Pentecostalism's sketchy origins

  • 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.

TDidymas

Active member
Oct 27, 2021
311
70
28
i only know, and have, the Baptism of the Holy Spirit that comes down from the Father thru Christ.
The LORD says: "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life" = follow and embrace His Way His Truth and His Life.

Do you have a scripture that shows the difference between 'modern' tongues and the tongues that the Apostles and others spoke and glorified God in???
Read Acts 2, where it is an obvious miracle to all who observed it. But modern "tongues" is a human ability speaking fluent gibberish that is a pseudo-language (it sounds like a language, but is not a language). People in pagan religions do it. P/C expectation and doctrine calls for every Christian to do it, which is an implication that anyone can do it if they try hard enough. This fact has been produced by Christians and non-Christians alike. The difference is seen by careful examination, which the Bible tells us to do. Only those who are gullible enough to accept mysterious urban legends as supernatural fall prey to the deception. And regardless of what you call it using Christian jargon, a rose is still a rose by any other name, and pseudo-language is pseudo-language by any other name.
 

Amanuensis

Well-known member
Jun 12, 2021
1,457
460
83
I did not ask if THEY were speaking in tongues. I asked if YOU would/could/should use YOUR supposed "gift of tongues" and go down there to preach the gospel TO THEM. Then report back with the results. If YOUR gift of tongues is genuine and authentic, YOU would be responsible for the greatest revival in the modern age. I figure you and a dozen of your "tongue speaking" buddies would be the most famous people on planet earth. You would be mobbed by CNN ABC PBS CBS NBC BBC.......and be the subject of intense scientific scrutiny. I would not hesitate to bring along a couple of your "healing gift" buddies to boot. I assume you know at least a few.

What I'm trying to say is: why are the supposed millions of Pentecostal "tongue speakers" squandering their gift like sinful slothful pew potatoes? Why are they defying Jesus' command of Luke 11:33? Why are these supposed tongues only heard and understood by professing Pentecostals within their own assemblies and there's never an outreach program UTILIZING this magnanimous profound gift for the good of others, for the purpose of preaching the gospel to to other countries languages and cultures? Just think.......a mere 12 of you could convert 300 per day for years and years on end.....traveling from one town and village to the next the world over. If just ONE of your healing gift buddies could do what Peter did in Acts 3......maybe you could bump that number up another 5000 per day?

I pray that the Lord would give ME the legitimate authentic gift of tongues. I would be like the energizer bunny and be traveling the planet preaching the gospel until I dropped dead in the sheer joy of exhaustion. I would DEMAND that news cameras and cell phones track/record my every miraculous utterance for posterity. I guarantee you that the entire planet would know that there was at least one genuine Christian speaking authentic miraculous tongues in the Name of the Lord Jesus, for the glory of God the Father, by the empowering of the Holy Spirit.
The gift of tongues was never given to preach the Gospel to people. They did not preach the Gospel to people in tongues on the day of Pentecost. They were speaking the wonderful works of God to God, and foreigners came upon them and recognized that they were speaking about the wonderful works of God in their own language and that these men were Galileans. It doesn't say how they knew just because they were Galileans that they had not learned their language before so there was either some knowledge they had about the 120 and their background and knew it was a miracle, or the knew it was a miracle because they all understood the same speakers.

Then while they were super perplexed about the meaning of this and scratching their heads about what this could mean, Peter stands up and Preaches the Gospel to them in the common language. Probably Aramaic because they were religious Jews visiting Jerusalem and most likely all of them spoke Aramaic in their homes as this had replaced ancient Hebrew but was their "religion language" that bonded them as a people of Israel. Or he spoke in Greek. And then they repented as they believed what Peter preached.

None of the other accounts in the book of Acts have any foreigners present and anyone that heard in their own language.
Paul baptized the disciples at Ephesus and afterwards they spoke in tongues. No one got saved as a result or heard them in their own language or interpreted them. No one preached the Gospel in tongues to foreigners afterwards.
The house of Cornelius got saved, spoke in tongues, got baptized in water, there were no foreigners who heard, and no one preached the Gospel in tongues that day either.

There is not a ghost of a hint of an account of anyone having preached the Gospel in tongues on the mission field in the NT and Paul makes no hint that anyone should do so in 1 Cor 12-14.

I suppose the only way anyone could come up with this theory would be to say that Peter was speaking in tongues when he addressed the crowd, in which case that would support your theory that the gift was given to miraculously preach the Gospel to foreigners but at the same time it would support my theory that there was a miracle of all those different language speakers understanding Peter at the same time but not able to understand each others languages. I don't think that is what happened when Peter preached to them that day do you? I think he spoke in Aramaic or Greek.
 

TDidymas

Active member
Oct 27, 2021
311
70
28
Please read carefully and as the Truth speaks = "Pursue love and desire spiritual gifts" 1 Cor 14:1

i just read your Post #1200 now again and read something very disturbing from you - so PLEASE listen.

Calling God's Word(1 Corinthians ch14) "B.S" and declaring what God calls Holy as unholy is the trademark of false religion and of the Pharisees who condemned their own Messiah.
You assume that your traditional Pentecostal doctrine is "God's Word" because it's how you read 1 Cor. 14. I'm saying no, it's not God's word. I'm saying you are deceived by accepting the idea that modern "tongues" is the same thing as what the NT describes. Therefore, it's not holy as you claim. And your couching the "blasphemer" label doesn't make a difference. It only shows me that your traditional Pentecostal practice is little more than a sacred cow. My point is, your assumption that your practice of glossolalia (a misnomer) is of God just because you were told so, is a bad assumption. And your refusal to have it carefully examined indicates that you fear that it will be exposed as merely human, and a thing of the flesh.

God's Word is TRUTH which many on here think of themselves as capable of readjusting to fit their desire.
This type of mind set comes from religion, is dangerous and causes division in the fellowship of Christ.
i care about everyone on here, even those who sneer, gossip and speak evil of me.
We can argue religion all day, but it would be a futile effort. And are you accusing me of speaking evil of you? If so, it's false. I'm not speaking evil of anyone here. I'm merely saying that modern tongues is a deception, and is not what the Bible describes. If you take it personally, that's your issue, not mine.

FAR BETTER then this is LOVE
We can walk in His Love which is TRUE.
(am i perfect = NOPE = have i made mistakes/YES , do i give up/NO , do i forgive/YES)
Love rejoices in the truth. I rejoice that God led me out of the P/C movement because of the errors therein, which I had been deceived therein. I'm simply telling people what I found out about tongues.

This I recall to my mind,
Therefore I have hope.
Through the Lord’s mercies we are not consumed,
Because His compassions fail not.
They are new every morning;
Great is Your faithfulness.
“The Lord is my portion,” says my soul,
“Therefore I hope in Him!”
I concur absolutely! However, this doesn't get the conversation moving, and therefore doesn't edify anyone concerning this issue.

The Baptism of the Holy Spirit is the Promise of the FATHER which we have heard from JESUS the Messiah
This we know is TRUE and GOOD and never to be spoken evil of.
Ok, we all have received the baptism of the Holy Spirit (that is, the true believers). But I think I know what you mean by this. It's the P/C claim that those who receive this baptism speak in tongues (as initial evidence) - this is what you believe, isn't it?
 

TDidymas

Active member
Oct 27, 2021
311
70
28
you have a basis for stating this as a fact?

... can you speak an unknown language?
I spoke in modern tongues for several years, until God told me it wasn't of Him. I feared to believe that for many years, but after much study of scripture and research, and reading a book and materials showing in detail how modern tongues is not actual languages, I became convinced that modern Pentecostal tongues is the same thing that is practiced in pagan religions, and it is a human ability that anyone can do if they try hard enough. This is the basis of my stating that as a fact. It doesn't mean I'm closed-minded on the matter. I have invited any P/C to offer their tongues for examination, just as any preacher submitted to accountability to the various churches would submit his teaching to the churches for their examination. So far no takers.
 

TDidymas

Active member
Oct 27, 2021
311
70
28
Quote "You keep singing the praises of your ministry. But what I see is your responses. I get that you're proud of yourself,"
No, that is a projection of yourself. That statement offends you because pride in it is the stronghold that causes the offense.

That's a rather backhanded apology. You're blaming me for being offended by your comment. It's not about bitterness. You don't know me personally, you don't know my testimony, you don't know my heart, you don't know the trials. You don't know anything at all, but with that comment you judged my heart, my intent, my experiences. Maybe being right is more important to you. But you're apology lacked sincerity.
I didn't apologize. I said that clearly - "I have nothing to apologize for..." - so how do you think it's an apology? Just saying "if I apologized..." doesn't make an apology. Therefore your idea that my "apology" lacked sincerity is a projection and false judgment of what I said.

And you claimed that you wouldn't get past your offense if I didn't apologized - that is a statement coming from a bitter attitude. Like I said, I'm simply reading your responses.

I have as much value to add to this conversation as you do, or anyone else here. I certainly have as much right.
So far, you haven't added the value necessary to carry the conversation any closer to resolution. Most of your responses from my POV have been bitter personal affronts (what is commonly called ad hominem attacks).

But I will dismantle this conversation down to nuts and bolts. I leave you with this question, is this issue salvic? Are people who speak in tongues, in your mind, going to hell. If so, show me where the Bible flatly states that. Id you don't believe it's a salvic issue, why all the arguments about it?
I thought I was already clear about this. No, it's not salvific. Tongues does NOT prove anything. Modern tongues (not being of God) does NOT prove having the Holy Spirit. Therefore, it is NOT "initial evidence" of the Holy Spirit. It is NOT a gift of the Holy Spirit.

If anyone is actually saved, it's because of the gospel and the gift of faith by God's grace, not because someone "spoke in tongues." Modern "tongues" (I put it in quotes for a reason) has nothing to do with the salvation of an individual. If anyone "speaks in tongues," but does not do what Jesus commanded, they will have a rude awakening on the day of judgment.
 

TDidymas

Active member
Oct 27, 2021
311
70
28
He presented a scripture that corrects your belief that it MUST be a known language on earth.

1 Cor 14:2 For the person who speaks in a tongue is not speaking to people but to God, since no one understands him; he speaks mysteries in the Spirit.

Your response is not addressing this fact that Paul says that it is not speaking to people but to God. Mysteries in the Spirit that no one understands. Not without someone giving the interpretation with the gift of interpretation and not a translation of a known language.

You are insisting on an interpretation (that it must be a known language) even though this verse clearly states that it is not.

So who is forcing a presupposition here? I know you are not prepared to change your mind but I felt it was useful to point out to other readers that this verse cast doubt on your presupposition that it must be a known human language.
Your traditional Pentecostal interpretation of that verse doesn't prove anything except that you read it with that bias. You took it out of its context, as is typical of P/C bias readings.

Paul is saying "no one understands" because the Corinthians were indiscriminately speaking it in the assembly when there was no interpreter. This is the context of what he is talking about. It has nothing to do with the gibberish which is modern P/C "tongues."

But the fact is, 1 Cor. 14 fits well with the Acts 2 narrative, if you interpret it with real miraculous tongues that Acts 2 describes. It's a Biblical precedent. The first mention of tongues in Acts 2 is the correct narrative, and the apostles and disciples who mentioned tongues later in Acts and Corinthians are assuming that those later tongues are following the Acts 2 narrative. If they thought otherwise, it certainly would have been mentioned.

But the narrative about modern tongues doesn't fit well with the NT, and that's the whole point of my posts here. It only fits in the biased minds of the P/Cs who have a vested interest in making their practice look like it's from God.
 

TDidymas

Active member
Oct 27, 2021
311
70
28
@DavidTree Gave you the scripture that disproves your theory. Your theory is that because they all heard them in their own language in Acts 2 that all speaking in tongues from then on must be that of speaking in a known language found somewhere on earth.
It's the Biblical precedent that defines all other places tongues is mentioned.

And yet Paul says to this church at Corinth that when they spoke in tongues they were not speaking to man, but to God and that no man understood them. This contradicts your theory. Now you have the choice of coming up with some method to make this reconcile with your theory, or rework your presupposition, but you don't have the choice of ignoring it. Not and be intellectually honest anyway.
No, your biased interpretation of that verse taken out of its Biblical context and put into the P/C dogma context makes you think my theory is contradicted. Paul was talking about the situation in Corinth, not teaching a general doctrine to apply anywhere.

And you cannot say that if there was a translator then they would be speaking to man, because Paul never once mentioned the need for a language translator. He only spoke of a Holy Spirit gift called the gift of interpretation. This would give them the message from the mysteries spoken to God from the tongue. This interpretation is in the moment. Not a word for word translation that can be written down and translated if you can find someone who knows the language. This theory is a radical departure from anything Paul said in 1 Cor 14.
I think you just don't understand what Paul is talking about because of your P/C bias. Paul clearly stated that edification was knowledge, wisdom, teaching about God. He clearly stated that edification of the church came with understanding, and to make understanding known they needed an interpreter. That means translating a language unknown to the listeners. It means the unknown message spoken by the person speaking in tongues had to be interpreted, or translated, so that the listeners could be edified by the knowledge of the message. This is the whole context of what he is talking about.

You have no biblical authority to support your theory after reading 1 Cor 14:2 and conceding to the intended meaning of Paul's statements.

To continue to insist that it be a known language after Paul said it was not, is just belligerence and it is not biblical authority.
No, you have no biblical authority to support your reading of that verse. Again I say, you took it out of its original context.
 

TDidymas

Active member
Oct 27, 2021
311
70
28
God does not reveal anything [usually] to unbelief.
I differ with you on this. God revealed many things to unbelievers in scripture. But why don't I send your words back to you, by saying - God won't reveal the humanness of modern tongues to you because you refuse to admit that you could be wrong about it. If what I'm saying is true, then you're the one in unbelief.
 

Amanuensis

Well-known member
Jun 12, 2021
1,457
460
83
I disagree with your understanding of it... I think you see it that way because you believe it to BE that way.

Paul was simply talking about spiritual gifts. He was explaining how not everyone has, or should expect to have, the same gifts.
He then went on to explain how all the members of the church, the body of Christ, were like the members of a physical body. Each different part had its own role to fulfill... those that had the gift of wisdom should not look at others that do NOT have the gift of wisdom as being lesser parts of the body. Each different part has a role to play, in the functioning of the body of Christ.
He said nothing about the assembly until chapter 14, where he gave the explicit instructions about how the gifts were to be used.

In your assembly, when someone speaks in a tongue, who interprets what they have said? And how do you know that the interpretation is true? Do you limit it to only one or two, or does just about everyone speak in tongues?
it is fine if you disagree with me, I could be wrong. But I just want to make it clear that I never just force my own interpretations. I would not be comfortable with an interpretation that I could not find others have already written and giving excellent reasons for it. If my interpretation is correct I expect to find it in more than one commentary. If not I would highly suspect I have made a wrong turn in logic or understanding somewhere. It is not likely that I am the only one that sees something that all the scholars before me never saw. LOL

I don't think I am forcing any presuppositions, but rather conceding to superior hermeneutics by authors like Gordon Fee, Stanley Horton, F.F. Bruce, C.K. Barrett., David Garland, Bill Witherington. (some of the commentaries on 1 Corinthians I have in my library that I do actually read, and plan to read them all at least three times cover to cover) And I am always open to change if I find a better hermeneutic.

As to how tongues are used in my church.
For the past 40 years I have been part of 8 or 10 Charismatic assemblies and they have all been mature churches who have used these chapters to teach and guide new believers in the use of the gifts so that there are not that many cases of people being out of order.

Usually it is just one [person who gives an utterance in tongues and someone else will give the interpretation and rarely does this happen in every service. Some churches were one or two a month some less than once a month.

How do you know if it is correct? Does it glorify Christ, does it edify, does it bear witness with us. But one of the amazing things that has happened many times is that I have been on the verge of giving the interpretation and as I hesitated, trying to make sure I was the one that was supposed to give it, someone else gave it it and it is exactly what I was going to say. Now these cases were so specific and not generalities that it could be said that this helps the person know that they were hearing correctly and the next time they feel lead to give the interpretation they are less hesitant because they remember how they were spot on last time but waited too long. I love how often that happens. Other people who are trying to learn how to step out in faith testify of the same experience. Very faith building and we know we are not faking or imagining or making things up.

When we praise and worship we are vocal and everyone is making sounds, whether singing or praising or praying and if some of them are praying in tongues between themselves and God we do not believe that is in any way out of order or a violation of the interpretation "laws" as some skeptics would like to put on us.
 

TDidymas

Active member
Oct 27, 2021
311
70
28
That is a trap, a catch 22.
Acts 2: 1When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place. 2And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. 3And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and resteda on each one of them. 4And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.
Those that demand evidence of spiritual gifts already know this. So they say Pentecostals can't prove it. If one of them began speaking like it, they would instantly declare them a fraud for doing so.
A catch 22.


Tell me, do you think the Holy Spirit would put on a useless show just for you?
No one with the gifts can use them at-will. Those that do are frauds.
Acts 2 describes a real and obvious miracle. But modern tongues hides behind secrecy and urban legend.

I'm not asking the Holy Spirit to put on a useless show. I'm asking P/Cs to present their so-called "gift" for examination. The reason why it is so controversial is because of the prejudices involved in it.

But your statement "No one with the gifts can use them at-will" begs questions. I was told for 25 years when I was in the P/C movement to practice tongues and pray in it always, which obviously requires to be done at will. I was told by elders in the churches that it is done at will. I think I know what verse you're referring to, but I think you're misinterpreting it. But the question begged is, how often to you speak your "gift" of tongues, and how do you start it? Can you explain exactly how it is done if you claim it is not "at-will"? And can you exegete the scripture you're basing your idea on?
 

Amanuensis

Well-known member
Jun 12, 2021
1,457
460
83
Your traditional Pentecostal interpretation of that verse doesn't prove anything except that you read it with that bias. You took it out of its context, as is typical of P/C bias readings.

Paul is saying "no one understands" because the Corinthians were indiscriminately speaking it in the assembly when there was no interpreter. This is the context of what he is talking about. It has nothing to do with the gibberish which is modern P/C "tongues."

But the fact is, 1 Cor. 14 fits well with the Acts 2 narrative, if you interpret it with real miraculous tongues that Acts 2 describes. It's a Biblical precedent. The first mention of tongues in Acts 2 is the correct narrative, and the apostles and disciples who mentioned tongues later in Acts and Corinthians are assuming that those later tongues are following the Acts 2 narrative. If they thought otherwise, it certainly would have been mentioned.

But the narrative about modern tongues doesn't fit well with the NT, and that's the whole point of my posts here. It only fits in the biased minds of the P/Cs who have a vested interest in making their practice look like it's from God.
Do you like to read commentaries? I will check out 5 or 6 non pentecostal authors who have some of the best commentaries and see what they say about 1 Cor 14:2 At this point I find it almost impossible to conceive that Paul is saying that they are speaking a known foreign language and that the reason he said that they were not speaking to man but to God in mysteries is because there was not an unsaved translator around to recognize the language and translate it for people. I am sure that is not what he meant. And if he meant that they were not speaking to men but to God because there was not someone with the gift of interpretation it seems he would have said that. But his statement makes perfect sense taken as it is and there is no reason to not think he meant what he said.
But I will stay open minded and see what the experts have to say. At this point it really seems like your interpretation (in blue) is a clearly forced and strain attempt to make Paul mean something other than what he intended here.

Paul is saying "no one understands" because the Corinthians were indiscriminately speaking it in the assembly when there was no interpreter. This is the context of what he is talking about. It has nothing to do with the gibberish which is modern P/C "tongues."?

2 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. (KJV)

3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.

4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
 

Evmur

Well-known member
Feb 28, 2021
5,219
2,618
113
London
christianchat.com
I differ with you on this. God revealed many things to unbelievers in scripture. But why don't I send your words back to you, by saying - God won't reveal the humanness of modern tongues to you because you refuse to admit that you could be wrong about it. If what I'm saying is true, then you're the one in unbelief.
Of course tongues is human ... we are not ghosts.

If you have not received the gifts of tongues by what authority do you speak? we speak what we know.
 

Evmur

Well-known member
Feb 28, 2021
5,219
2,618
113
London
christianchat.com
I spoke in modern tongues for several years, until God told me it wasn't of Him. I feared to believe that for many years, but after much study of scripture and research, and reading a book and materials showing in detail how modern tongues is not actual languages, I became convinced that modern Pentecostal tongues is the same thing that is practiced in pagan religions, and it is a human ability that anyone can do if they try hard enough. This is the basis of my stating that as a fact. It doesn't mean I'm closed-minded on the matter. I have invited any P/C to offer their tongues for examination, just as any preacher submitted to accountability to the various churches would submit his teaching to the churches for their examination. So far no takers.
some folks allow themselves to be talked out of faith in their salvation ... if you feared that your experience was fake it probably was.

When it's genuine you know.
 
Aug 2, 2021
7,317
2,048
113
Read Acts 2, where it is an obvious miracle to all who observed it. But modern "tongues" is a human ability speaking fluent gibberish that is a pseudo-language (it sounds like a language, but is not a language). People in pagan religions do it. P/C expectation and doctrine calls for every Christian to do it, which is an implication that anyone can do it if they try hard enough. This fact has been produced by Christians and non-Christians alike. The difference is seen by careful examination, which the Bible tells us to do. Only those who are gullible enough to accept mysterious urban legends as supernatural fall prey to the deception. And regardless of what you call it using Christian jargon, a rose is still a rose by any other name, and pseudo-language is pseudo-language by any other name.
i have Read Acts many many many times and many more - thank you

Right now, you do not understand Acts, nor the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, which God confirmed in Genesis and the Prophets should come.
Right now , you do not understand why in Acts ch2 those 'selected' within the audience heard/understood them who spoke in tongues.

3 Promises from the FATHER for us who love and know Him = don't miss out on any one of them........if you have Christ who is #1.
 
Aug 2, 2021
7,317
2,048
113
You assume that your traditional Pentecostal doctrine is "God's Word" because it's how you read 1 Cor. 14. I'm saying no, it's not God's word. I'm saying you are deceived by accepting the idea that modern "tongues" is the same thing as what the NT describes. Therefore, it's not holy as you claim. And your couching the "blasphemer" label doesn't make a difference. It only shows me that your traditional Pentecostal practice is little more than a sacred cow. My point is, your assumption that your practice of glossolalia (a misnomer) is of God just because you were told so, is a bad assumption. And your refusal to have it carefully examined indicates that you fear that it will be exposed as merely human, and a thing of the flesh.


We can argue religion all day, but it would be a futile effort. And are you accusing me of speaking evil of you? If so, it's false. I'm not speaking evil of anyone here. I'm merely saying that modern tongues is a deception, and is not what the Bible describes. If you take it personally, that's your issue, not mine.


Love rejoices in the truth. I rejoice that God led me out of the P/C movement because of the errors therein, which I had been deceived therein. I'm simply telling people what I found out about tongues.


I concur absolutely! However, this doesn't get the conversation moving, and therefore doesn't edify anyone concerning this issue.


Ok, we all have received the baptism of the Holy Spirit (that is, the true believers). But I think I know what you mean by this. It's the P/C claim that those who receive this baptism speak in tongues (as initial evidence) - this is what you believe, isn't it?
You and i are, most likely out of the PC churches because we both see error = 'you must speak in tongues'.

However, the Gift of Speaking in Tongues is of the Holy Spirit and never call it "unholy" as some do to their judgment.

Definitely know and believe Gospel of John, Acts 1 Corinthians as well as Genesis thru Revelation.

We are approaching the LORD'S Second Coming and the Baptism of the importance of being filled with Holy Spirit is spoken of in Matthew 23:1-13 and Acts and 1 Cor and 1 John
 

JeffA

Minstrel
Mar 31, 2022
360
72
28
A structure is only as solid as its foundation. In this short study into Pentecostalism's origins we'll discover whether it's built on solid rock or sinking sand.

Charles Fox Parham, Pentecostalism's acknowledged founder, spent the summer of 1900 at Frank W. Sanford's Holiness commune in Shiloh, Maine. While there, he learned of the Holiness doctrine of an approaching "latter rain," that is, an outpouring of the Holy Spirit which would fall on people as it had in the church's early day. This would be a sign of Christ's imminent return. What scriptural basis is there for the latter rain doctrine? James says: "Be patient, therefore, brothers, until the coming of the Lord. See how the farmer waits for the precious fruit of the earth, being patient about it, until it receives the early and the late rains."—James 5:7 This is the only verse from which a case might be made for a latter rain. So we must understand clearly what this verse actually says. Is James instructing his readers to be patient for the latter rain or for Christ's return. He's clearly encouraging them be patient for the Lord's return using an agricultural metaphor to make his point. There are no other New Testament scriptures from which we can put together a "latter rain" doctrine; it simply isn't taught. In fact, rather than worldwide revival, the scriptures clearly reveal the world will descend into darkness before the Lord's return.

While at Shiloh, Sanford filled Parham's head with tales of foreign missionaries who had spontaneously begun speaking the language of their foreign hosts without ever learning the language. In other words, they could preach to them in their own languages using the gift of tongues. But what evidence is there of this ever really happening? None that I'm aware of. But Parham was fascinated; he was convinced that this was a sure sign of the end-time and Christ's imminent return.

Returning to Topeka, Kansas, Parham established a missionary training center. In December of 1900, he challenged his students to find evidence of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit like what happened in Acts 2. He also suggested that the surest evidence of this would be speaking in tongues. At their New Year's eve service, 1901, right on schedule, Agnes Ozman asked Parham to lay hands on her head and pray she would receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Ozman began singing in an unknown language, which someone identified as Chinese.

What's strange about this picture? First of all, there's no evidence from the New Testament that missionaries ever used the gift of tongues to preach the good news. When missionaries did eventually go to foreign countries after the "latter rains" started falling, they failed miserably. Secondly, notice that Parham gave his students a suggestion which they pondered for a month. This wasn't a spontaneous outpouring of the Holy Spirit, Parham orchestrated the whole thing.

So, the question I leave you with is this: If the tree is bad, how can the fruit possibly be good?
This is a very interesting (and deep) topic.
There are other examples that support your thesis: (IMHO)

Joseph Smith and the LDS
Constantine and the Roman Catholic Church
The Pharisees and Rabbinic Judaism

(to name a few).
 
Aug 2, 2021
7,317
2,048
113
Acts 2 describes a real and obvious miracle. But modern tongues hides behind secrecy and urban legend.

I'm not asking the Holy Spirit to put on a useless show. I'm asking P/Cs to present their so-called "gift" for examination. The reason why it is so controversial is because of the prejudices involved in it.

But your statement "No one with the gifts can use them at-will" begs questions. I was told for 25 years when I was in the P/C movement to practice tongues and pray in it always, which obviously requires to be done at will. I was told by elders in the churches that it is done at will. I think I know what verse you're referring to, but I think you're misinterpreting it. But the question begged is, how often to you speak your "gift" of tongues, and how do you start it? Can you explain exactly how it is done if you claim it is not "at-will"? And can you exegete the scripture you're basing your idea on?
Your human reasoning is stands on 'sand' and cannot be found in Scripture.

Scripture is the only Holy Ground upon which we are to remove the man-made covering of our feet and stand upon.
Do you understand why this is???
 
Aug 2, 2021
7,317
2,048
113
This is a very interesting (and deep) topic.
There are other examples that support your thesis: (IMHO)

Joseph Smith and the LDS
Constantine and the Roman Catholic Church
The Pharisees and Rabbinic Judaism

(to name a few).
This is true and the Word of God never changes nor does it ever 'convert' to man-made religion and opinions.
Therefore this Truth Remains for ALL Generations:
Deut 4:1-2 , Proverbs 30:5-6 , Revelation 22:18-19 , Matt 24:35 = Genesis thru Revelation

Every word of God is flawless;
He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him.
Do not add to His words,
lest He rebuke you and prove you a liar.

Did you ever find JESUS praying to the LORD/YHWH???
 

cv5

Well-known member
Nov 20, 2018
23,005
8,373
113
The gift of tongues was never given to preach the Gospel to people. They did not preach the Gospel to people in tongues on the day of Pentecost. They were speaking the wonderful works of God to God
Hhhhhmmm........
So you think that these 120 were proclaiming God's wonderful works (in unintelligible gibberish???) such as:
-the crossing the Gulf of Aqaba (yes it definitely was the Gulf of Aqaba)?
-the giving of the Law at Sinai (located of course in NW Saudi Arabia)?
-manna in the wilderness?
-the conquest of Jericho?

Okay. That's fine.

However there is no doubt in my mind that the wonderful works of God being proclaimed was the advent, death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ and the salvation He brings. Which of course Peter further expounds and elaborates upon in short order. Which is the central message of all Christians to this present day.

Which course would match the context don't you think? You know......with souls being converted from Judaism to belief in the Lord Jesus Christ and all of that?
 
K

kaylagrl

Guest