur has done in this case. Usually, liberals do this.

J. Vernon McGee

For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries [1Cor. 14:2].Note that the word unknown is in italics in your Bible, and that means it is not in the original Greek. Nowhere in the Bible does it speak of unknown tongues. It should read: "For he that speaketh in a tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries." Because nobody will understand him, he is not to speak in a language that is unknown to the group -- unless somebody there can interpret.

This commentary is a lot more faithful to the text. It doesn't require stretching the text, making plural mean something other than plural, or using some fact from history and cultural as an excuse to distort the meaning of the text. My only minor point of difference would be that Paul says if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence, which gives the individual a bit of a chance to see if there is an interpreter before he knows he must keep silence.

We will see in this chapter that there are three gifts which Paul emphasizes: prophecy, tongues, and the interpretation of tongues. Have you ever noticed that there is very little reference to tongues in the Bible except in these three chapters? There are references to it in Mark 16:17 and Acts 2:3-4, 11; Acts 10:46; Acts 19:6. Cornelius and his household spoke in tongues. The disciples of John in Ephesus spoke in tongues after Paul had preached the gospel to them. We find, therefore, that tongues were used at the institution of the dispensation of grace. Every time tongues were used, they were used in that connection. There was speaking in tongues on the Day of Pentecost when the gospel went to the nation of Israel. There was speaking in tongues at the home of Cornelius when the gospel was opened to the Gentiles. There was speaking in tongues in Ephesus when the gospel moved out into the uttermost parts of the earth. Those are the three instances.

The presence of tongues in Corinth as, apparently, an ongoing thing in their meetings (permissible with interpretation), doesn't fit with the dispensational argument he seems to be making, especially if he is trying to use this as an argument for tongues only being for those time periods.

 

[presidente]

If we believed John MacArthur's teachings on the subject, we'd be forced to believe that Paul wanted the Corinthians 'pagan tongues' interpreted to edify the church. This is a bad and dangerous interpretation.

 

[presidente]

VCO

mysteries—unintelligible to the hearers, exciting their wonder, rather than instructing them. Corinth, being a mart resorted to by merchants from Asia, Africa, and Europe, would give scope amidst its mixed population for the exercise of the gift of tongues; but its legitimate use was in an audience understanding the tongue of the speaker, not, as the Corinthians abused it, in mere display.

A Commentary: Critical, Experimental, and Practical on the Old and New Testaments.

This is one of those commentaries that defines words to lead the reader to a preconcieved idea of the writer. Paul used the same word to refer to the mystery of Christ. Paul's other references to the word are positive. Do the mysteries of Christ, which were revealed to Paul, which Paul sought to convey through scripture, the type that "exciting their wonder, rather than instructing them." Clearly not. That does not describe the book of Ephesians.

Ephesians 3:4
Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)

The commentary you cited gives a poor definition. It seems your interpretation is based on uncritical use of commentaries, perhaps commentaries that confirm and support your own prejudices.

One of MacArthur's sermons outdid this commentary, trying to tie the mysteries one spoke of while speaking in tongues, a gift of the Spirit, to the pagan 'mystery' religions. At list this commentary does not go this far.

Interpreting pagan utterances from mystery religions is not going to build up the church. Commentaries can be good, including those that focus on cultural and historical issues if done properly. In many cases, we get a much deeper understanding from just reading the text in a straightforward manner than we do from reading commentaries.

If the assertions of these commentaries don't hold up when we go verse by verse through a passage and test their assertions on other passages, we need to question the commentaries.

 

[nowyouseem033]

VCO



This is one of those commentaries that defines words to lead the reader to a preconcieved idea of the writer. Paul used the same word to refer to the mystery of Christ. Paul's other references to the word are positive. Do the mysteries of Christ, which were revealed to Paul, which Paul sought to convey through scripture, the type that "exciting their wonder, rather than instructing them." Clearly not. That does not describe the book of Ephesians.

Ephesians 3:4
Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)

The commentary you cited gives a poor definition. It seems your interpretation is based on uncritical use of commentaries, perhaps commentaries that confirm and support your own prejudices.

Gee i wonder why Paul didnt encourage or exhort tongue speaking in his other letters to the churches?? The fact that its only mentioned three times in the whole bible goes to show you that it was never meant to be an established doctrine for the church for all ages but rather a sign/wonder.

 

[presidente]

Gee i wonder why Paul didnt encourage or exhort tongue speaking in his other letters to the churches?? The fact that its only mentioned three times in the whole bible goes to show you that it was never meant to be an established doctrine for the church for all ages but rather a sign/wonder.

Your conclusion is not justified by the evidence you present. How many epistles bring up the topic of church discipline? I can think of three or four, but some references are kind of indirect (like the vessels of dishonor), and don't seem to go as far as I Corinthians 5. It is still an important doctrine, even if it is only mentioned about as many times as speaking in tongues is. Speaking in tongues may even be addressed in more verses since Paul addressed it so much in I Corinthians 14.

How many verses say 'thou shalt not kill'. There might be more verses on speaking in tongues. Does that mean that restrictions on murder ended at the end of the first century?

You might conclude that speaking in tongues is not totally central to the Christian faith and is one of many gifts. But how many times does the New Testament have to repeat a doctrine before we are obligated to believe it?

 

[hornetguy]

Albert Einstein is quoted as saying that God does not play dice with the universe. There is no chance on this. Either it is or it 'aint.

Albert should have stuck with physics...

Historically, arguing that these gifts have ceased presents a problem. There is plenty of evidence for second century prophecy, but there is evidence for it in later centuries. Why would prophecy have still been around with Ireneaus wrote about it in 200 AD?

Not to be argumentative, but having someone "write about something" doesn't necessarily make it true, or genuine. Look at all the books written about faith-healing by the money-grubbers. If those books are read 500 years from now, people would get the idea that was actually a fact...

I really don't get why the apostles dying would be considered the 'perfect' or whatever other interpretation one could use to arrive at the idea that these gifts died out after they died. When they died, I suspect the Christians at the funeral were not saying, "This is perfect."

The apostles dying is NOT the "perfect" which has come. The gifts were given in order to establish the church. The idea is that Jesus passed along the ability to work miracles of healing, and other miraculous gifts of the Spirit to the apostles, and they apparently had the ability to pass that gift along to their followers, but that it stopped after that, which, I suppose, would correspond with the completion of the NT, which many people say is "the perfect" that Paul mentioned.

I'm not necessarily saying that is what I believe, but a good case can be made for that viewpoint. Probably as good a case as the case you are making for "all the gifts, all the time".... hence the 50/50 chance I mentioned.

 

[VCO]

I can't say I feel any more wonderful praying in tongues than I do praying in English or singing in English. My faith is not feelings-based, though I do appreciate joy, peace, and other fruits of the Spirit.



The Bible refers to speaking in tongues and says they spoke in tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance. It is talking about the Holy Spirit, not some pagan spirit. If you get those confused, your interpretation is very confused. Based on one of the very poor sources you cite in your message, I'm wondering if you believe that the Corinthian's speaking in tongues, the very speaking in tongues in the Bible, was not genuine.

You quoted the John MacArthur commentary below. John MacArthur's commentary is sensible on some issues, but his sermons and commentaries are some of the worst sources I've ever seen when it comes to commentary on speaking in tongues. The approach to scripture is similar to what homosexuals use to justify homosexuality, the same sort of abuse of the historical and cultural approach to scripture that some of the liberals use. His interpretation of I Corinthians 14 does not stand up to a simple reading of the text.

You quoted MacArthur's commentary:


One of his sermons describes Corinthian tongues as 'pagan tongues' comparing them to the utterances of the Oracle at Delphi. This is an outlandish interpretation, where he is so prejudiced against the gift that he even calls the exercise of the gift by Christians as recorded in scripture 'pagan'! That is really over the top, and a very poor and dangerous approach to the topic. Maybe some of his editors vetted some of the more outlandish elements of his argument. I don't know. That sermon was still on his website the last I checked.
. . .

If you really have to resort to such absurdity to hold on to this particular belief, you should question your belief.

. . .


Most of us who use the KJV can see that that word is in italics. I've seen straw man arguments made of this before, but it would be rare indeed for a Pentecostal or Charismatic to make an argument based on the presence of the word 'unknown' in the KJV. No doctrine rests on it. Maybe the KJV writers put that in there because in the context, the tongue is unknown, and they were trying out a bit of their version of dynamic equivalence. . .

I told you in the beginning, that I do not want argue with any of you Charismatics. I was perfectly content just showing Christian Love for my brother on the Charismatic side of the fence, ignoring our DIFFERENT interpretations of Charismatic gifts, and just agreeing to disagree. You are the one that keeps trying to push my buttons, hurling false accusations about what I believe, trying to force me to argue, and I REFUSE to let you do that. I do not want you reply to this post, because I am going to give you the full blunt of what we teach and Believe. If you get your feeling hurt now, or feel insulted; it is all on your head, not mine.

1 Corinthians is NOT a letter of commendation, IT IS A LETTER OF CONDEMNATION, where Paul was one after another CORRECTING the numerous errors of understanding in the Corinthian Church. YES you certainly are just a modern day Corinthian Church, but that is not something to be proud of, it is something you should be ashamed of. They were THEE MOST MESSED UP CHURCH, that Paul had to confront. In fact at one point Paul threatened to come there with a rod and spank them like children, who were acting totally like arrogant brats.


1 Corinthians 4:18-21 (ESV)
[SUP]18 [/SUP] Some are arrogant, as though I were not coming to you.
[SUP]19 [/SUP] But I will come to you soon, if the Lord wills, and I will find out not the talk of these arrogant people but their power.
[SUP]20 [/SUP] For the kingdom of God does not consist in talk but in power.
[SUP]21 [/SUP] What do you wish? Shall I come to you with a rod, or with love in a spirit of gentleness?


John MacArthur is absolutely right, the Charismatic tongues is identical to tongues spoken in the Pagan Temples. It is NOTHING LIKE WHAT THE APOSTLES DID. But not only in that it was ecstatic utterances, but in the arrogant attitudes, and misuse of that meaningless experience; all at the expense of the CHURCHES Primary Functions. That is SHOWING CHRISTIAN LOVE TO OTHERS, EDIFYING OTHERS AND NOT SELF, AND PROPHESYING INSTEAD OF BLURTING OUT ECSTATIC UTTERANCES. Apparently very few of you know that the word Prophesying at the time of Paul, did NOT mean to foretell the future. It did not take on that meaning until the Dark Ages. Prophesying at the time of Paul meant to "Proclaim the WORD of GOD truthfully, WITHOUT ERROR." THEREFORE in your incessant focus on Charismatic tongues, you personally are forgetting to LOVE OTHERS, you are forgetting to Edify Others, and you certainly are forgetting to Proclaim GOD's WORD, especially the GOSPEL of SALVATION to Others, without error. THOSE are the Primary responsibilities of EVERY CHRISTIAN, but YOU put your meaningless tongues ahead of all of that.

WE ARE FINISHED, and I am kicking the dust from my feet and going on to someone else.

 

[zone]

Yes, I did. This was not at my church... it was with some other folks that had come to town, and were doing individual studies and such. This was back in the late 70's I think... they were called the WOW... Word over the World.. I was gullible enough to fall for their hype... they were very persuasive.

what is your opinion on the perps?
did they know they were deceiving ppl or are they first deceived?
what made you wake up re: their hype?

 

[zone]

Wow. You do like to tempt fate... and the Lord.

not at all. don't drag Him into it.
the pentes should stop the antics.

 

[hornetguy]

what is your opinion on the perps?
did they know they were deceiving ppl or are they first deceived?
what made you wake up re: their hype?

Thanks for the rep, by the way...

I think the people truly believed what they were teaching, but it was much like any of the "fad" type of belief systems. Get people hyped up emotionally, and "teach" them how to speak in tongues, insisting/hinting that if they are truly "born again" they WILL get tongues.

Actually, at the time, it reminded me a lot of the hippie movement... nothing but love, love, tongues, lots of emphasis on the Spirit... not that there's anything wrong with that (Seinfeld, much?) but it was excessive.... sort of like "I have a serious problem that I need help with.." "oh, but we LOVE you, let's all hug, and pray, and everything will be happy happy"

 

[presidente]

I told you in the beginning, that I do not want argue with any of you Charismatics. I was perfectly content just showing Christian Love for my brother on the Charismatic side of the fence, ignoring our DIFFERENT interpretations of Charismatic gifts, and just agreeing to disagree. You are the one that keeps trying to push my buttons, hurling false accusations about what I believe, trying to force me to argue, and I REFUSE to let you do that.

That's really ironic after that diatribe in your last post. You say I believe in speaking in tongues because of feelings, a bunch of made up stuff out of your own mind, and called what the pagans did 'speaking in tongues.' Where did I misrepresent what you posted? I am capable of misunderstanding and presenting someone's views wrongly. I think my comments were fair in response to what you posted.

If you don't want to participate in a conversation, that's up to you. To me, it seems like you are putting your hands over your ears to keep from hearing the truth. You don't address issues verse by verse through the passages in questions-- the verses that disprove your viewpoints. Maybe its because you think you know all these things and you've heard it all before. That's an attitude that keeps one from growing in knowledge however, wanting to talk and not listen or interact.

I do not want you reply to this post, because I am going to give you the full blunt of what we teach and Believe.

If you promote error in the forum, I don't mind using your posts as a spring board to correct the error. One way to keep me from responding is to not post such things on the forum. Your participation in the forum keeps the responses to you coming. That's how it works.

If you get your feeling hurt now, or feel insulted; it is all on your head, not mine.

I'm a big boy. I'm not crying.

1 Corinthians is NOT a letter of commendation, IT IS A LETTER OF CONDEMNATION,

Correction? Yes. Condemnation? No. I se that as contradicting I Corinthians 11:32.
"But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world."

If the Lord was not condemning them, why would this epistle?

where Paul was one after another CORRECTING the numerous errors of understanding in the Corinthian Church.

There is lots of correction in this epistle. I agree with that. But the epistle is still profitable for doctrine. It is foolish to disregard the importance of an epistle because it contains a lot of correction. Much of the correciton is still so relevant today.

And this would seem to be a bit of commendation in the epistle.

I Corinthians 11.
2 [FONT=&quot]Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.[/FONT]

Before another bit of correction.

This epistle teaches us against trusting in the wisdom of this world. It teaches about the role of the Spirit in revealing truth to us. It warns against division. It contains an important section on church discipline which is still applicable today. There is teaching about our bodies being the temple of the Holy Spirit. We know from this epistle not to sue our brethren. It teaches about some of the details of marriage not covered in other scriptures. I Corinthians contains important teachings on conscience, teachings on supporting preachers of the Gospel, an important section on the Lord's supper. There are teachings about spiritual gifts. The longest, most detailed passage on what we are commanded to actually do in church is in this epistle. The epistle also contains important teachings on the resurrection, and a section on collecting funds toward the end.

This is a very doctrinally important epistle, though it deals with issues that are 'milk.' Even today, many Christians have not mastered the milk of this epistle. It would be foolish to disregard the epistle as doctrinally important because there were Corinthians involved in division, sexual immorality, idolatry, and they apparently had some disorder in their meetings.

YES you certainly are just a modern day Corinthian Church, but that is not something to be proud of, it is something you should be ashamed of.

I'm arguing in favor of what Paul wrote in I Corinthians. Am I a Corinthian? I have only had sex with one woman, my wife, and that was after we got married. I hear in the ancient world, they used to call the sexual immoral Corinthians. There was a problem with fornication in the Corinthian church. It doesn't seem to be a good label for me in that regard. Do I eat meat offered to idols? I am against such things. I consider a lot of evangelical's interpretation of I Corinthians to be too liberal on this subject. So you don't have a point there, either. Do I believe people should all speak in tongues in church without interpretation? No. I believe speaking in tongues and prophesying should follow the order laid down in I Corinthians 14. The Corinthians this epistle was written to were brethren in the faith, so I am one with them in that I am part of Christ's body. The epistle was written to all of us, not just the Corinthians. How many epistles actually say up front that they are written to all believers, in addition to the church the epistle is named after?

But I can't be a whole church, since I am just one person.

They were THEE MOST MESSED UP CHURCH, that Paul had to confront. In fact at one point Paul threatened to come there with a rod and spank them like children, who were acting totally like arrogant brats.

Is that a reason not to believe what Paul actually wrote to them? Is that a reason not to beleive the part about when anyone speaks in a tongue, that no one understandeth him, and later for him that speaks in a tongue to pray that he may intepret? Is it any reason not to believe the gifts Paul wrote about were genuine? That's the topic here.

I don't think the Corinthians were a mature church who had it all together. This just happens to be an epistle where Paul teaches much of the doctrine on spiritual gifts.... in the midst of his correction on the subject... and what to do in church... in the midst of his correction of the Corinthians on the subject. Paul gives 'commandments of the Lord' for church meetings and implies that they apply to other church meeting. If we look at what he wrote, it tells about how believers in the assembly can sing, teach, share tongues, revelations, and interpretations. The rule is that these things must be done 'unto edifying.' Paul gives details on how tongues, interpretation, and prophecy are to be given in an orderly manner.

He says that all things must be done decently and in order. This is the order of the passage, of the 'commandments of the Lord', not necessarily the order of a Roman Catholic, Presbyeterian, Methodist, or Baptist meeting.

John MacArthur is absolutely right, the Charismatic tongues is identical to tongues spoken in the Pagan Temples

If I understand John MacArthur right, he considers Charismatic tongues to be the same as the tongues of the Corinthians. I can agree with that at least in some cases where the tongues are genuine. It is clear from I Corinthians 14 that Paul only deals with the topic of genuine speaking in tongues, a genuine gift of the Spirit. There is no hint that he is talking about some kind of pagan tongue. This is where MacArthur really goes off the deep end, following the liberal method of abusing culture and history to eisegete an idea that is clearly not in the text. His interpretation gets really weird, and not the type of thing you read in most other commentaries, even cessationist commentaries.

In fact, a lot of cessationists will go through the passage and come to the same conclusions as Charismatics and Pentecostals on most issues.

But not only in that it was ecstatic utterances, but in the arrogant attitudes, and misuse of that meaningless experience; all at the expense of the CHURCHES Primary Functions.

Ecstatic utterances? It would be really rare indeed for a Charismatic or especially a Pentecostal to call tongues 'ecstatic utterances.' Usually, people who read theological or sociological journals, seminary grads, maybe Bible college grads or students use such languages. It is not accurate. I beleive I've said that, and you still throw your accusations toward me about feeling and experience.

I'm the one arguing scripture here. You are arguing outside of scripture, pulling from pagan sources, for example, and evading discussion of the actual scriptures. I point out contradictions between what you say and what the Bible says, and you ignore it. Then you get upset when I stick to the point, which I do as you continue to post your false ideas on the forum.

As far as 'ecstacy' goes, if you call going into trances 'ecstacies', Peter and Paul went into trances. One for Peter, and one for Paul in the book of Acts. Paul could have been in more than one trance. Peter's visions were probably rather life-like. When he got out of prison, feeling the earth beneath his feet, still smelling the smells, seeing things in front of him, he thought he'd been in a vision.

Speaking in tongues doesn't have to happen in an ecstacy. If a trance or vision like experience is rightly called an 'ecstacy', then I suppose it could happen in an ecstacy. One doesn't have to be in a highly emotional state to speak in tongues or prophecy.

Pentecostal culture, at least in a lot of churches is influenced on the one hand by an enthusiastic, emotional church culture from the Appalachian mountains, and on the other by an enthusiastic, emotional church tradition from African Americans. Rejoicing and shouting and certain other things like that mentioned in the Psalms are emphasized. So some Pentecostals do get emotional. Some Pentecostal churches aren't as emotional. I find that some of the ones from the Holiness end of the movement tend to be more emotional. Some of these people sound emotional while praying in English or in tongues. But that isn't true of all people who pray in English or in tongues.

One doesn't have to be emotional or 'ecstatic' to speak in tongues. And one could get emotional praying in English.

 

[zone]

Thanks for the rep, by the way...

I think the people truly believed what they were teaching, but it was much like any of the "fad" type of belief systems. Get people hyped up emotionally, and "teach" them how to speak in tongues, insisting/hinting that if they are truly "born again" they WILL get tongues.

Actually, at the time, it reminded me a lot of the hippie movement... nothing but love, love, tongues, lots of emphasis on the Spirit... not that there's anything wrong with that (Seinfeld, much?) but it was excessive.... sort of like "I have a serious problem that I need help with.." "oh, but we LOVE you, let's all hug, and pray, and everything will be happy happy"

so they are indulging in these things....do you think any/most of it was from God?

 

[zone]

That's really ironic after that diatribe in your last post......

el presidente;
prolly doesn't mean much to you, but is there any way you could do shorter posts? I give up after 2 or 3 paragraphs...haha...getting old is for the birds

 

[presidente]

VCO wrote,

That is SHOWING CHRISTIAN LOVE TO OTHERS, EDIFYING OTHERS AND NOT SELF, AND PROPHESYING INSTEAD OF BLURTING OUT ECSTATIC UTTERANCES. Apparently very few of you know that the word Prophesying at the time of Paul, did NOT mean to foretell the future. It did not take on that meaning until the Dark Ages. Prophesying at the time of Paul meant to "Proclaim the WORD of GOD truthfully, WITHOUT ERROR."

I don't think your definition is that much more accurate than the 'Dark Ages' definition you propose. The secular definition of 'prophesy' is to predict the future. That doesn't seem to be the Pentecostal or Charismatic definition of the word. A prophecy could be a prediction of the future. But I heard a lot of Pentecostal prophecies that weren't, or weren't heavy on predicting the future. Some of them are quotes or paraphrases of scripture that apply to the situation of the congregation or the individual. Some prophecies directed at individuals deal with their personal life situations and facts people wouldn't normally know, encouraging them in their calling. Some prophecies have an element of predicting the future. But the way I hear the word 'prophesy' and 'prophecy' used by Pentecostals and Charismatics, it pretty much lines up with the Biblical definition.

On the other hand, there are those who redefine it, like Kenneth Copeland saying you can 'prophesy' to the dead bones. Ezekiel was telling them the word of the LORD, even saying 'Thus saith the LORD' to the bones... in his vision. Some WOFers have redefined the word to mean making faith declarations from your own faith to change the situation. That irks me. I've taught against redefining the word 'prophecy.'

But the Reformed movement has redefined the word. John Calvin did it. Preaching and prophesying aren't the same thing. There may be a bit of overlap if a preacher actually starts prophesying. In the Bible, a prophecy is a message from God, often started with 'Thus saith the Lord.' Peter descries Old Testament prophesying as 'holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.'

In Paul's writings, prophets are distinct from teachers, and prophesying is distinct from teaching. One can teach the word of God accurately without prophesying. Teachers often teach what others prophesied before them. Prophesying involves sharing a revelation at that moment.

THEREFORE in your incessant focus on Charismatic tongues, you personally are forgetting to LOVE OTHERS, you are forgetting to Edify Others, and you certainly are forgetting to Proclaim GOD's WORD, especially the GOSPEL of SALVATION to Others, without error. THOSE are the Primary responsibilities of EVERY CHRISTIAN, but YOU put your meaningless tongues ahead of all of that.

Is it a sin to discuss other areas of teaching besides those directly related to the topic of salvation? I don't think so. Paul did not believe so or he would not have addressed other topics. What about you and your posting against speaking in tongues in this thread? At least I'm defending what the Bible says, while you are trying to argue for one part at the expense of others, interpreting Acts in a way that contradicts I Corinthians.

WE ARE FINISHED, and I am kicking the dust from my feet and going on to someone else.

Does that mean you drop the topic of tongues and stop posting on the thread? That's one way to end the conversation.

 

[hornetguy]

so they are indulging in these things....do you think any/most of it was from God?

how to answer that.... hmmm...

Yes, I think a lot of it was from God... they were, after all, praising God and striving to follow Jesus, but I think their application of it was somewhat skewed. I certainly don't think any of it was satanic or demonic, any more than I would think that a church that condemned "Sunday school" was...

I have not read up on all their beliefs, so I can't speak to those, but I believe they were sincere in their desire to follow Jesus.

Unlike the 'televangelist/faith healers/send in all your "seed faith" money' people. I have nothing good to say about that type of "Christian".

 

[zone]

how to answer that.... hmmm...

Yes, I think a lot of it was from God... they were, after all, praising God and striving to follow Jesus, but I think their application of it was somewhat skewed. I certainly don't think any of it was satanic or demonic, any more than I would think that a church that condemned "Sunday school" was...

I have not read up on all their beliefs, so I can't speak to those, but I believe they were sincere in their desire to follow Jesus.

Unlike the 'televangelist/faith healers/send in all your "seed faith" money' people. I have nothing good to say about that type of "Christian".

so do you think the modern tongues phenomenon is the same as the biblical langauges?

 

[presidente]

Not to be argumentative, but having someone "write about something" doesn't necessarily make it true, or genuine.

We were talking about prophesying continuing. One issue to consider is whether people who love God who live godly lives, maybe even die as martyrs, who exercised the gift of prophecy were false Christians, false prophets, or what? Would the vision that got Patrick out of slavery and into training for missions work, and the supernatural voice that took him back to Ireland be false? It doesn't make sense that the Devil would hatch a plan to bring the Gospel to Ireland.

And nowadays, there are people who preach salvation through faith in Jesus Christ who prophesy. I've seen many, many times where someone prophesies about details of another person's life they couldn't naturally know. People have prophesied about me, my parents, and other people I know like this. My wife has prophesied like this. I've gotten words of knowledge from time to time along these lines, too. So what do you do if you encounter this? Do you condemn all such believers as false believers?

The apostles dying is NOT the "perfect" which has come. The gifts were given in order to establish the church. The idea is that Jesus passed along the ability to work miracles of healing, and other miraculous gifts of the Spirit to the apostles, and they apparently had the ability to pass that gift along to their followers, but that it stopped after that, which, I suppose, would correspond with the completion of the NT, which many people say is "the perfect" that Paul mentioned.

If the gifts died out with the generation the apostles laid their hands on, that doesn't match with 'the perfect' at all. The New Testament scriptures had long been completed by then. Why would the death of Polycarp, Papias, and all their generation be 'the perfect.' That doesn't fit I Corinthians 13 either.

B.B. Warfield had this theory like that, that all the gifts died out when the generation that knew the apostles died out. That was how he tried to explain second century references to gifts without discounting the authors totally. But the problem is, it is made up doctrine. The Bible doesn't teach that.

For one thing, it doesn't teach that there were certain gifts that were only imparted through the laying on of the apostles hands. It does show us that gifts COULD BE imparted through the laying on of the apostles hands. But in Acts 2, the Spirit was poured out while Peter was preaching, apparently without the laying on of hands. Then, Saul received the Spirit, but not through the laying on of the apostles' hands. Ananias laid hands on him. Later, prophets and teachers laid hands on Barnabas and Saul when the Spirit spoke about their being separated to minsitry. There were two more apostles, and no other apostles had sent them out on this journey. Paul even said that the other apostles 'added nothing to me.' So not only were spiritual gifts imparted to him without any of the 12 apostles, but he actually became an apostle.

We also see Timothy receiving a gift through prophecy with the laying on of hands of the elders. We see apostles laying hands on people to receive the Spirit, the reception of the Spirit without the laying on of hands of the apostles, a spiritual gift being imparted through the laying on of hands of an apostle, and a spiritual gift being imparted through prophecy with the laying on of hands of the apostles. So all this disproves the theory of these gifts ONLY being imparted through the laying on of hands of the apostles. To support this view, one ends up having to believe doctrine that is made up by the commentator, not taught by the apostles, not taught in scripture, not taught or revealed by the Spirit of GOd.

 

[zone]

ANYONE: could you please post a video showing what you believe to be authentic tongue-speaking?

 

[presidente]

el presidente;
prolly doesn't mean much to you, but is there any way you could do shorter posts? I give up after 2 or 3 paragraphs...haha...getting old is for the birds

You should read more. You might learn something.

 

[zone]

... I've seen many, many times where someone prophesies about details of another person's life they couldn't naturally know. People have prophesied about me, my parents, and other people I know like this. My wife has prophesied like this. I've gotten words of knowledge from time to time along these lines, too. So what do you do if you encounter this? Do you condemn all such believers as false believers? ....

where are we told to "prophesy" about someone else's life?
see, this is the nonsense that takes place - gossipers disguised as "prophets" haha.
it's a real simple thing. there are NO MORE PROPHETS....so the issues (the "prophets") should just simply go away (repentance would be a good idea)