Pentecostalism's sketchy origins

[DavidTree]

Blah, blah. You still aren't quoting the scripture, and your words prove nothing. Either modern tongues is of God as it was in Acts 2, or it's not. You say it is, I say it isn't.

i went over the specific verses with you like two days and not only myself but other members on here as well.

John ch1 , Acts ch1-2 , 1 Cor ch12-ch14

 

[DavidTree]

The whole sweep of 1 Corinthians 14 simply indicates that "foreign language tongues", spoken without an interpreter, are not profitable in that they do not edify and build up the Church. Essentially Paul is saying that they are wasting valuable time and effort, which would much better be directed toward prophecy. Because prophecy is exceedingly profitable for both believer and unbeliever alike.

Paul is also calling to their attention that since everyone was speaking "foreign language tongues" without order, neither with an interpreter, the service was incorrigibly chaotic.

We should be mindful of the fact that vv. 10 and 11 (and preceeding verses) are extraordinarily explicit in stating that what they were dealing with was real, existing foreign languages. I mean that is the literal description Paul used. And the congregation had absolutely no idea of the meaning because they did not have an interpreter, or simply failed to follow up with an interpretation. Therefore making a whole escapade a waste of breath.

This chapter is very simple and very easy to understand. I have no idea why confusion reigns within the CP crowd.

i am giving you only one opportunity to clear yourself of adding lying words to 1 Corinthians.

Prove from 1 Corinthians the Apostle Paul stating: "foreign (human) language where an intepreter who knows the specific human language can interpret.

 

[cv5]

i went over the specific verses with you like two days and not only myself but other members on here as well.

John ch1 , Acts ch1-2 , 1 Cor ch12-ch14

Nowhere in Scripture does it state that tongues are unintelligible gibberish. On the contrary there is overwhelming evidence that what was SPOKEN was a legitimate real foreign language.

 

[Amanuensis]

1 Thes. 5:21 "But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good."
For you to suggest that your 'gift' cannot be examined tells me that you have a sacred cow.

And I know that your tongues is not a human language, since I was in the P/C movement for 25 years, and that's what they teach. But in following Biblical precedence of Acts 2, all other places that mention tongues indicate it's human languages. And IMO that's the only way it can be verified as a bonified miracle. Someone speaks some known language that he hasn't learned, and someone else understands the intelligible message spoken.

But modern tongues is not that. It's unintelligible because it's not language. It's the same kind of gibberish spoken since B.C. in which they claimed it was "language of the gods."

But here's how the test would work: Someone claimed that a person speaking in tongues spoke Lebanese. I know someone from Lebanon who could properly identify it. Such a thing would prove (or disprove) that modern tongues is the same thing as they got in Acts 2, at least for that case. But in all the various tongues posted on youtube, not a single one has been identified. If anyone in the P/C movement was able to identify even one single tongue as a real language, it would be prolifically blasted all through the internet. But so far, there have been no takers. It leads me to believe that P/Cs have a vested interest in keeping it in the realm of the mysterious, very possibly because they are afraid that it will be exposed as fraudulent (like so far all the ones on youtube).

I understand your reasoning about all this. And we both agree that it hinges on the idea that it must be a known language or someone claiming that it is.

But what about this gift of interpretation. Paul lists it as one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Paul expected someone to be able to interpret these utterances in tongues with this gift and not someone who is just naturally bilingual. Skipping over this, ignoring it, replacing it with the idea of anyone who is just bilingual and present at the time (not even requiring the Holy Spirit or a gift) would be obviously dishonest as to applying it to what Paul said. What I mean is that there is a whole other level of miraculous going on here when the one with the gift of interpretation can "translate" having never learned that language. We don't seem to hear anyone talking about that. It makes me suspect as to honest dealings with the text when that is ignored or replaced with a natural translator instead of someone with a supernatural gift.

If one concedes that the gift of interpretation is one of the Holy Spirit gifts and then explains what that would look like if they were there in the first century charismatic church we could get past the disingenuous hurdle of applying it to a natural translator that doesn't need a gift. That is still the elephant in the room in this discussion.

 

[Amanuensis]

The whole sweep of 1 Corinthians 14 simply indicates that "foreign language tongues", spoken without an interpreter, are not profitable in that they do not edify and build up the Church. Essentially Paul is saying that they are wasting valuable time and effort, which would much better be directed toward prophecy. Because prophecy is exceedingly profitable for both believer and unbeliever alike. Un-interpreted tongues.....not so much.

Paul is also calling to their attention that since everyone was speaking "foreign language tongues" without order, neither with an interpreter, the service was incorrigibly chaotic.

We should be mindful of the fact that vv. 10 and 11 (and preceeding verses) are extraordinarily explicit in stating that what they were dealing with was real, existing foreign languages. I mean that is the literal description Paul used. And the congregation had absolutely no idea of the meaning because they did not have an interpreter, or simply failed to follow up with an interpretation. Therefore making a whole escapade a waste of breath.

This chapter is very simple and very easy to understand. I have no idea why confusion reigns within the CP crowd.

He actually said the gift of interpretation and listed it with tongues, prophesy, working of miracles, etc.. So he expected someone who had the gift to give an interpretation of a tongue spoken of a language they did not know. Without someone with this gift of interpretation they were not using the gift of tongues in order for mutual edification.

You make a point that we can agree with about the need for someone with the gift of interpretation to bring meaning to those present to make it edifying to all, but then you seem to be unwilling to apply it to "the Holy Spirit gift of interpretation" and want to apply it to anyone who was "bilingual and present at the time." Is that what I keep thinking you are saying or have I misunderstood you.

Do you see a difference between someone with the Holy Spirit gift of interpretation of tongues, and someone who is not saved or does not know Jesus or the Holy Spirit and has no spiritual gifts and yet knows two languages recognized the language being spoken by the one speaking in tongues and can translate to the common language of the people in the room?

If you do see a difference how would you explain what you think the Holy Spirit gift of interpretation of tongues looks like? If you were there, and saw it manifested in the first century charismatic church at Corinth? Wouldn't it be someone who did not know the language represented by the utterance in tongues but was able to interpret it anyway giving the message in the common language of those in the room? If a bilingual person happened to be there, he could say. "Yes that was correct" or "Yes, that was not exactly word for word, but certainly the message" or something like that? So this gift of interpretation of tongues was also a miraculous gift at that time.

 

[DavidTree]

Nowhere in Scripture does it state that tongues are unintelligible gibberish. On the contrary there is overwhelming evidence that what was SPOKEN was a legitimate real foreign language.

Brother CV5, please clear yourself of judgment as you do not want to be held accountable for calling God a liar.

"Pursue love, and desire spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy.
For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God,
for no one understands him;
however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries.
1 Cor 14:1-2

 

[kaylagrl]

I'm merely responding to you, answering your objections. If you want me to leave it alone, then you leave it alone.
If you want me to drop it, then you drop it.

Drop it, leave it, stop it. You've been asked several times,there is no more reason to respond.

 

[Edify]

For you to suggest that your 'gift' cannot be examined tells me that you have a sacred cow.

And I know that your tongues is not a human language, since I was in the P/C movement for 25 years, and that's what they teach. But in following Biblical precedence of Acts 2, all other places that mention tongues indicate it's human languages. And IMO that's the only way it can be verified as a bonified miracle. Someone speaks some known language that he hasn't learned, and someone else understands the intelligible message spoken.

Firstly, if you were in the P/C movement for 25 years, you should easily know the difference between a pentecostal church & a charismatic church, because they are not alke as many suggest. With 25 years, you of all people should know the 2 groups don't belong together explained as a singular group. Either you know they're different because you went to them both, or you don't know because you didn't go to both.

THERE IS NO P/C MOVEMENT.

I also know you're not the only one to say they've been to both, & yet still call them them both a p/c movement.
Why do you think that is?

I've also read this whole OP & noticed the same guys steering left & right to never agree with, for instance, DavidTree & shittum recently as well as others in the last couple of pages. First it's this, then it's that, then simply pull off into left field driving off the road.

Very little seems to be nailed down by you guys. Since there's no p/c single movement out there anywhere, I must conclude the worst. This is all a hoax. An empty argument just to see how long we will endure until somebody snaps.
I've seen this happen before. It usually ends up with a good member of a chat site banned because of bad behavior, as well as a pentecostal group given a bad name before it's over.

I strongly suggest that good members dust off their feet with this absolutely useless OP & mark those who made it so & have nothing else to do with them. I know my patience is growing thin with them.

 

[Amanuensis]

Firstly, if you were in the P/C movement for 25 years, you should easily know the difference between a pentecostal church & a charismatic church, because they are not alke as many suggest. With 25 years, you of all people should know the 2 groups don't belong together explained as a singular group. Either you know they're different because you went to them both, or you don't know because you didn't go to both.

THERE IS NO P/C MOVEMENT.

I also know you're not the only one to say they've been to both, & yet still call them them both a p/c movement.
Why do you think that is?

I've also read this whole OP & noticed the same guys steering left & right to never agree with, for instance, DavidTree & shittum recently as well as others in the last couple of pages. First it's this, then it's that, then simply pull off into left field driving off the road.

Very little seems to be nailed down by you guys. Since there's no p/c single movement out there anywhere, I must conclude the worst. This is all a hoax. An empty argument just to see how long we will endure until somebody snaps.
I've seen this happen before. It usually ends up with a good member of a chat site banned because of bad behavior, as well as a pentecostal group given a bad name before it's over.

I strongly suggest that good members dust off their feet with this absolutely useless OP & mark those who made it so & have nothing else to do with them. I know my patience is growing thin with them.

I use the names interchangeably. The history of the movements that were labeled Pentecostal and then Charismatic are not so important today because it's not like there are differences in their interpretations on the scriptures we have been discussing.

There are branches of Pentecostal denominational churches that differ in doctrines where as the Charismatics are not known for even having a denomination or rather they were those who never left their denominations. And of course many non denominational churches prefer the word Charismatic over Pentecostal.

Today these words are being used to say the same things. Those that believe in the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the gifts of the Spirit as available for believers today.

And really if you look at the statistical records that are being collected about religions in countries they just use Pentecostal for all the churches denominational like AG or non denominational that describe themselves as Charismatic. Pentecostal is usually the word used to cover all of them. I think that is the way it is trending and will soon be the main word used.

Actually I would not be surprised if the word continuationists becomes the main word to differentiate from ceasationists. As more and more Pentecostal scholars are taking on roles in many non pentecostal seminaries they are preferring the word continuationists to sort of mark themselves off as just as scholarly as the ceasationists but with a better hermeneutic.

As someone has mentioned that Evangelical Scholars are being convinced by their better hermeneutic, this is because it is better.

But in order to separate themselves from the extremism associated with the word Pentecostals from various extreme groups we are all ashamed of, the word continuationist is preferred as it communicates their position on the interpretation of these scriptures and their belief that the scriptures properly interpreted teach that these gifts are for the church until we are perfect in post resurrection status.

I like the word continuationist but I don't mind Pentecost and Charismatic because both of these words give me a segway straight to the scriptures where these words are used and the conversation can ensue.

 

[CS1]

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.

LOL one who says they have spoken in secular tongues for years "modern Tongues " which is a made-up word. But God told you it wasn't HIM.

 

[Evmur]

I've no doubt you really believe in it, and so you think you know something. But Paul wrote "he who thinks he knows something doesn't yet know as he ought to know."

So your "if" statement is not even a response to what I said earlier. I said that I once practiced modern tongues, and I was encouraged by other tongue-talkers, and everyone assumed it was all the same because it sounded the same. Yet, God Himself told me it wasn't of Him.

But what I feared was declaring it to be false. Did I really hear from God? After many years of research, my conclusion is that I heard from God, and that's my testimony here, that modern tongues is false, because it's not what is described in the NT.

So I never "feared that my experience was fake," as you suggest. What I fear is God. So where's your fear of God? Could you be wrong about how you are reading scripture in this regard? Why are you swallowing the P/C movement hook, line, and sinker, without even questioning what it is?

My tongues is exactly as described in the NT. and I am not alone, not by a long chalk. Both tongues and interpretation.

All you can say is that your own experience was fake.

We all do this, we all carefully evaluate our experience against scripture to see whether it measures up. We do it with salvation and the new birth. We want to make sure our experience is the same as Peter's.

How about the tongues, visions, interpretations, prophecies etc. There is plenty stuff out there that simply does not square up with scripture. So we must weigh and discern. The gifts are subject to the judgement of the assembly as to their genuineness.

Just the same as when someone testifies to their salvation, a wrong testimony stands out like a sore thumb. We know.

 

[Evmur]

You missed the point. Modern tongues is human in source, therefore is not of God.



You haven't received the Biblical gift of tongues, that's my point. Your statement "we speak what we know" is rather arrogant from my POV, because it appears to me you don't know what you're talking about.

No what is arrogant is for you to be able to say from thousands of miles away, never having met a person or heard them that their experience is fake.

Your experience was fake so you think everyone else is a fake.

 

[cv5]

He actually said the gift of interpretation and listed it with tongues, prophesy, working of miracles, etc.. So he expected someone who had the gift to give an interpretation of a tongue spoken of a language they did not know. Without someone with this gift of interpretation they were not using the gift of tongues in order for mutual edification.

You make a point that we can agree with about the need for someone with the gift of interpretation to bring meaning to those present to make it edifying to all, but then you seem to be unwilling to apply it to "the Holy Spirit gift of interpretation" and want to apply it to anyone who was "bilingual and present at the time." Is that what I keep thinking you are saying or have I misunderstood you.

Do you see a difference between someone with the Holy Spirit gift of interpretation of tongues, and someone who is not saved or does not know Jesus or the Holy Spirit and has no spiritual gifts and yet knows two languages recognized the language being spoken by the one speaking in tongues and can translate to the common language of the people in the room?

If you do see a difference how would you explain what you think the Holy Spirit gift of interpretation of tongues looks like? If you were there, and saw it manifested in the first century charismatic church at Corinth? Wouldn't it be someone who did not know the language represented by the utterance in tongues but was able to interpret it anyway giving the message in the common language of those in the room? If a bilingual person happened to be there, he could say. "Yes that was correct" or "Yes, that was not exactly word for word, but certainly the message" or something like that? So this gift of interpretation of tongues was also a miraculous gift at that time.

Did the foreigners of Acts 2 have the gift of interpretation? Of course not. Case closed.

 

[ResidentAlien]

Anyone can invoke the New Testament to justify anything they desire to do. Scripture can be twisted. Every sect and cult out there has their own interpretation of scripture.

What we have to do is decide, by a preponderance of the evidence, whether a thing is more likely from man or Yahweh. This takes discernment.

 

[shittim]

Anyone can invoke the New Testament to justify anything they desire to do. Scripture can be twisted. Every sect and cult out there has their own interpretation of scripture.

What we have to do is decide, by a preponderance of the evidence, whether a thing is more likely from man or Yahweh. This takes discernment.

Ok, can you use it to justify abortion? Cannibalism?

 

[ResidentAlien]

Notice i did not say you must speak in tongues, neither does Matt 25:1-13 but it does say being filled with Oil which is symbolic of the Holy Spirit

The oil in this passage doesn't represent the Holy Spirit, it's symbolic of preparedness. The entire passage is about being prepared because once the Lord comes He won't wait around. Those who had plenty of oil were prepared; those who didn't weren't.

Oil is a common symbol for the Holy Spirit but in this passage it doesn't symbolize the Holy Spirit. You can't go and "buy" more of the Holy Spirit.

 

[cv5]

I was thinking of posting a Sid Roth video where he is "teaching" people to speak in "tongues". Anybody want to see it?

 

[ResidentAlien]

I was thinking of posting a Sid Roth video where he is "teaching" people to speak in "tongues". Anybody want to see it?

Been there done that.

I posted a video like that; I can't remember if it was Sid Roth or somebody else. The reaction was about what you'd expect: "You can't teach tongues!"

 

[Amanuensis]

Did the foreigners of Acts 2 have the gift of interpretation? Of course not. Case closed.

I don't understand the logic you are using here. If the gift of interpretation of tongues in 1 Cor 12 - 14 is a supernatural gift of the Spirit then it has to be analyzed in that context.

If you are saying that those lost people in the crowd on the day of Pentecost who heard and understood them did not have the gift of interpretation (which I agree) then you have conceded that there was a difference between what happened with them on the Day of Pentecost and what Paul is talking about when he speaks of a Holy Spirit gift of interpretation of tongues which the foreigners on the day of Pentecost did not have.

If you are saying that Paul was not talking about a "Holy Spirit Gift of interpretation of tongues" then I agree that the "case" is closed between you and I because there is no use in continuing with such dishonest exegesis, as it will accomplish nothing and only heap judgment upon the one who engages in it.

If our motivation is not love and edification we should be silent. That's one application we can all take from 1 Cor 12-14.

 

[CS1]

I don't understand the logic you are using here. If the gift of interpretation of tongues in 1 Cor 12 - 14 is a supernatural gift of the Spirit then it has to be analyzed in that context.

If you are saying that those lost people in the crowd on the day of Pentecost who heard and understood them did not have the gift of interpretation (which I agree) then you have conceded that there was a difference between what happened with them on the Day of Pentecost and what Paul is talking about when he speaks of a Holy Spirit gift of interpretation of tongues which the foreigners on the day of Pentecost did not have.

If you are saying that Paul was not talking about a "Holy Spirit Gift of interpretation of tongues" then I agree that the "case" is closed between you and me because there is no use in continuing with such dishonest exegesis, as it will accomplish nothing and only heap judgment upon the one who engages in it.

If our motivation is not love and edification we should be silent. That's one application we can all take from 1 Cor 12-14.

You make a valid point and are very biblical. I would also include that Paul in1cor chapter 14 specifically said:


2 For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries. 3 But he who prophesies speaks edification and exhortation and comfort to men. 4 He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church. 5 I wish you all spoke with tongues, but even more that you prophesied; for he who prophesies is greater than he who speaks with tongues, unless indeed he interprets, that the church may receive edification.

6 But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you unless I speak to you either by revelation, by knowledge, by prophesying, or by teaching?

22 Therefore tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophesying is not for unbelievers but for those who believe. 23 Therefore if the whole church comes together in one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those who are uninformed or unbelievers, will they not say that you are [f]out of your mind?

The ACTS CHAPTER 2 ACCOUNT THEY HEARD IN THEIR OWN LANGUES. In the gifts of the Holy Spirit chapters 12 to 14 of 1cor, they are not able to understand unless there is an interpretation. Acts 2 was a sign to the unbeliever. 1cor chapter 12 to 14 is to the body of Christ as chapter 12 states in a church setting.