Pentecostalism's sketchy origins

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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!"

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.

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.