| Author | Message | ||
     easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1564 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 66.245.201.48 |
Charles Caldwell Ryrie is famous for his Ryrie Study Bible. The following is from Ryrie's book, "The Holy Spirit", written in 1965. The last two paragraphs in Conclusion of this book are regarding Pentecostalism: Undoubtedly modern Pentecostalism is a reaction to the sterility that began to characterize the established churches in the modern era. It emphasizes the baptism of the Spirit as a second work of grace for enduement with power, and it promotes a return to experiencing all the gifts which were given and used in New Testamen times. The orthodox doctrine concerning the person of the Spirit is assumed; it is the reality of the work of the Spirit in the lives of Christians that is promoted, and not always correctly. Thus in the sweep of church history one sees first the formulation of what has come down to be know as the orthodox doctrine of the Spirit, then the definition of it in the early councils, and the development of it during the Reformation. With every surge toward defining or developing the truth, there have been movements away from it, either in the form of rationalistic coldness or unbalanced enthusiasm and mysticism. History should teach us that orthodox doctrine is not only important to faith but equally vital to life. Perhaps in no doctrine is this wedding of truth and life more important than in the doctrine concerning the Holy Spirit." The Holy Spirit by Charles Ryrie Copyright 1965, by THE MOODY BIBLE INSTITUTE OF CHICAGO Ryrie in this states the reason I am going to a Pentecostal Church and will always be going to a Church that teaches the secondary experience called The Baptism of the Holy Spirit and has the Gifts of the Holy Spirit functioning. These Gifts of the Holy Spirit are defined in 1 Corinthians 12-14 and for the most part are not functioning in Churches that don't believe that they are still for today, nor in Churches that do not believe in the secondary experience of the Baptism With the Holy Spirit. | ||
| the_apostolic_truth_ministries Advanced Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 792 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 12.217.145.168 |
In 1 Corinthians 12 - 14, St. Paul condemns 'tongues' not once but twenty-eight times. | ||
| easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1568 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 66.245.201.48 |
To clever to use the word forbidden? "Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and DO NOT FORBID SPEAKING IN TONGUES. But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way." 1 Corinthians 14:39-40 | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3576 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
The word 'tongues' simply means - G1100 gloce'-sah Of uncertain affinity; the tongue; by implication a language (specifically one naturally unacquired): - tongue. It is where we get the English word 'glossary'. It is nothing more than a foreign [not native] language. The Pentecostal tongue, to be distinguished from mankind's languages, was that spoken by Christ and understood by all bystanders in their native language and dialects thereof. So, when one witnesses church service in which the congregation is muttering sounds indiscernible by everyone else, we know that is not the 'tongues' of the Bible. It is simply evidence of poor scholarship of the ministry -- not evidence of the Holy Spirit. | ||
| easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1601 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 66.245.201.254 |
u2 are the reason. | ||
| easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1603 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 66.245.201.254 |
Two dopes. This post has nothing to do with tongues. Obviously, you two turkeys don't even read the beginning of the post. Speaking in Tongues is not the subject matter. It's your Dispensationalist buddy talking turkeys. | ||
| the_apostolic_truth_ministries Advanced Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 836 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 12.217.145.168 |
Mr. Easeltine: Quoting: "you two turkeys." End quote. Complements will get you everywhere with me, sweetie!! | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3580 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
easeltine, I see no reason for your insult. I simply showed you that your understanding of 'tongues' is unbiblical. You should be thanking me for edifying you. | ||
| easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1604 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 72.164.43.195 |
No, they are languages of man, and angels, (mostly foreign languages of man), and the speaker doesn't know what he is saying as in Act. 2 - "As the spirit gave utterance they spoke in tongues..." | ||
| the_apostolic_truth_ministries Advanced Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 849 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 12.217.145.168 |
Mr. Easeltine: Could you show me in scripture what language angels speak in, just book, chapter and verse please. EH? Perhaps, you could also tell me what language God speaks in. Jesus? St. Paul? Does the Bible tell us? | ||
| easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1605 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 72.164.43.195 |
Sir, I do not have an answer for that. How about the language of Love for all the answers? I should not have called you a turkey. I am glad you did not make any gobble, gobble joke. | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3586 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
easeltine, Act 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. It is clear that 'tongues' refers to languages. So, how do you equate Acts 2 to the gibberish and indiscernible mutterings of the congregation in your church?? If angels have a language that is different from mankind, then they would use it among themselves. Every instance in the Bible in which angels spoke, they spoke a language discernible by mankind -- not the nonsense gibberish of your church congregation. | ||
| the_apostolic_truth_ministries Advanced Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 852 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 12.217.145.168 |
Mr. Easeltine: I agree with the above post. Every instant of an angel speaking was in Hebrew, not gibberish. Acts tells us both St. Paul & Jesus spoke in Hebrew. Everytime God is recorded as having spoken, it was in Hebrew. | ||
| arron Senior Member Username: arron Post Number: 3787 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 71.85.119.3 |
where does paul condem the tongues | ||
| hardbones Member Username: hardbones Post Number: 70 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 65.93.213.33 |
I think it is a little ridiculous to say God was speaking in Heb in Gen 1. It is recorded in Heb to be sure but he was speaking in Heb? That is a whale of a stretch | ||
| hardbones Member Username: hardbones Post Number: 71 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 65.95.9.161 |
Also there is no scriptural reason to believe Heb was the language of the garden or the world before Abraham Noah before the flood. It doesn't say what laguage was spoken to Daniel. | ||
| hardbones Member Username: hardbones Post Number: 72 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 65.95.9.161 |
Here's what I said on another thread about tongues being giberish "Speaking in tongues" The despised gift. As far as it being a language etc. I read a book yrs ago "They speak with other tongues - John and Elizebeth Sherrill. They did a lot of research on it. I remember reading at the time that some of the research was scientific with the conclusion being it was a real language with structure and grammer etc. The book is still available on Amazon. If you're interested get the older used copy. John Sherrill has a newer one out by the same name. I'm not sure what it says. My teacher taught Hebrew in a seminary. He said on at least several occasions he would pray for someone to receive the Holy Spirit and they would start speaking in tongues and he would hear them speaking in classical Hebrew. It was tongues to them Hebrew to him. Another teacher I know had a sister in law who was Korean. One person gave an utterance in tongues with the interpretation It was tongues to him but she heard him speaking in Korean. She knew the interpretation before he gave it. That is just from my limited experience. I think all tongues are real languages. They are tongues to the person who is speaking it. The point being it bypasses the intellect which gives the Holy Spirit a lot of latitude to be able to deal with deep issues in our lives. those of you who don't speak in tongues are missing a real blessing | ||
| easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1608 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 72.164.43.195 |
"Acts tells us both St. Paul & Jesus spoke in Hebrew. Everytime God is recorded as having spoken, it was in Hebrew." One of his typical intelligent posts... | ||
| the_apostolic_truth_ministries Advanced Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 858 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 12.217.145.168 |
Mr. Easeltine: Any chance you have ever read the Bible? And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying, Acts 21:40 (KJV) And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. Acts 26:14 (KJV) And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. Acts 9:3 - 5 (KJV) Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defence which I make now unto you. (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,) I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day. Acts 22:1 - 3 (KJV) Would you like me to cut/paste scripture showing God speaking to Abraham? | ||
| the_apostolic_truth_ministries Advanced Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 859 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 12.217.145.168 |
Mr. Hardbones: Quoting: ""Speaking in tongues" The despised gift." End quote. I know of no one who despise 'tongues'. The problem we are discussing is faked infantile gibberish, not 'tongues'. OH! by the way, I wish I had a penny for each first hand account I have heard using the same line as your revered researchers. Unfortunately . . . Any chance you can say "baptism/baptized?" Congrads!! You just spoke perfert Greek. Was it learned? Or Tongues? | ||
| easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1612 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 66.245.201.183 |
Rejoice, Praise the Lord, he believes in the Old Testament! Phil. 4:4. At least we know he is NOT from one of the churches that rejects the Old Testament Clearly, Paul spoke in other languages, we know this from 1 Corinthians 14. In your Scripture from Acts 22:1-3, the reason they were listening to Paul was that he chose to speak to them in Hebrew rather than the normal language spoken. "Everytime God is recorded as having spoken, it was in Hebrew." Adam, Cain, Abel, Noah etc. the language God spoke in was not Hebrew. You have made generalizations that are not the truth when one considers the Word of God in it's entirety. We need to read ALL the Bible. | ||
| the_apostolic_truth_ministries Advanced Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 860 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 12.217.145.168 |
Mr. Easeltine: Quoting: "Adam, Cain, Abel, Noah etc. the language God spoke in was not Hebrew." End quote. Scripture please. Book, chapter, verse. Quoting: "Paul spoke in other languages." End quote. Scripture please. Book chapter, verse. | ||
| mcmstaff78 Senior Member Username: mcmstaff78 Post Number: 1950 Registered: 7-2006 Posted From: 167.193.134.61 |
This is pretty much wishful thinging. There is no change worked in the life of someone by modern "tongues" practice. Further, they are not real languages. There is not one single research study done that has captured a "tongues" speaker speaking in a real language he or she never learned. I spoke in "tongues" for more than 20 years and, obviously, new many people quite well who did likewise. I can't say I ever saw any change in someone directly attributable to their speaking in "tongues". Most seem to use it as an indication that whatever moral deficiencies they may have in their lives, God is still "blessing" and "approving" them as "evidenced" by their "tongues" practice. The "blessing" of "tongues" speaking is the same type experience by those who practice TM or other mindless activities. | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3596 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
The purpose of 'tongues' is to communicate -- it is simply languages and not gibberish mutterings. God is not stupid -- so, one can communicate with God in our native languages. So, infantile gibberish in worship services is the height of hypocrisy! What you 'tongues' churches attempt to do is demonstrate to your fellow church members that the Holy Spirit is within you by uttering such gibberish. It is not done for God's benefit or the individual's benefit. It is simply fake. If the Holy Spirit gifts one with 'tongues', they will be speaking in other languages in order to effectively communicate. I really do not understand the extent in which you 'tongues' church members go to defend such unbiblical practices. | ||
| bear Advanced Member Username: bear Post Number: 973 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 24.236.150.133 |
Watchman_2, I agree. Interesting to note, is that when individuals received the Holy Spirit in Acts, it says that they heard them speak in tongues and magnify God. How can one hear someone speak in tongues and magnify God, if it is gibberish? | ||
| mcmstaff78 Senior Member Username: mcmstaff78 Post Number: 1958 Registered: 7-2006 Posted From: 167.193.134.61 |
The tongues of Acts isn't gibberish. It is the "tongues" of modern "tongues" believers that is gibberish. Oh, and your conclusion that because some of those whom the Acts of the Apostles tells us about spoke in tongues when they were converted and received the Holy Spirit therefore everyone who receives the Holy Spirit speaks in tongues is fallacious. There is, of course, a description in Acts where we are told the people received the Holy Spirit but not that they spoke in tongues. You need to go back and study set theory and little bit. Just because all of subset B are in set A does not mean that all of Set A are in subset B. Of course, what Charismacostals do is not what is termed in scripture "speaking in tongues". | ||
| easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1627 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 72.164.43.195 |
Mcmstaff78, All Charismacostals? Are you sure? How do you know? | ||
| mcmstaff78 Senior Member Username: mcmstaff78 Post Number: 1961 Registered: 7-2006 Posted From: 167.193.134.61 |
Until someone can provide evidence of speaking in a real language he has not learned, I'm pretty comfortable sticking to the "all" part. Not a single research study into modern "tongues" has come across a case of someone speaking in a real language or anything with the characteristics of a real language. | ||
| easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1631 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 72.164.43.195 |
Mcmstaff78, I have heard of many stories, Chinese to English, American Indian to Dutch. Since I only speak in English I am not able to give you any first hand. Consider that your "all" may limit the ability of the supernatural power of God working today. | ||
| mcmstaff78 Senior Member Username: mcmstaff78 Post Number: 1982 Registered: 7-2006 Posted From: 24.99.130.74 |
I have heard "many stories" as well. Lots when I was, myself, Charismacostal. But absolutely no evidence. I don't limit God doing anything. But what Charismacostals do is not God. | ||
| bear Advanced Member Username: bear Post Number: 976 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 24.236.150.133 |
mcmstaff78, As to my post above, my point is that what was spoken in Acts is NOT the tongues spoken today; they were languages. | ||
| mcmstaff78 Senior Member Username: mcmstaff78 Post Number: 1996 Registered: 7-2006 Posted From: 24.99.130.74 |
Bear, but then "tongues" today is not the scriptural tongues, is it? Decidedly not. "Tongues" today is pseudo-language gibberish. | ||
| bear Advanced Member Username: bear Post Number: 980 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 24.236.150.133 |
Mcm, Here is my post that may have caused confusion: How can one hear someone speak in tongues and magnify God, if it is gibberish? Let me clarify. The tongues spoken in Acts are not the gibberish of today. | ||
| ultimate1 Advanced Member Username: ultimate1 Post Number: 542 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 71.194.182.119 |
In context, in 1Cor 14 Paul explains the benefits and structure for the Holy Spirit its gifts including tongues. "Jesus is the SAME yesterday, and today, and forever" Heb 13:8 The book of Acts states "they KNEW they had received the Holy Spirit BECAUSE THEY HEARD them speak with tongues". "While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. (HOW DID THEY KNOW?) 46For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God Acts 10:44-46 "They heard them speak with tongues and magnify God" When we come to 1 Cor. 14:2, the context is clear. "He that speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. In other words, the message or prayer in tongues is directed toward God alone and not toward man. Why would God anoint someone to speak in an earthly language he did not learn, and have him speak it unless a speaker of that language was present? Those who dissent will point out that the Spirit gives these gifts as He will, but then turn around in this case and say that the Spirit must have made a mistake because there is no one there to hear this particular earthly language. Can you see the contradiction? No, the statement stands on its own. "He that speaks in a tongue speaks NOT TO MEN, but unto God, howbeit (because, or for the following reason) in the spirit he speaks mysteries. "Rom. 8:26 will confirm this. “Likewise the Spirit also helps our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.” Those groanings cannot be uttered with known speech but most certainly refer to the ‘mysteries’that are being directed toward God, the intercession of the Spirit on our behalf. 1 Cor. 14:4 declares that "he that speaks in tongues edifies himself." This is a conclusive argument against the dissenters who would claim that such a person is speaking an unlearned earthly language that should only be spoken in the hearing of one who knows that language. How can speaking an earthly language that you do not know edify you? It can’t if it is merely an earthly language meant to be interpreted by another. If it were a tongue meant for a group the verse would read something like this. ‘He who speaks in an unknown tongue edifies the church when there is an interpretation, but is wasting his breath if there isn’t.’ Plus, why would the Spirit be giving out this gift as He will if there is none there to interpret? There are three kinds of tongues found in scripture. This is an important point to understand and clears up a lot of confusion. The tongues on the day of Pentecost were not interpreted for others. They were heard by native speakers. The tongues mentioned in 1 Cor. 12 and 1 Cor. 14 have two different applications. One is for the edification of the church by means of the gift of interpretation. This is another interesting point. Why would there be a need for a ‘gift’ of interpreting of tongues if the tongue is simply an earthly language spoken for the benefit of a native speaker who is present? | ||
| bear Advanced Member Username: bear Post Number: 984 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 24.236.150.133 |
Ultimata 1, I spent 15 years, 10 of those years as a pastor, defending what you have posted, and teaching this doctrine in an expository fashion. However... - There is more than one interpretation of the Corinthian text. - There are so many abuses of tongues and the corpus of gifts, that red flags go up. I am now a very proud former Pentecostal/Charismatic. I have found a new freedom in the Holy Spirit, minus tongues. It is interesting that P/C's claim to have freedom in the Holy Spirit, and in general, claim to be more open with their interpretation and application of the text. In the end, they are the most closed minded when their beliefs are questioned and up for critique. | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3610 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
ultimate1, You misconstrue 1 Cor. 14:4. All it states that if one speaks an unknown language in front of the congregation, only God and that person will understand. But, one needs to teach in the language of the congregation so that they will be edified. | ||
| ultimate1 Advanced Member Username: ultimate1 Post Number: 547 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 71.194.182.119 |
In I Corinthians 14." in this letter Paul is trying to correct abuses. Paul's teaching merely provides for a measure of order in the worship service, for the purpose of edification and witness. Even so, he does not dismiss tongues, he is only saying that in Corinth he'd "rather" they "prophecy". (In this case, the "rather" is NOT meant to say that "prophecy" is to do away with "tongues", it only marks what it is that has the preference in this case. It could read, "Prophecy should be exercised 'more readily', 'more willingly', or 'sooner or is more efficient.'" Besides, what's so bad about "speaking to God?" Paul makes his desire clearly known, "I would like every one of you to speak in tongues." (14:5) I Corinthians 14:39 makes it completely clear that Paul is not discouraging the speaking in "tongues". He says, "do not forbid speaking in tongues" When interpreted for the edification of the congregation, "speaking in tongues" is equal to "prophecy", which Paul enthusiastically promotes. Paul's teaching merely provides for a measure of order in the worship service, for the purpose of edification and witness. Paul's desire was that they would not get "stuck" on this one gift, but go on to incorporate all the nine gifts of the spirit in their services, in their worship, and in their daily lives. | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3611 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
ultimate1, Even the Pentecostal tongue was understood by every bystander in their native language and regional dialect. All other instances, it means languagues -- by its very nature is a form of communication. 'Tongues' never means the indiscernible gibberish utterings practiced in some modern-day churches. God already knows what is in each person's thoughts. Actually communicating in language is not necessary -- let alone gibberish. | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3612 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
ultimate1, Even the Pentecostal tongue was understood by every bystander in their native language and regional dialect. All other instances, it means languagues -- by its very nature is a form of communication. 'Tongues' never means the indiscernible gibberish utterings practiced in some modern-day churches. God already knows what is in each person's thoughts. Actually communicating in language is not necessary -- let alone gibberish. | ||
| bear Advanced Member Username: bear Post Number: 985 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 24.236.150.133 |
There are two verses in 1 Corithians 14 that seen to stump P/C's that it can mean something different. I purpose that it is due to interpreting outside of the entire context of the chapter. However, we must keep in mind that in its original state, this letter was not divided into chapter and verse. Ultimate1, like every other P/C, bifurcates the chapter into: 1. Tongues as a prayer language. 2. Tongues in the church. While a bifurcation is present. the modern day interpretation is flawed when examined carefully. The two verses in chapter 14 which raise questions are 4 and 14. Watchman, it has been some time since I read your explaination on another thread concerning these verses, but would you be willing to do the honors with an explanation? I believe that you are able to give a more accurate interpretation. | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3614 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
bear, I would be happy to assist if I can. I addressed the proper interpretation of verse 4 above in my post No. 3610. One should keep in mind whom Paul is addressing. It is the church in Corinth [1 Cor. 1:1]. So, it is an instructional guideline to preachers/churches today. One should also understand the context of Chapter 14. In Chapter 13, Paul teaches that a teacher/preacher may have spiritual knowledge and understanding; but, if he does not have charity, he has nothing [13:2]. Charity of a church/preacher is the most important aspect of his/her ministry. If one looks at the meaning of 'charity' one can see a more general definition - G26 ag-ah'-pay From G25; love, that is, affection or benevolence; specifically (plural) a love feast: - (feast of) charity ([-ably]), dear, love. It is agape in the Greek. It can mean benevolence/love. Hence, I am amazed at the pure arrogance of some churches. They will take a single Bible [English-rendered] scripture and, thereby, make a religion out of it. They use this scripture to turn up their collective noses at all other Christians who do not agree. They show disdain, and not 'charity', for their fellow man. They seek not knowledge nor seek the edification of man through humble interaction. Nor do they seek understanding themselves. "Born again" and "tongues" churches fit this description. They generally do not exercise 'charity' as described by Paul in Chapter 13. So, their teachings amount to nothing. So, when one starts with Chapter 14, we can see a clumsy rendering for verse 1. One can research the words 'after', 'desire', 'but', 'rather', and 'prophesy' and can see that there are different renderings that would make more sense and place this chapter in proper context following Chapter 13. Basically, the subject of Chapter 14 is given in verse 1 in that, in the order of importance, a preacher/church should teach [prophesy] after demonstrating benevolence/love [charity]. Verse 2-4 clearly describe the importance of speaking to the congregation in their language so that they may by edified. These scriptures have nothing whatsoever to do with gibberish. Verse 5 means that it is not just important to speak the foreign language but to be sufficiently versed in that language in order to properly teach the word of God. In verses 6-8, Paul gives an analogy of the inability to speak fluently in the language of the congregation. In verse 9, Paul explains the futility of not communicating in the congregation's language. In verses 10-11, Paul acknowledges there are many languages and that lack of knowledge of each other's language will make each sound like barbarians. In verses 12-13, Paul is exhorting them to pray for help to learn these languages so that one's zeal to edify people will not be compromised by dissimilar languages. So, in verse 14, Paul is simply giving an example to the church of the resultant of going before the congregation and verbalizing a prayer. God will understand and the preacher's spirit will benefit from the prayer. However, the congregation will gain nothing from one's verbal prayer in a language they do not understand. It is fruitless. | ||
| easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1698 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 72.164.43.195 |
""Born again" and "tongues" churches fit this description. They generally do not exercise 'charity' as described by Paul in Chapter 13. So, their teachings amount to nothing." So, since both "born again" and "tongues" churches teachings all amount to nothing Watchman has decided not to go to any Church for over 30 years? "Undoubtedly modern Pentecostalism is a reaction to the sterility that began to characterize the established churches in the modern era." There is no excuse for one not having the discipline to get up Saturday or Sunday and visit with other members of the Body of Christ in worship? Bear, I will not take any Scriptural Interpretation from a person that refuses to go to any Church at all. We are told by Scripture not to forsake assemblying one with another. There just is no excuse for it, and I don't care if you hold them as having great interpretations of Scripture. To me they don't have any possible context or clue what a P/C or Born Again Church is like, or what should be done at one if they won't or haven't gone to a Church in 30 years. I am also under the impression from other posts that Rev. Sandy doesn't go to any Church. I don't need to listen to he/she or whatever they are either. They both could be emailing from a half-way house or prison for all I know. That could be the reason they both don't go to churches. | ||
| the_apostolic_truth_ministries Advanced Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 938 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 12.217.145.168 |
Mr. easeltine: Actually I left prison several years ago. | ||
| easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1700 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 66.245.201.82 |
Rev. Sandy, From where you are coming from I think that I have more respect for you and Watchman than I do for people that should know better, and have rejected P/C. | ||
| the_apostolic_truth_ministries Advanced Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 941 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 12.217.145.168 |
Mr. Easeltine: I have made no secret of my prison ministry at a federal women's prison. As to knowing better, I rely exclusively on God's (w)Holy Inspired Inerrant Word for the Ages to reject the pseudo-christian cult of pentecostalism, not a religious guidebook. | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3641 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
easeltine, I would appreciate that you quote me correctly. The quote regarding Pentecostalism was not from me. However, I will address your point:
The two subjects, the nothingness of churches without charity and my physical attendance at a church, are mutually exclusive of each other. ***** It is Apostle Paul's inspired words [I Cor. 13] that declare preachers/churches without benevolence/love as nothing -- not my words. However, it is my observance of 'born again' and 'tongues' churches that they practice exclusivity -- not charity. Of course, 'born agains' run around and declare those whom don't declare that they are 'born again' are not saved. What I have witnessed from you is that those whom don't speak in vain babblings [2 Tim. 2:16] [indiscernible gibberish which you misname - 'tongues'] do not have the Holy Spirit and are not saved. Such practices, not only are wholly unbiblical but, are purely designed to establish extra-biblical criteria for salvation to separate those that practice such rituals from the rest of the world. It is pure exclusivity -- not charity. ***** Regarding church attendance, you need to go back to school for reading comprehension. You asked me if I belonged to any 'denomination', which I don't. However, I regularly attend church for the past 12 years. My reason for not physically attending church service is that, in the area where I live [Santa Monica, California], I have not found a church that properly teaches the Word of God. | ||
| ultimate1 Advanced Member Username: ultimate1 Post Number: 548 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 71.194.182.119 |
Watchman-2 follows Sheherds Chapel Arnold Murray who is a well known racist, with CRAZY teachings like Eve had Sex with satan. Jesus said you shall know them by their unGodly fruit. If anyone teaches other than the Bible he is a heretic apostate influenced by Satan the father of lies. What does cult leader nut case Arnold Murray Shepherd's Chapel teach? Click the link below and read how twisted Shepherd Chapel - Arnold Murray is from the informative article of the phony Dr murray. The real con man is their leader Arnold Murray http://www.mission.org/jesuspeople/arnmuray.htm Murray ridculously believes that Eve had sex with the serpent, -men were once gods who existed prior to living on the earth, -that there is no trinity, -no rapture, -Anglo-Saxons are the chosen race(racist belief), and -America and Great Britain are the lost tribes of the children of Israel among other ridiculous crazy beliefs he and his deceived cult followers including abiyah, w2 and ez-37 have. They instead follow this false prophet called Arnold Murray, and not God. The Shepherd's Chapel is, at the very least, a controversial cult church with mostly unBiblical unorthodox doctrines. The following list of teachings from the Shepherd's Chapel is derived from scouring the Internet, chat rooms, bulletin boards, asking the followers of Arnold Murray, and looking at the Shepherd's Chapel web site. The Shepherd's Chapel is considered to be a non-Christian cult. UnBiblical Teaching of Arnold Murray. -Denies the Trinity and teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are really three offices held by the one God. -Denies the existence of eternal Hell. -Denies the doctrine of the rapture. -Denies physical resurrection of believers. We will be raised spiritually. -Teaches annihilationism: non-existence after death for sinners. -Teaches that certain Old Testament kosher laws -regarding meat should be followed. -Teaches Serpent Seed doctrine: Eve had literal sexual relations with the serpent. -The offspring of Eve's impregnation resulted in Cain, Satan's offspring. -The Kenites are the tares of the parable of the wheat and the tares in Matt. 13. -Satan's fallen angels impregnated women around the time of Noah. -Interracial marriage is wrong. -Being born again is to enter into this body from a spiritual body of another age. -America and Britain are the lost tribes of Israel. -People were alive in a pre-existence. -There was an earth age prior to Adam where a race of people lived. -He says the Rapture is a false doctrine. http://www.carm.org/chapel/intro_chapel.htm | ||
| fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 2668 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.255.151.176 |
a little exposure is a good thing hey watchman? don't bother to spend time over here defending your hate. go back to the threads where you belong. your precious SC friends are calling you. oink, oink. hey ultimate it is good to expose people like this but engaging him in any discussion is just casting pearls before swine. if you engage him you will see for yourself. the best thing to do with people like him is to do what he says to do to others. ignore them. if you do not they will take over this entire message board with their hate. you will have them all over here and eventually everyone else will leave in disgust. they will have succeeded in bullying everyone off of this message board. this is their goal. they will try shut down factnet if they think can. their tactic is to bully you until you just give up and leave. the moderators here are busy trying to change this board over to some new software. they do not know what is happening here yet. i am hoping they see it soon however. if they do not they will have lost many of their posters here. these SC people are to stupid to see the way they are, so they will continue doing this stuff, believing they are warriors for god. do not engage them or you will become a target. do not think that if you clearly show them that they are wrong that that will stop them. they honestly cannot see past their own teachings. they are so stuck on there self appointed superiority that they cannot see the truth. the evil in these people comes out when they are exposed. you will see. | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3643 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
Just to clear the air, my theology is Gen. 1:1 through Rev. 22:21. If anyone else can teach the Bible better than the Shepherd's Chapel, I will be happy to attend their service. As for fatherofaking, he is not even a christian. Some claim he is a muslim extremist sympathizer. Irrespective of what he is, he is definitely not a student of the Bible. I think that Ultimate1 is already quite established as a religious hack. No further comment needed. | ||
| fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 2669 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.255.151.176 |
Some claim he is a muslim extremist sympathizer. show us proof of your allegations watchman. if you cannot then i expect a public apology, since you have made a public allegation. i know you will never come up with any proof or any apology. here is where he gets this from. factnet.org it is his delusional buddy making things up about me to try and discredit me. he says my memory is bad but shows no proof that i ever said anything about being a muslim. i am well known by many here on this message board. not one will back up this allegation. anyone who does a search on my user name and read the things i post can see that he is a liar. i am ready to play your game watchman. you have much that can be exposed on you. so let the games begin. (Message edited by fatherofaking on December 11, 2007) | ||
| easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1704 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 72.164.43.195 |
Here is what Watchman says in the above post: "However, I regularly attend church for the past 12 years." Here is what Watchman said on post 3626 under the heading, "Charis...What Pent..." "I have not set foot in a church to attend a service in over 30 years." Thank you Ultimate for exposing what false teacher I will keep away from. | ||
| easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1705 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 72.164.43.195 |
Here is what Watchman says in the above post: "However, I regularly attend church for the past 12 years." Here is what Watchman said on post 3626 under the heading, "Charis...What Pent..." "I have not set foot in a church to attend a service in over 30 years." Thank you Ultimate for exposing what false teacher I will keep away from. | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3648 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
foak, There is nothing in my prior post about you that is not factual. Therefore, what do you expect me to apologize for? | ||
| easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1708 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 72.164.43.195 |
Just for Watchman's education, Here is the church. Here is the steeple. Open the door, and there is all the people. It's not T.V. man! | ||
| fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 2673 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.255.151.176 |
There is nothing in my prior post about you that is not factual. Therefore, what do you expect me to apologize for? i expect you to back up what you said or apologize for saying it. you cannot back it up can you? you know you cannot because it is not true. you would have already if you could, but you cannot. so i expect one or the other from your arrogant lying •••. i have had enough of your lying watchman. i am going to hound you like a dog until you apologize. i expect i will die of exhaustion before you do however. i have had enough of the way you treat me and others here on this board. i will do everything i can to get rid of all of you SC people from this message board. i will use every means at my disposal. i do not think i have ever been so angry in my life. you have no conscience. you are nothing but trash. you should have been removed from this board long ago. | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3653 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
foak, You haven't stated what I wrote that was not factual yet. If I have not made a factual statement, I will be happy to apologize. Until you can specify what is not factual, I have no idea what you are talking about. You appear to be a lunatic. | ||
| fatherofaking Senior Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 2677 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.255.151.176 |
i want your source watchman. i am no fool, i know that you worded your post carefully. you have learned from me well. just give us your source of information. i already posted a link to that source and you did not deny it. so i think this is now on you watchman. if you will not produce a source of your own then i expect an apology. you said some watchman. i will expect to see more than one source since you clearly implied more than one person said this about me. you must really think i am a fool. we shall see who the fool is. i am waiting for you to go running away like you did last time. | ||
| easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1710 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 66.245.201.192 |
They show disdain, and not 'charity', for their fellow man. They seek not knowledge nor seek the edification of man through humble interaction. Nor do they seek understanding themselves. ""Born again" and "tongues" churches fit this description. They generally do not exercise 'charity' as described by Paul in Chapter 13. So, their teachings amount to nothing." - Watchman  |
