| Author | Message | ||
     trsrinheaven Senior Member Username: trsrinheaven Post Number: 1419 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 71.194.182.119 |
IS THE GIFT FOR TODAY? by Sam Storms Cessationists commonly argue that the "gift of tongues" practiced today is not the same gift described in the New Testament. Referring to Acts 2, they argue that the gift of tongues was always an actual human language of the day, whereas the tongues spoken today are gibberish which generally shows none of the characteristics of an actual language. Acts 2, however, is the only text in the New Testament where tongues-speech is explicitly said to consist of foreign languages not previously known by the speaker. There is no reason to think Acts 2, rather than, say, 1 Corinthians 14, is the standard by which all occurrences of tongues-speech must be judged. Other factors that suggest tongues could also be heavenly or angelic speech are as follows. "If tongues is always a foreign language intended as a sign for unbelievers, why are the tongues in Acts 10 and Acts 19 spoken in the presence of believers only? "Paul describes various "kinds of tongues" in 1 Cor. 12:10. His words suggest that there are differing categories of tongues-speech, perhaps at minimum human languages and heavenly languages. * In 1 Cor. 14:2 Paul says that whoever speaks in a tongue "does not speak to men but to God." If one who prays in tongues speaks only to God, why would a human language be necessary? * Again, in 1 Cor. 14:2 he says that "no one understands" tongues because "mysteries" are spoken. But if tongues are always human language, many would understand, as they did on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:8-11). This would especially be true in Corinth, a multi-lingual cosmopolitan port city that was frequented by people of numerous dialects. * If tongues are always human language, then the gift of interpretation would require no special work of the Spirit. Anyone who was multi-lingual could interpret tongues-speech simply by virtue of their education. * In 1 Cor. 13:1 Paul refers to "the tongues of men and of angels." Whereas he may be using hyperbole, it is just as likely that he is referring to heavenly or angelic dialects for which the Holy Spirit gives utterance. * Some say the reference in 1 Cor. 14:10-11 to earthly, foreign languages proves that all tongues-speech is also human language. But the point of the analogy is that tongues function like foreign languages, not that tongues are foreign languages. His point is that the hearer cannot understand uninterpreted tongues any more than he can understand the one speaking a foreign language. If tongues were a foreign language, there would be no need for an analogy. * Paul's statement in 1 Cor. 14:18 that he "speaks in tongues more than all of you" is evidence that tongues are not foreign languages. As Wayne Grudem notes in Systematic Theology, "If they were known foreign languages that foreigners could understand, as at Pentecost, why would Paul speak more than all the Corinthians in private, where no one would understand, rather than in church where foreign visitors could understand?" * If tongues are always human language, then Paul's statement in 1 Cor. 14:23 wouldn't always hold true. Any unbeliever who would know the language being spoken would more likely conclude the person speaking was highly educated rather than "mad." | ||
| trsrinheaven Senior Member Username: trsrinheaven Post Number: 1420 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 71.194.182.119 |
. . . continued part 2 What Scripture Says Why am I convinced this helpful gift is still operative today? First, there is the absence of biblical evidence to the contrary. When did it strop? what day hour month? Where is the scriptural proof it did? How Tongues Build Up the Church Cessationists have said that miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit such as tongues and their interpretation were designed as a sign to confirm and authenticate the apostles' message. This is true. But nowhere in the New Testament does it say that authentication was the sole and exclusive purpose of such displays of divine power. In fact, a wealth of biblical material suggests that the gift of tongues fulfills many purposes within the Church. Like every other spiritual gift, the gift's ultimate purpose is to build up the Body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:7; 14:3,26). Tongues benefit believers in the following ways. Speaking in tongues is a form of prayer (1 Cor. 14:2, 14-15). Through its use the believer can communicate with God in supplication, intercession, and thanksgiving. Speaking in tongues is a means for edifying oneself (1 Cor. 14:4), as are many other Christian activities such as prayer and Bible study. Self-edification is not evil unless it becomes an end in itself. It is even commanded in Jude 20. Speaking in tongues is a way to praise the person and works of God (1 Cor. 14:16). There is no evidence that the tongues-speech in Acts 2 (or elsewhere) served an evangelistic purpose. According to Acts 2:11, the content of the tongues-speech was "the wonders of God" (see the same phrase in Acts 10:46). The people didn't hear evangelism; they heard praise! And it didn't generate conversion but confusion. It is Peter's preaching that brought salvation. Speaking in tongues can also be a way of compensating for our weakness and ignorance in praying for ourselves and others (cf. Rom. 8:26-27). Good for the Body Some have challenged the idea that the gift of tongues was designed to build up the Body of Christ. But according to 1 Cor. 12:7-10, spiritual gifts such as tongues were distributed to the Body of Christ "for the common good" (v.7), i.e., for the edification and benefit of the Church! In 1 Cor. 14:5, Paul says that tongues, when interpreted, are helpful to the Church. In 1 Cor. 14:26 Paul exhorts us to assemble, prepared to minister with a hymn, a teaching, a revelation, a tongue, and an interpretation. All of these are designed, he says, for "edification." If tongues were not intended to edify believers, why did God provide the gift of interpretation, so that tongues might be utilized in the gathered assembly of believers? In addition, there is evidence that Paul himself exercised the gift in private communication to God. In 1 Cor. 14:18-19 he declared: "I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue." This latter statement is Paul's somewhat exaggerated way of saying he almost never speaks in tongues in church. In the absence of an interpreter, he most definitely won't. But if Paul virtually never exercised this gift in church, yet spoke in tongues more frequently and fluently and fervently than anyone--even more so than the tongue-happy Corinthians--where did he do it? Surely he prayed in tongues in private. | ||
| trsrinheaven Senior Member Username: trsrinheaven Post Number: 1421 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 71.194.182.119 |
continued If Paul virtually never exercised this gift in church, yet spoke in tongues more frequently and fluently and fervently than anyone--even more so than the tongue-happy Corinthians--where did he do it? Surely then he must have prayed in tongues in private. Nothing I read in the New Testament nor see in the condition of the Church leads me to believe we have progressed beyond the need for edification and therefore beyond the need for the contribution of the gift of tougues or suggesting it is not valid. This is not an argument from silence, because the New Testament is anything but silent concerning the presence of the gift in the Church. In other words, if certain gifts of a special class have ceased, the burden of proof rests with the cessationist. Some argue that when the writing of Scripture was completed, there was no longer any need for manifestations of divine power and they ceased. Hasn't the Bible itself replaced miraculous phenomena in the life of the Church? The problem is that the Bible itself never says any such thing. No biblical author ever claims that written Scripture has replaced or in some sense supplanted the need for any of the gifts. If the gift of tongues was essential in bearing witness to the truth of the gospel in the first century, why would it not do the same in subsequent centuries, even in our own? Another argument against tongues today says that signs, wonders, and miracles were clustered or concentrated at critical moments of revelatory activity in redemptive history. But my reading of the Old Testament reveals a consistent pattern of supernatural manifestations in the affairs of humanity. In addition to the multitude of miracles during the lifetimes of Moses, Joshua, Elijah, and Elisha, we see numerous instances of angelic activity, supernatural visitations and revelatory activity, healings, dreams, visions, and the like. Furthermore, in Jer. 32:20 the prophet says that God "set signs and wonders in the land of Egypt, even unto this day, and in Israel, and among other men" (KJV, emphasis added). This text alerts us to the danger of arguing from silence. The fact that from the time of the Exodus to the Captivity fewer instances of signs and wonders are recorded does not mean they did not occur. Jeremiah insists they did. Finally, four texts seem to indicate clearly that the gift of tongues is still with us. First Corinthians 1:4-9 implies that the gifts of the Spirit are operative until "our Lord Jesus Christ [is] revealed" (v. 7). Ephesians 4:11-13 explicitly dates the duration of the gifts. They are required "until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ" (v. 13). In 1 Cor. 14:39 Paul commands "my brothers," among whom I include myself, to "be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues." And despite the controversy that still surrounds it, I remain convinced that the coming of "perfection" in 1 Cor. 13:8-13 refers to the perfection of the eternal state. The gift of tongues will cease only upon Christ's return. A Gift for All Ages I believe that miraculous gifts such as speaking in tongues were designed by God to characterize the life of the Church today for much the same reason I believe in church discipline for today and in rule by a plurality of elders for today and in the observance of the Lord's Supper for today. These gifts can be counted among a host of biblical practices and patterns explicitly ordained in the New Testament. Nowhere in Scripture has any of them been clearly designated as temporary or restricted to the first century. | ||
| trsrinheaven Senior Member Username: trsrinheaven Post Number: 1422 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 71.194.182.119 |
continued last part. The Holy Spirit does not simply inaugurate the new age new covenant and then disappears. He, together with His gifts and fruit, characterizes the new age. The Spirit was poured out at Pentecost not simply to jump-start the Church but to energize and empower her life and witness until the return of Jesus. I am grateful for all the gifts of the Spirit, and I urge you to join with me in heeding Paul's exhortation that we AS THE APOSTLE PAUL SAID to "eagerly desire spiritual gifts" (1 Cor. 14:1). | ||
| trsrinheaven Senior Member Username: trsrinheaven Post Number: 1423 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 71.194.182.119 |
. Some of the Scriptural Foundation for the Baptism of the Holy Spirit Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4,5 - Promised by Jesus, with a command to wait. Likened to John's Baptism. Acts 2:4 - Day of Pentecost - received while sitting in prayer. Peter's sermon: in fulfillment of Isaiahs prophecy Joel's prophecy (Acts 2:17) and making a promise to "children" and those who "far off" (Acts 2:39) Acts 8:15-19 - Samaria Revival, with laying on of hands by Peter and John) : Simon Magus impressed with what he saw Acts 9:17 - Paul's experience when prayed over (with laying on of hands) by Ananias in Damascus. (Note I Corinthians 14:18 - "I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you.") Acts 10:44-46 - Cornelius' house church - tongues the obvious sign, proving to Peter and company the validity of their having been filled with the Spirit. (Also 11:15) Received spontaneously during the preaching of Peter. Acts 19:5 - Ephesus 12 who knew of John the Baptist. Received with the laying on of hands by Paul. Both "tongues" and "prophecy". I Corinthians 14:2; 14,15 - Paul's testimony and instructions. II. Objections Often Raised Concerning the Baptism in the Holy Spirit Objection #1. "All you Pentecostals talk about is tongues." Why is this so? It is the distinguishing mark of Pentecostals. This is the what non-Pentecostals are most curious about. However, this has diminished over the past few years, being replaced primarily by "being slain" in the Spirit. Objection #2. "Speaking in tongues is only one of the gifts, and being last in the list of gifts suggests that it is the least important of them all." There's no evidence that Paul's lists are arranged according to importance. (He seems to champion "prophecy", and yet this does not appear first on the I Corinthians 12 list, although it is first in the Romans 12 list.) We must be careful to distinguish between the four uses of "tongues": Sign of Spirit Baptism, Praise, Intercession, and Edification when accompanied by "interpretation". Furthermore, even if we concede that "speaking in tongues" is the least of the gifts, perhaps that should be the starting point for involvements in the other "gifts of the Spirit." Objection #3. "Paul discouraged the use of 'tongues' in I Corinthians 14." But remember, in this letter Paul is trying to correct abuses. 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.'" 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 very 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 other gifts in their worship. | ||
| trsrinheaven Senior Member Username: trsrinheaven Post Number: 1424 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 71.194.182.119 |
cont... Objection #4. "Those who do not 'speak in tongues' seem to be classified as secondary, or defective Christians, thus giving rise to spiritual pride and exclusivity. In addition, Jesus evidently didn't speak in tongues or teach about it." This criticism is usually leveled by those who are against tongues or the gifts of the Holy Spirit. The Gifts of the Holy Spirit including Tongues and Baptism of the Sprit are not something you have to do but rather they are something you GET to have and do! This is a usually false criticism leveled by anti-tongue, anti supernatural God, Holy Spirit, miracles and thus anti Holy Spirit people. There is no room for judgment of one another, only discernment exercised in the appointment of leadership. "Tongues" is not considered as a criteria for acceptance or as a badge of superior spirituality. Objection #5. "'Speaking in tongues' is found in religious groups outside of Christianity. There are examples of this in the ancient 'mystery religions', the occult, and even in the drug culture." But the same point can be made about other Christian practices, i.e., conversions, water baptism, songs of worship, ethical systems. Yet we aren't ready to dismiss these items just because other religions practice them. It may also come as a surprise that some religions also boast of a "virgin birth" as a result of the action of the gods. Objection #6. "There are counterfeits who speak in 'tongues', to practice 'speaking in tongues' at all opens up to these possible counterfeits." But think about it, just because there are some counterfeit $20.00 bills in the world, should we destroy all the 20's in our pockets, and determine never to use them again? The Scripture gives us the responsibility to discern: 1 Thessalonians 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (KJV) Test everything. Hold on to the good. (NIV) 1 John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. (KJV) Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. (NIV) Objection #7. "Only a small number of Biblical references are given concerning 'speaking in tongues', and it is unwise to base a doctrine on so few texts. Furthermore, 'tongues' is only noted to have been experienced in just two N.T. churches, Ephesus and Corinth." There are plenty of scriptures about the Gifts of the Spirit etc. that are given which include numerous chapters in Romans,, Corinthians, Ephesians, etc and also in the Book of Acts. They are somewhat representative, that is, they show that the Spirit was poured out upon different groups - Jews, Samaritans, Gentiles. Other important doctrines would fall to this same criticism, i.e., the Virgin Birth, Born Again, Trinity. | ||
| the_apostolic_truth_ministries Advanced Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 895 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 12.217.145.168 |
Hello, M(r)(s). trsrinheaven: Are you an unbelieving Jew perchance? | ||
| matt_hatter Senior Member Username: matt_hatter Post Number: 4347 Registered: 5-2006 Posted From: 24.214.93.12 |
My question is...who does she thinks even reads all of this cut and paste stuff? TBN's new movie dept announces...our latest project: Indiana TRS and the Last Crusade!! | ||
| xman3 Advanced Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 804 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 76.247.131.231 |
It is certainly one of the longest paste jobs ever. Lots of interesting stuff in there though. This I believe, is the essence, however, of the difference in many labled around here as pentacostals and those who aren't. In addition to the specific debates and discussions on tongues, healing, prophecy, or other such things, there is this foundational issue. Did they cease? I say no. Barring any specific scripture which says that upon the death of so and so, the gifts will cease, this foundational issue becomes one of principle more than a discussion on tongues and healing. As far as I see it, this issue is the lynchpin for tatm's crusade. If it falls or goes unproven, then there would be no reason to think anything he's built on that would be right. I mean you, tatm, are supposedly commisioned to expose the crapology of the religion of pentacostalism. Your chosen method of attck is to attempt to undermine the roots and foundations that men concocted versus what God says. That is the same route to take against your belief I suppose. In order for me to be persuaded by your reasoning, I would have to be persuaded of this point. Please show me and explain when they ceased. If you can't do so, then I suggest more of your conclusions are wrong also. I am of the persuasion they continue on as the Holy Spirit wills. Anyway, this is a timely topic with the sometimes lively discussion on the outgrowths of this issue such as tongues, but the article is too long to read. | ||
| the_apostolic_truth_ministries Advanced Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 921 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 12.217.145.168 |
Mr. Xman3: Have you ever dealt with a drunk? | ||
| oneway Advanced Member Username: oneway Post Number: 829 Registered: 1-2007 Posted From: 69.30.157.124 |
"Please show me and explain when they ceased. If you can't do so, then I suggest more of your conclusions are wrong also. I am of the persuasion they continue on as the Holy Spirit wills." xman3, here is my honest assessment. If we look back in Acts, the gift of the Holy Ghost fell upon those present on 2 different occasions. One, in Acts 2, two, in Acts 10:44. Aside from these two manners, how was the gift of the Holy Ghost given? By laying on of the hands. Acts 8:18 proves this point. Acts 8:18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, What I see here is a link. Now lets move ahead two thousand years or so. My question now is this. Can the alleged gift of the Holy Ghost that we see today, can it be linked back unbroken to Acts 2 and Acts 10:44? We know that the gift was only received by the laying on of hands. And the laying on of the hands could only be performed by those that originally received the gift in Acts 2 and Acts 10:44. So now lets look at this link that I'm trying to propose. Those that received the gift in Acts 2 and Acts 10:44, these lay their hands on this one, this one lays their hands on that one, that one lays their hands on that one, etc. What do all of these have in common so far? The gift can be linked back, unbroken, to Acts 2 and Acts 10:44. My question is this? Has this link ever been broken since the course of it's beginning? Was there ever a time in church history, that the gifts were not practiced? If so, how did they start back up again? I'm pretty certain that there is nowhere in scriptures that indicate that the gift of the Holy Ghost would once again fall upon people some two thousand yrs later, if the original link were ever broken. If the gifts practiced today can be proven unbroken, and can be linked back to Acts 2 and Acts 10:44, then I would say that the gifts are still in operation. But if the gifts practiced today cannot be linked, unbroken, to Acts 2 and Acts 10:44, I would have to deduce that these gifts are not the gifts of the Holy Ghost. And how is this link established? By the laying on of hands, by those that received the gift in Acts 2 and Acts 10:44. Also, don't you find it odd, that these same gifts you practice, Benny Hinn, Robert Tilton, etc, these practice them too? | ||
| xman3 Advanced Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 806 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 76.247.131.231 |
TATM- Yes. Oneway- Also, don't you find it odd, that these same gifts you practice, Benny Hinn, Robert Tilton, etc, these practice them too? I will answer this first. I don't find it any stranger than the multitude of charismatics and non charismatics alike that are as bad or worse in any number of ways. It's a blot on charismatics in so far as we all identify with one another (which isn't very universally I might add), but not something I attribute to the gifts themselves, but to the character of the ministers and ministries involved. As for the laying on of hands and the direct line stuff. Tatm went in a similar direction. I think that's a fair point and i'll think about it a little before I quickly say anything. One good thing about discussing this stuff is it makes me go back to the bible and study up on the specifics of stuff I really have taken for granted at times. | ||
| the_apostolic_truth_ministries Advanced Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 924 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 12.217.145.168 |
Mr. Xman3: A drunk, I have heard, is an alcoholic who does not attend AA meetings. As a general point of reference, trying to convince a drunk that he has a problem is useless. We can directly compare drunks and those who promote faked infantile gibberish (regardless of what you call it). I would come closer to convincing you that English is actually Italian and italian is really Chinese. To be honest, none of my conversation has been directed at you. Rather, I am speaking to those who might be lurking, searching for the truth. | ||
| arron Senior Member Username: arron Post Number: 3846 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 71.85.119.3 |
i am not a drunk, neither do i drink wine or any intoxicating beverage. i go to church i live for JESUS and i have and am glad to say that i speak in tongues which ARE OF THE HOLY GHOST , i have never spoken in , nor have i heard in our church now someone who soke in ... what you so ignorantly call gibberish, you have yet .. tatm to say where you go to chuch by name , where you got ordained, where you got your doctorate you talk about people and accuse them of many things which are not true. i do not beleive that you are a christian. i do not beleive that you believe that there is a GOD AND THAT HIS NAME IS JESUS. the very fact that you leave the baptist , the methodist, , the other denomanation alone tells me you were hurt by some one in the pentecostal church and that is why you call it all each and every church infintile gibberish. you are the one who needs praayer very bad that you will be delivered from the cluthces of satan who has you bound. you many times have almost crossed the line and commited blasphemy against THE HOLY GHOST so please be careful | ||
| the_apostolic_truth_ministries Advanced Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 937 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 12.217.145.168 |
Mr. Arron: 'Tis thee who is blaspheming the Holy Ghost by blaming your faked infantile gibberish on him. | ||
| arron Senior Member Username: arron Post Number: 3847 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 71.85.119.3 |
tatm. better read and know what you are writting again you can find many time where you have come close to blaspheming THE HOLY GHOST with your insane raveings, you are a real blasphemer to all on here | ||
| easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1699 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 72.164.43.195 |
Arron, I really believe that the reason tatm won't give you a Church or a Denomination that they are connected with is that they are emailing us from a prison. I think that they are in for kidnapping an adult who was involved in Pentecostalism and wanted to stay in that particular church. I think that he/she or whatever is looney. | ||
| xman3 Advanced Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 809 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 75.14.39.198 |
TATM: One of a pentacostal persuasion could just as easily then say that talking to you or someone of your persuasion is like talking to a drunk. Neither has any merit except to devilishly coat each point made with labels and names that serve no purpose but to offend one who believes them. I realize you are not addressing me in particular, because most of the things you say don't apply or have an answer for one of my simple beliefs. Really, no one person perfectly fits the mold you try to put tongue talkers in, but I am ready and able to defend what I believe and practice, and though I have seen some compelling things presented, It hasn't been enough to off set the compelling evidence I have in my beliefs. You, the most unpersuadable one here I might add, say that no tongue talker can really be persuaded. I wonder how you would know that, since you really make no effort to persuade them. You can't possibly believe that those things you throw out here are actually going to persuade someone to deny tongues and the gifts of the spirit. Those are just the teasers. To be persuaded requires a deeper look, but you don't even try. Maybe someone could be persuaded. | ||
| saygoodnightgracie Intermediate Member Username: saygoodnightgracie Post Number: 365 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 72.254.178.246 |
One time I was traveling with a minister and we had a meeting in a large midwestern city, in one of the worst neighborhoods of the city. Following the teaching portion of the service, the minister gave an altar call. Several responded and around the time that the minister was sharing the salvation message with these, a quite obviously drunk and slightly belligerent man came in the back of the church. Hearing the tail end of the salvation message, in which the minister eloquently detailed God's unconditional Love for each of us - this man came forward. I followed him, mostly to make sure the minister was safe and he made his way down to the front. | ||
| saygoodnightgracie Intermediate Member Username: saygoodnightgracie Post Number: 366 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 72.254.178.246 |
The minister spoke with the man briefly, the man related that he had never been "churched", had in fact rarely been in churches except for funerals, was a raging alcoholic and after a time, when the minister discerned a contriteness and repentant spirit within the man, led him in a simple prayer of salvation. The man immediately "went" sober, become markedly more coherent, AND literally burst forth into a surprising and beautiful cascade of tongues... of course a critic will have all sorts of reasons why and how this was not real, we had been duped, we're idiots, etc. However, I am college educated (some grad work), earn my living as a sales professional in one of the world's largest global business concerns and am anything but. I know what I saw and I know what I heard. Altho I believed prior, that event changed me forever. No comment, criticism or faulty exegesis could ever seperate me from the truth and from what I witnessed first hand in that southside church. Sic' em TATM, sic 'em!!! | ||
| the_apostolic_truth_ministries Advanced Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 940 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 12.217.145.168 |
Mr. Xman3: Quoting: "You, the most unpersuadable one here I might add, say that no tongue talker can really be persuaded. I wonder how you would know that, since you really make no effort to persuade them. You can't possibly believe that those things you throw out here are actually going to persuade someone to deny tongues and the gifts of the spirit. Those are just the teasers. To be persuaded requires a deeper look, but you don't even try. Maybe someone could be persuaded." End quote. My ministry leads, on average, one hundred a month out of the pseudo-christian cult of pentecostalism. Hello, M(r)(s). saygoodnightgracie: Quoting: "The man immediately "went" sober, become markedly more coherent, AND literally burst forth into a surprising and beautiful cascade of tongues . . ." End quote. Ever hear of Joseph Smith? | ||
| oneway Advanced Member Username: oneway Post Number: 836 Registered: 1-2007 Posted From: 69.30.157.124 |
xman3, the main reason I decided to get involved in these discussions, is because I used to speak in tongues some 15-20 years ago. The link I spoke of in my prev post, do you think that unbroken link is necessary today? If not, why? BTW, when I received the gift of tongues, I was alone. I prayed and believed for it, then it happened. This is why I'm curious about whether this link is even necessary, since no one laid hands on me, and I was able to fluently speak in tongues afterwards. After about 20-30 mins of praying and believing, I felt a force of energy encompass my whole being, the next words out of my mouth were not my language. There's more to this story and I had reasons for ceasing to speak in tongues. Actually speaking in tongues caused me to backslide for 10 yrs or better. But one thing I am convinced of, and the text seems to make it pretty clear, the tongues in 1 Co 14 are a heavenly language, not some foreign native language like some are suggesting. | ||
| arron Senior Member Username: arron Post Number: 3852 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 71.85.119.3 |
oneway... if i may ask why or how did tongues make you backslide | ||
| xman3 Advanced Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 810 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 75.14.39.198 |
TATM: My ministry leads, on average, one hundred a month out of the pseudo-christian cult of pentecostalism. Who's trying the comedy routine now? With evangelastic results like that, you ought to be a pentacostal. Oneway: I do not believe there is any necessity for the link to remain unbroken. The simplistic reasoning is that upon salvation I received the Holy Spirit, who I believe is the source of tongues. At that point, I could speak in tongues as far as I'm concerned, 2nd or subsequent experience not withstanding. Whether tongues is or isn't earthly languages, I do not see evidence in 1 Cor that leads me to believe every person who spoke in tongues in the Church there had an appostle lay hands on them. That's very simplistic though. I've heard some good arguments concerning both views on tongues and frankly, I was one of them pentacostals who always looked down on the Catholic Church for the Pope succession kind of stuff. That's the same knee jerk reaction I have to the laying on of hand or unbroken line with tongues. I've kind of gotten a bit more curious lately about why people believe different though, and I am not so quick to write off their beliefs without any thought just because I was taught such and such or believed a certain way. I have reasons for believing like I do, but I must admit some of them were formed so many years ago at a time when I thought a whole lot different than I do now about so many things that it is good for me to revisit them. I'd never really met anyone previously who believed in this line of thinking, and tatm has also skirted the issue with his claim that an apostle's laying on of hands is necessary, so it is intriguing. | ||
| the_apostolic_truth_ministries Advanced Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 945 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 12.217.145.168 |
Mr. Xman3: Quoting: "With evangelastic results like that, you ought to be a pentacostal." End quote. There is one minor difference in me and a pentecostal. It is the little "i" word. | ||
| xman3 Advanced Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 811 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 75.14.39.198 |
OK, I admit it. I'm skeptical. Perhaps you're including those you talk out of ever speaking in tongues in the first place. It's not that easy (as evidenced here) to talk that many pentacostals out of speaking in tongues. On another topic. Funny how the i gets in the way in so many things in our spiritual life. | ||
| matt_hatter Senior Member Username: matt_hatter Post Number: 4366 Registered: 5-2006 Posted From: 216.226.180.3 |
My ministry leads, on average, one hundred a month out of the pseudo-christian cult of pentecostalism. TATM, the fact that you refuse to identify "your ministry" and then make such an outlandish claim as this leaves your credibility in shreds. You speak in riddles dipped in sarcasm; I cannot imagine ANYONE wanting to sit under your ministry and 'be converted' to your wacky brand of theology, whatever that is. For the life of me, I can't figure out what you believe. But one thing is for certain: I rarely share fellowship with folks who don't agree with anyone but themselves. And with that, I am bowing out of any further conversations with you. Like TRS, I would not spend a minute with either of you in person, so I won't waste another moment posting with either of you. Ironic that both of you, being so different theologically, are cut out of the same mold. I have a number of pentecostal friends. I count them as brothers and sisters in Christ. It is not an issue with me. That you seem fixated on straightening everyone out would indicate a man who needs some major surgery, a log-ectomy. Commonly known as '2X4 in the eyeball'. Merry Christmas by the way. I hope that is ok to say to you, because I frankly don't know what you are talking about most of the time.  | ||
| the_apostolic_truth_ministries Advanced Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 948 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 12.217.145.168 |
Mr. Xman3: You have again misinterpreted what I said hoping for justification of faked infantile gibberish. I doubt if more than a handful of people hold to your lunacy. Those who leave the pseudo-christian cult of pentecostalism simply see through the ostom bits of spatulated ganoey. Quoting: "Funny how the i gets in the way in so many things in our spiritual life." End quote. You are right there. Your entire line of defense is "i". Oh, you still have not answer my question. Worst yet, you told another lie. You now claim to have received faked infantile gibberish at the time of salvation. Previously, you claimed to have started talking in faked infantile gibberish on the way home from church after being told you were suppose to babble. Which is the truth? | ||
| the_apostolic_truth_ministries Advanced Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 949 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 12.217.145.168 |
Mr. Matt_hatter: In the short time I have been on this board, I have not seen anything constructive you have added to any discussion or topic. I really don't think the world would end if you left entirely. | ||
| saygoodnightgracie Intermediate Member Username: saygoodnightgracie Post Number: 369 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 96.228.213.29 |
''2X4 in the eyeball'" Will Ferrell called it, "a haymaker to the babymaker"... | ||
| termin8d Advanced Member Username: termin8d Post Number: 755 Registered: 7-2005 Posted From: 60.234.129.189 |
tatm, I'm quite sure there are a lot more ppl on the board who'd say the exact same words to you. Also, your treatment towards xman3 is disgusting and I don't know why you get upset about people not answering your questions because I have observed you doing the very same thing. | ||
| the_apostolic_truth_ministries Advanced Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 951 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 12.217.145.168 |
Mr. termin8d: At least I know who wrote TULIP and who wrote LILAC. | ||
| termin8d Advanced Member Username: termin8d Post Number: 761 Registered: 7-2005 Posted From: 60.234.129.189 |
Tatm: Knowledge puffs up but love builds up. | ||
| xman3 Advanced Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 812 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 75.14.39.198 |
I'm sorry tatm. You must have misunderstood YET AGAIN. I claim to have received the Holy Spirit at salvation. I don't ever claim to have received fake infantile gibberish, and yes I did first speak in tongues in my car alone. Neither my theology concerning this, nor my experience concerning tongues is hidden or a mystery. I will simplify for you. Before we are saved we do NOT have the Holy Spirit. Upon salvation, we receive the Holy Spirit. At this point, I think one can then speak in tongues, though they may be "taught" differently. Regardless, my personal experience of 25 years ago is just that, my experience. Just one part of my story that I really don't expect anyone to form their theological view on tongues over, and one that I have no reason to present in any fashion other than what hapened. As for your question. I answered it not once, not twice, but 3 times. Twice I stated simply that faked infantile gibberish is not in scripture, and the 3rd time I went into great length. You are simply lying now for effect so you can hope any reader will simply gloss over these threads and take you at your lying word. I get tired of having to search through and re-highlight my already given clear answers while you clumsily avoid answering anything of substance. At least I know who wrote the Bible. | ||
| matt_hatter Senior Member Username: matt_hatter Post Number: 4368 Registered: 5-2006 Posted From: 24.214.93.12 |
I really don't think the world would end if you left entirely. We agree at last. | ||
| the_apostolic_truth_ministries Advanced Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 952 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 12.217.145.168 |
Mr. Xman3: Answer my question, for the first time. How did you, an admitted rank amateur, find faked infantile gibberish in scripture when great theologians, who studied the Bible their entire life, have not? As I said before a rose by any other name is still a rose. Quoting: "At least I know who wrote the Bible." End quote. I'll bite. Who wrote Hebrews? | ||
| saygoodnightgracie Intermediate Member Username: saygoodnightgracie Post Number: 372 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 96.228.213.29 |
TATM: You wouldn't know or recognize: A) The Truth B) An Apostle C) A Ministry if any of these came up and gave you the well placed, but loving kick in the testicular region that you so richly deserve. You do know the "The" part of your user ID however and I want to give credit where it is due. | ||
| xman3 Advanced Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 813 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 75.7.196.227 |
TATM: Once again, I am forced to copy my already given answer. Now this is after I answered your question, as posed, that I can't find faked infantile gibberish anywhere in the Bible twice. This is the bulk of the answer, though the whole post was part. There are a lot of historical and current preachers and teachers out there that I respect who do not speak in tongues and do not feel it's of God. If I take your word for it and accept that the fellows you listed were such, then so be it. There are also a lot of preachers and teachers historically and current that I respect that do speak in tongues and believe it's of God. Some see it in scripture, and some don't. In no way do I consider myself on such a learned level as them, on both sides of the issue actually. I have my own simple Bible based beliefs and am realy just now learning about some of this other stuff. All through history and till today people have created a theological box they live in, which prevents them from seeing anything in the Bible or often elsewhere outside of that box. Greater men than them have been wrong, and sometimes god corrects them, and sometimes not. That's my answer. Apparently you don't like it , so even though I've indulged you through your insulting delivery of the question, you still FALSELY accuse me of not answering. God wrote Hebrews. | ||
| the_apostolic_truth_ministries Advanced Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 954 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 12.217.145.168 |
Mr. Xman3: Come, Mr. Xman3, even as stupid as I am I see through your post. Now try answering my question. Quoting: "God wrote Hebrews.' End quote. Thank you for clearing that up. Theologians, for centuries, have believed man wrote "Hebrews." That is some more of your superior knowledge showing through. (Message edited by the apostolic truth ministries on December 13, 2007) | ||
| the_apostolic_truth_ministries Advanced Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 955 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 12.217.145.168 |
I find it hilarious when dealing with those caught up in the pseudo-christian cult of pentecostalism. Or perhaps, I should say when dealing with the leadership of that cult. Notice the original question that began the post. “ARE THE GIFTS OF THE SPIRIT etc. FOR TODAY?” I know of no theologian of any flavor who believes the ‘gifts’ of the Holy Spirit have ceased. But notice, the questioner immediately jumps ship to discuss ‘tongues’. Coincidence? Actually, it is common practice for cults to redefine theological words to mean something entirely different. Here the pseudo-christian cult of pentecostalism is redefining ‘gifts’ of the Holy Spirit/Ghost to mean faked infantile gibberish. So why redefine terms? I know of no theologian of any flavor who claims the ‘gifts’ of the Holy Spirit/Ghost have ceased. Nor do I know of any theologian who denies that the ‘sign’ gifts to unbelieving jews ended at the destruction of Israel. No theologian of any flavor has ever found the faked infantile gibberish of pentecostalism in the Bible. So why redefine ‘gifts’? Ask yourself that question. “But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,” Jude 1:20 (KJV). Here is another excellent example of pentecostal redefining at work. Several on this message board have used this verse to support a prayer language. The verse says nothing about gibberish, nothing at all. Unfortunately, the pseudo-christian cult of pentecostalism is forced to pervert the Word of God to support their doctrine. A little redefining here, a little redefining there, keeps the preacher in threads. Again, I know of no theologian who has not found ‘tongues’ in the Bible. Nor do I know of any theologian who found the pseudo-christian cult of pentecostalism’s faked infantile gibberish in scripture. A little redefining, we shall go . . . . | ||
| the_apostolic_truth_ministries Advanced Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 956 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 12.217.145.168 |
Quoting: "God wrote Hebrews." End quote. Another excellent example of redefining at work. The question was who wrote the book of Hebrews, not who inspired the book of Hebrews. Many theologians believe St. Paul actually wrote the book. | ||
| xman3 Advanced Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 814 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 75.7.196.227 |
Actually, the question was inspired by my statement, " at least I know who wrote the Bible". I was somewhat sarcastically commenting on your statement about at least you know TULIP and LILAC, whatever they are. It was never intended to be a theological point on what man authored a particular book. It was a reference to the fact that so you know who wrote TULIP. Big deal. I know who wrote the Bible (God). Obviously I know it wasn't God incarnate penning those letters. It's just His Word, thats all. Besides. I probably do know the authors of the book as much as you know whoever wrote that other stuff if all you know is information. You know, there's not really all that much to quibble with in that last stuff. I'm glad you agree most theologians find tongues in the bible. And I'm also glad you agree most believe the gifts haven't ceased. So do I. I'm also glad most theologians don't find faked infantile gibberish in the Bible, or we'd have to question what they see. Sounds just like me so far. As far as answering your "question", even a child can see I've done so, but you don't like my answer. I can't make it any simpler for you. | ||
| termin8d Advanced Member Username: termin8d Post Number: 767 Registered: 7-2005 Posted From: 60.234.129.189 |
By the way TATM, are you going to apologise for attributing me with trsinheaven's beliefs on the doctrines of grace? | ||
| arron Senior Member Username: arron Post Number: 3856 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 71.85.119.3 |
tatm... i want a CHRISTmsa present from you. it is a simple one and will not cost any money. i want you to tell me (i ask three things in this ) i. what church (by name) are you affiliated with, 2. what doctorate do you hold (what place it came from) by name. 3. who ordained you (by name )... now dont say that is more question than i said for it all comprises the same ones please can i get this from you for CHRISTmas | ||
| termin8d Advanced Member Username: termin8d Post Number: 769 Registered: 7-2005 Posted From: 60.234.129.189 |
You might have to pay for that Christmas gift Arron  | ||
| oneway Advanced Member Username: oneway Post Number: 841 Registered: 1-2007 Posted From: 69.30.157.124 |
"oneway... if i may ask why or how did tongues make you backslide" arron, first of all I would like to state that I never was a Pentecostal nor belonged to a Pentecostal church. I belonged to a non denom church at the time, and if I recall they taught on the gifts of the Spirit, but it was not one of their main doctrines. During that time, I had read a few books on baptism of the Holy Ghost, plus I knew a few people that spoke in tongues. I decided one day that since I was a Christian, I wanted more. And that more was the power of the Holy Spirit working in my life. Since I already explained how I received tongues in a prev post, I'll try to explain what happened afterwards. For around 6 months everything seemed perfect in my life. I would sing in the spirit, cry in the spirit, and pray in the spirit. Then out of the clear blue sky things started turning ugly. All of a sudden I started having visions of Christ when I was praying in tongues. He was cursing me and he was spitting at me. I couldn't make this stop. I knew there was no way this should be happening. I remember begging God to take these thoughts out of my mind. I didn't want them there, and I rebuked them in the name of Jesus, but they were still there. I want you to fully understand, these thoughts could not have been mine, but I felt I was being condemmed by God because of these random thoughts. So the only way to get rid of these vile thoughts, was to not think about God at all. During that time, anytime that I thought about God, I would be bombarded with these thoughts. The only way to get rid of these thoughts was to not think about anything related to God. I have never in my life blasphemed God out loud with my voice, nor would I. So where were these thoughts coming from and why? I never had thoughts like these in my entire life, until after I started speaking in tongues. I had no choice but to backslide or whatever we want to call it, because I wasn't about to be continually tormented like this. I honestly can't remember every detail, and now since you basically know why, perhaps you could tell me what happened to me. Is it possible for the enemy to attack you even when you're praying in the spirit? When I was praying for this gift, I was praying to the Father thru Jesus Christ. I obviously had the faith to receive this gift, so why did it go so amiss after about 6 months or so? | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3669 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
xman3, I see in your post No. 813 above that you respect theologians on both sides of the gibberish ritual that some churches practice. I know that TATM has brought forth the scripture regarding private interpretation. Do you believe both sides of the issue are correct? If so, how in the world do you resolve this dichotomy? Can the Holy Spirit lead to opposing theology? | ||
| easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1719 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 72.164.43.195 |
Xman3, Titus 3:8-11 | ||
| arron Senior Member Username: arron Post Number: 3858 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 71.85.119.3 |
oneway... all of that vision dream or whatever you had was the devil copying CHRIST and was not the real JESUS. you should have used the pwer that GOD gave to YOU nd got rid of it | ||
| xman3 Advanced Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 815 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 75.7.196.227 |
Watchman: The oft used scripture concerning private interpretation works both ways. In my opinion, tatm has "private interpretations", but that's just my opinion. I do not personally believe both sides of the issue are correct. I use the term, both sides loosely though, because there are varying beliefs within the tongue talking community. I believe that I do speak in tongues, and that any believer can potentially speak in tongues, and that my beliefs and experience are supported with scripture. My answer to tatm is specifically in response to his question as to why I think I know so much more than that select list of theologians he supplied. I don't. My point is that there are people who see "modern tongues" in scripture that I listen to and get something from, and there people who don't see it who I listen to and get something from. One could list any number of adherants to either view and I would not say in any way I think I know more than them. Their view on tongues alone is not what discredits or credits them to me, and I've noticed a lot of my brethren share vastly different beliefs than me in many areas and I don't look at it as an issue of I know more than them or they know more than me. I choose to try not compare myself with others and take what value I can from whoever I listen to. Bottom line is that I think those guys, if they believe as tatm says, are wrong about this issue. It's just not that big of a deal to me though, because they all have/had a role in modern church history that is far more significant than mine. | ||
| the_apostolic_truth_ministries Advanced Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 960 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 71.229.6.252 |
Nice try at redefining words. There are not two sides to any 'tongues' debate. As I said I know of no theologian, or Christian for that matter, who does not believe in 'tongues'. Nor do I know any theologian, or Christian for that matter, that believes in the pseudo-christian cult of pentecostalism's faked infantile gibberish. By the way, Mr. Xman3, we are not in agreement on 'tongues'. I believe and accept biblical tongues, not the faked infantile gibberish you are selling, sorry. Mr. Easeltine: Are you now . . . "This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men. But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself." Titus 3:8 - 11 (KJV) . . . admitting to being a heretic? Or are you suggesting that 2000 years worth of Christians are heretic? | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3670 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
xman3, I appreciate the fact that you do not believe that both sides of the argument are correct. I find those that argue that the Holy Spirit can lead people to opposite positions on a theological matter, such as gibberish rituals, to be extremely hypocritical. Of course, there is only one truth to this matter -- the gibberish rituals of some churches either is or is not biblical. I think that the problem most people have in making determinations regarding theological matters is that they rely upon the works of men. With pro and con writings available, one will naturally side with the writings that already support one's existing belief system. Hence, mankind's writings are of little value in resolving the theological debate. Those on the wrong side of the issue will most likely never come to realize that they are wrong. Hence, the only way a person can resolve the matter is to use the Word of Truth for proof, doctrine, and reproof. If one takes the time to review the pro and con arguments within these threads, you will see that those arguments against gibberish rituals are truly supported by scripture. It is also clear that easeltine is not the poster child to support gibberish rituals as his arguments, such as Tit. 3:8-11, apply equally to each side of the argument. Nonetheless, his inferring admonition that the gibberish issue is spiritual, while condemning intellectualism, was quite telling. It suggests that he knows gibberish rituals are not biblical, but, because it feels good, he is going to continue giving heed to these seducing spirits. Yes, there are many responsible in church history for the condition that exists today. Just because there are differing theologies important in church history does not make them all correct. Christ's judgement of the churches [Rev. 2, 3] tells us that 5 of 7 types are wrong. Your point is without merit. | ||
| the_apostolic_truth_ministries Advanced Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 963 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 71.229.6.252 |
Ms. Watchman_2 AH! Memory! I hope I got the saluation right or at least in the right ball park. I would to some extent agree with your assessment. At the same time, I must take exception, at least in preception. Allow me to bloviate some. Someone pointed out that "scripture is of no private interpretation." The interpretation of that scripture is in fact a private interpretation of scripture. I, myself, have used the passage as a stepping stone, but I have never attempted to interpret that passage. There is a large number of scripture that are routinely misquoted. You correctly pointed to Titus 3 (Mr. Arron pointed to another "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit). We can add several more, John 3:16; Romans 10:9,10; Rev 3; Mark 16, Luke 11 and many others. While you are correct in the use of the Bible, I would submit that it is the Holy Spirit who is the true witness. I point that out due to several religions having written their own Bible to define their position. The NIV, for example, is available in seven versions, a pick and choose garbage pile. The problem there is when someone, unaware of the difference, picks up an NIV and begins quoting God's Word. Hopefully, you see my point. | ||
| oneway Advanced Member Username: oneway Post Number: 843 Registered: 1-2007 Posted From: 69.30.157.124 |
"oneway... all of that vision dream or whatever you had was the devil copying CHRIST and was not the real JESUS. you should have used the pwer that GOD gave to YOU nd got rid of it" arron, of course it wasn't Jesus. These weren't dreams, these were mental images randomly popping thru my head when I was speaking in tongues. Tell me how one can speak in tongues and have images and thoughts like these at the same time? Is that possible? Have you ever heard of anything like that? What about some of you other Pentecostals in here, what do you think about all of this? | ||
| xman3 Advanced Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 816 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 75.7.196.227 |
TATM: Just because you are limited in your knowledge about poeple who believe differently doesn't mean they don't exist. They do. Actually, you know they do, buy unlike me, you completely write people off who believe different than you, so you talk as if they don't exist. Watchman: I fail to understand how my point is without merit. It is a fact there are people who believe in tongues and see it in scripture, and it is a fact there people who do not believe in tongues and see scripture differently. I can learn from both, and I can even learn more about tongues from someone who believes differently. I haven't cornered the market on truth just yet. Of course, there is only one truth to this matter -- the gibberish rituals of some churches either is or is not biblical. I agree what some churches and certainly individuals practice is not Biblical. I don't agree there is only one truth though. There is too much variety in doctrine and practice to just lump it all together and say it is or isn't Biblical. There is a mix of both in many churches and individuals and there are aspects of truth and perhaps "untruth", for lack of a better word. I would agree however, that there is an issue like that. Have Biblical tongues ceased, or have they not. I say they haven't, and that I personally speak in tongues. I have never even gotten into any scriptural debate with tatm because he skips all over and doesn't really answer anything. I don't claim to be a theologian or genius. I have read a lot of threads on these topics, but frankly this is a living board and I don't really care to read only about other's discussions because frankly, the "pentacostals" do not approach it the same way I do anyway. What I have read, and some quite lengthy discussions, is not convincing to me at all. Many good points made on both sides. There are 2 sides, by the way tatm. There are those who believe biblical tongues continue and are practiced today, and there are those who don't. | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3672 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
TATM, Your memory fails you -- it is Mr. Watchman_2. I certainly agree with your assessment of the concept of 'private interpretation', eventhough I did not address such matter in my post to xman3. There is only one interpretation that is correct. Thus, there are only 3 possible outcomes regarding contradicting interpretations -- one or the other is correct or both are wrong. Both interpretations can never be correct. I also agree with you regarding the NIV [junk -- based upon 70 out of 5223 manuscripts, which were discovered in a trash bin in Egypt, with the variations therein that you noted] and other later English renderings to the KJV. Most, if not all, are theologically driven. The same goes for various concordances and lexicons issued after the Strong's Concordance. They simply do not like what the KJV, properly interpreted from the manuscripts, states. So, they issue renderings, in defiance of Rev. 22:18-19, that alter the wording to suit their respective theologies. "Rapture' bibles are a clear example of this as Eze. 13:18-23 are completely rewritten. On a personal basis, I agree that the Holy Spirit is the true witness as to whether one has rightly divided the Word of Truth. However, on a public basis, the Holy Spirit is of no consequence and has no place in rightly dividing the Word [2 Tim. 3:16]. The Holy Spirit is wholly abused on this forum and elsewhere on the internet as people attempt to give credibility to their scriptural argument by claiming they "were led by the Lord". One cannot prove if such is true or false, except by the Word. Though I agree with your point regarding bible renderings, it is by rightly dividing the Word [manuscripts] that one determines who has the Holy Spirit and who is giving heed to seducing spirits [or is lying about spiritual direction]. | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3673 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
xman3,
I was referring to your position, "they all have/had a role in modern church history that is far more significant than mine". On Judgment Day, I cannot stand before God when He asks, "Why didn't you speak infantile gibberish like the Pentacostals?", and answer Him, "because I read a certain man's work which said it was unbiblical". Likewise, on Judgment Day, you cannot use the same excuse when God asks, "Why did you speak infantile gibberish when it is unbiblical?". The point being that God wrote the Bible to each and everyone of us for our own edification -- not for us to understand solely through third parties. The fact that you believe that others have found biblical support for gibberish rituals does not mean that they or you are correct. And, that is not an acceptable excuse before God. That is why we are directed, 2 Tim. 3:16, to use the Word itself as the screen to filter out false theology [reproof] and, on an individual basis, study to show ourselves approved [2 Tim. 2:15]. Church history is fine to study and understand; but, it is not replacement or excuse for not rightly dividing the Word. That is why I said your point is without merit. | ||
| turtle Senior Member Username: turtle Post Number: 1673 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 72.66.229.201 |
Amen and Amen. Study to show yourself approve. Anyone can teach from a book, few can teach from God's word directly. | ||
| xman3 Advanced Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 817 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 75.7.196.227 |
Well I don't know about all that but when someone mentions xman3 or my real name, and someone mentions John Wesley and asks who has had more impact on Christianity, I suspect you'll get a unanimous John Wesley. Furthermore, I never brought it up. I could care less what Wesley says, and I don't form doctrine anywhere else but by the Bible. You must have me confused with someone else. I can find good and bad in any teachers stuff. I've been of the opinion that there's good and bad in your postings. The bad doesn't negate the value to me, but for someone else, that's up to them. | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3675 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
If John Wesley taught false doctrine, then his impact would go toward Satan's camp and you, by default, would have more impact on Christianity. Since you don't form doctrine anywhere else but the Bible, then you should be agreeing with TATM that gibberish rituals, as practiced by some churches, is not the 'tongues' of scripture. A simple study of the word 'tongues' in Greek would inform you that it is 'languages'. In addition, placing 1 Cor 14 in context would lead one to no other reasonable conclusion then 'tongues' is 'languages'. It is not a difficult study at all. | ||
| xman3 Advanced Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 818 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 75.7.196.227 |
Well watchman, as you can see on this board alone, there are plenty of people that don't see it your way. My conclusions are different than yours and it doesn't seem difficult for me to arrive at them either. I will say though, that there were some real good points made concerning the word languages in the last discussion I followed. I don't really talk much about other churches or even individuals practices. I've seen a lot of strange stuff myself that I've been skeptical about so I just "defend" my own gibberish rituals. I've stumbled along in my Christianity ebough through the years to have enough stuff to consider before the Lord that I'll render an account for. My "theology" or doctrine on speaking in tongues or most anything else is way down the list of my worries. Whatever I do, I do in faith, such as it is, and am satisfied God sees my efforts. | ||
| oneway Advanced Member Username: oneway Post Number: 845 Registered: 1-2007 Posted From: 69.30.157.124 |
"In addition, placing 1 Cor 14 in context would lead one to no other reasonable conclusion then 'tongues' is 'languages'. It is not a difficult study at all." watchman_2, In context with what? Acts 2? It's not my intent to defend what are defined as tongues today, I have no clue what these tongues of today are, but when it comes to 1 Cor 14, this ch speaks for itself. Verse 2 alone contradicts the fact that this is some earthly foreign language. In Acts 2 when they spoke in tongues, they were speaking unto men. In 1 Cor 14:2, these are speaking unto God. There's a huge difference there. Why would anyone need to speak unto God in someone's foreign tongue? Verse 2 tells us that no man understandeth him, howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries. This is why Paul said that one should also interpret, so that, that person and those present could be edified. 1 Cor 14:23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad? Why would Paul make these statements if these tongues were someone's native language? How could he possibly know that any of these unlearned, or unbelievers, wouldn't understand these tongues, especially being that they could be speaking in a tongue native to their language? Paul couldn't have possibly known this. When 1 Cor 14 is interpreted in the correct context, the conclusion can only be that these tongues are a heavenly language. There are no contradictions that way. When they become an earthy known language, they become contradictory. | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3676 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
oneway, I have already provided an overview of 1 Cor. 14 thru verse 14 at bear's request. Here is the link - http://www.factnet.org/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=3&post=461438#POST461438 The context, of course, is in the context of which the scripture is written. Chapter 13 sets the stage. If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them. Verse 2 is explained by verses 3 and 4. It has nothing whatsoever to do with a heavenly language. God already knows what we are thinking before we speak it. Spoken language is unnecessary in communicating with God. Certainly, gibberish is not what is described by 'tongues'. Acts 2, of course, describes the Pentacostal language, which was not gibberish, but was understood by all bystanders in their native languages and even in their local dialects thereof. It was a one time deal, which I don't expect to occur again until Christ returns, except for the possible exception of the two witnesses. Every other reference to 'tongues' in scripture speaks of non-native 'languages'. It is never gibberish. 1 Cor. 14 is discussing the teaching of God's Word to those of different languages. BTW, I read about your experience while you practiced gibberish rituals in the past. You did well in discontinuing those Satanic rituals. | ||
| the_apostolic_truth_ministries Advanced Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 964 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 71.229.6.252 |
Mr. Xman3: Trust me on this one, there are not two sides of 'tongues'. I know of no theologian, or Christian, who has/did not find biblical tongues in scripture. Nor have I found a single soul, outside you and your religion, who has/did find faked infantile gibberish in scripture. Yes, I know you and your religion would love to drag the word 'tongues' through the mud by redefining it to mean faked infantile gibberish. | ||
| the_apostolic_truth_ministries Advanced Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 965 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 71.229.6.252 |
The Right Reverent and Most Holy, Ms. Turtle: I thought you said you were leaving? | ||
| arron Senior Member Username: arron Post Number: 3862 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 71.85.119.3 |
to the unright and most unholy tatm when will you leave maybe she like it here i for one prays she stays jst to tell you things you dont want to hear | ||
| xman3 Advanced Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 819 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 75.7.196.227 |
Trust me on this one I don't think so. I know of no theologian, or Christian, who has/did not find biblical tongues in scripture. Thank you. That's the way I see it too. Nor have I found a single soul, outside you and your religion, who has/did find faked infantile gibberish in scripture. It seems painfully obvious to me that you throw out those kind of statements for some sort of effect, because it's pretty obviously true. Of course only those who believe that modern tongues is Biblical and practice them would say so. THERE ALSO HAPPEN TO BE MILLIONS OF US. Saying "outside of me or my religion" isn't saying much chuckles. That, of course, in addition to the fact that I know of no one who has found faked infantile gibberish in the Bible. I only find it in your posts. You made it up, not me. Both you and watchman must feel your arguments are kind of weak to continuosly intentionally insult the brethren in your not so subtle way. We all know what we are talking about here and it is unecessary. Have at it, but being intelligent people as you are, I think you are wise enough to know what you are doing and have decided that it's ok when doctrine is involved. It would be as peposterous for me to say I know of no theologian or Christian except those who cling to that same old religious line about tongues ceasing who adhere to your belief. There are many through history and today on either side of the issue. Pretending they aren't there is kind of strange to me. Clearly the issue is did tongues (Biblical for those who can't seem to overcome the semantics) cease or not. Answering the gibberish garbage starts here, not 2000 years later. If they haven't ceased, then we can get to the issue of my tongues and my beliefs which also continue on. If you think they have, then that's the crux of the issue to start with. I respond to every post directed towards me, but I have been attempting a more systematic defense of tongues as I practice them because what is important to me is rightly understanding the scriptural foundations of what I believe. I see problems with the foundational arguments tatm uses, but he can't hold to one topic for more than 2 posts so ours is a hit and miss interaction. Bottom line here. I will engage anyone, tatm or watchman, or anyone else in a discussion that wants to. I always listen and carefully consider what is said and I don't think just because I believe something it's right. I've changed a lot of beliefs over the years. Like I said before, I speak in tongues, but I've already learned a lot about why some don't and some of it is pretty compelling. Not convincing though, for me, but definitely food for thought at this point. Usually what happens is people find out I don't want to fight with them and they move on to someone who will, because they are more interested in foisting their opinions on people then either finding truth, or actually discussing something. I'm not on some mystical search for truth as if I haven't yet found it, but I am finding out more and more that there's a lot out there that people have to offer that differs from what I "know". | ||
| xman3 Advanced Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 820 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 75.7.196.227 |
ARE THE GIFTS OF THE SPIRIT FOR TODAY? Yes. IS THE PROTOTYPE PENTACOSTALS PRACTICE AND USAGE OF THESE GIFTS BIBLICAL? A whole 'nother issue. Here, the answer for me, becomes sometimes yes and sometimes no, because as churches and individuals, we vastly differ in what we (tongue talkers) practice. I think most people will accept that some practices are wrong, but as an overall theological or doctrinal issue or discussion, these examples are actually irrelevant. WHAT MAKES A PENTACOSTAL A PENTACOSTAL? Tongues. The reason this thread gravitated to tongues is as I've said before, tongues is what defines us and is the general area that it is taught typically that all ought to do so, as opposed to that we should all be healing or prophecying as regularly, or for the same reasons. I'd say 99% of every reference I've ever heard about a pentacostal refers to tongues. I personally believe tongues is the most difficult of the "gifts" to defend because it is so widespread and "easy" to come by, and misused and mistaught. I find it much easier to defend the ongoing nature of the other gifts for a number of reasons. Anyone want to approach it through another gift, it's easier because there will be more agreement. These few points explain where I'm coming from. They will also be the springboard for whatever comments I make in a general thread also. Whether it's healing, prophecy, or more likely tongues that is primarily discussed, the issue begins here. Are the Gifts for today? Is tongues a gift? Have they ceased? These are the foundational questions to begin. I say yes, sometimes, and no. | ||
| termin8d Advanced Member Username: termin8d Post Number: 771 Registered: 7-2005 Posted From: 60.234.129.189 |
You've got a lot of patience xman3. | ||
| saygoodnightgracie Intermediate Member Username: saygoodnightgracie Post Number: 387 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 96.228.213.29 |
"It's not that easy (as evidenced here) to talk that many pentacostals out of speaking in tongues." You would think but there are several former tongue talkers here on Factnet alone. Strange, of all of the benefits of salvation and subsequently, the baptism of the Holy Spirit - that ONE is a strange one to turn your back on. | ||
| the_apostolic_truth_ministries Advanced Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 968 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 71.229.6.252 |
Mr. Xman3: Quoting: ". . . he can't hold to one topic for more than 2 posts so ours is a hit and miss interaction . . ." End quote. I would suggest anyone buying into that line examine the topic "Charism." When you and your religion were exposed, you tried everything possible to start an argument on free will. Quoting: ". . . they are more interested in foisting their opinions on people then either finding truth, . . ." End quote. Opinion? My friend, I have quoted many great theologians, your religion loves to quote those same theologians. It is you who has resorted to the "I" defense. In fact, you have yet to quote any theologian who supports your position. You can not quote scripture that supports your position. Yes, I know the "I" thing. Quoting: ". . . tongues is what defines us . . ." End quote. Actually, the distinctives of the pseudo-christian cult of pentecostalism are 1. scandal; and 2. division. In your religion's first one-hundred-years of operation, 1300 of your most elite ministers have been convicted in criminal court. According to the Readers Digest, in 1997, your religion has divided into 1200 sects (each with his own doctrinal statement). Anyone can read of many more of your ministers under Religious leaders thread. Qutoing: "Are the Gifts for today?" End quote. I know of no theologian or Christian who believes the 'gifts' of the Holy Spirit/Ghost have ceased. Quoting: " Is tongues a gift?" End quote. Yes, biblical tongues (not faked infantile gibberish) were given as a 'sign gift' to unbelieving jews. Quoting: "Have they ceased?" End quote. Have the 'sign gifts' ceased? Yes. Mr. Termin8d: Patience? or Grand standing? | ||
| xman3 Advanced Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 822 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 75.7.196.227 |
My friend, I have quoted many great theologians, First off, you are calling them great, not me. Second, I expect watchman to now call YOU on the carpet. We don't base our theology on "great theologians". I have quoted none of them. Whether this mysterious "religion" quotes them or not, you won't see me do it. I never started an argument on free will. I still don't even know the connection, but you seem to be anticipating an argument I am unaware of. We both agree that Biblical tongues is scriptural. I believe, however, that the tongues I speak in are also Biblical. That is another issue though for now. I fully understand you do not think so. They are partly a sign, and unbelieving Jews were included so we have partial agreement there. The main issue and starting point, as you have affirmed, is did they cease? I do not think they have. My first question remains the same. Is the Holy Spirit the source of tongues? I say the answer is yes. What do you say tatm? This fact must be established and the obvious truth agreed upon for me to move on. You have thus far refused to answer or acknowledge this fact for some reason. What, I must ask, are you afraid of? It's a simple question or claim and you know where I stand. And by the way, lots of Christians think the gifts have passed away or ceased, not just tongues. What world are you exactly living in with some of the things you seem to not know or acknowledge. Finally, you might have a point about certain people and their failures, but that has nothing to do with what defines a pentacostal in reality. That's just another meaningless attack that has nothing to do with this discussion whatsoever. The orthodox church, the charismatics, the catholics, and every other denomination and view is littered with men and ministries which have failed and committed gross sin. None of that affects the truths of the Bible and none of that is uniquely pentacostal. | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3677 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
xman3,
Well, it is a complete misnomer to call the ritual of indiscernible verbal utterings as 'tongues'. If you have another word besides 'gibberish' to describe it, I would be happy to reference such false rituals that way. However, 'gibberish' is an accurate, not disparaging, description of this ritual. On the other hand, I would agree that the use of the term 'infantile' along with your 'gibberish' may be perceived as disparaging. In a Biblical sense, the term 'infantile' can also be emblematic of an adult that is not well-versed in scripture. For those that are not infants in the Word of God, I have demonstrated that 'tongues' is nothing more then 'languages'. This fact, alone, makes your ritual unbiblical. The Bible warns of such 'vain babblings' in 2 Tim. 2:16. Any spiritual high those that practice this ritual is not from the Holy Spirit, but is from seducing [satanic] spirits [1 Tim. 4:1].
Of course, 'tongues' has never ceased in that it is simply non-native 'languages'. What was never started 2000 years ago was 'gibberish', which is nothing more then the latter-day vain babblings warned of in 2 Tim. 2:16. From Strong's Concordance, the word 'tongues' means - G1100 gloce'-sah Of uncertain affinity; the tongue; by implication a language (specifically one naturally unacquired): - tongue. It is the Greek word glossa, from which the English word 'glossary' is derived. By definition and English comparative, we can see that it has absolutely nothing to do with indiscernible utterings. | ||
| xman3 Advanced Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 823 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 75.7.196.227 |
I just don't see that definition saying what you imply. After reading it about 10 times, I see nothing there which tells me an unacquired "heavenly", angelic, or whatever one wants to call it language is precluded. That was pretty much my same conclusion reading a previous thread which expounded on that. As to the misnomer, well that's your opinion. To the Barbarian or ungifted, tongues is indeed gibberish or babble because scripture says so. To me, it is not. Besides, in various settings my tongues have been interpreted in known languages which I do not know. Since I don't always interprate my tongues, it remains unknown to me. Unknown does not equal gibberish. Truthfully though, I am confident that you (watchman) know full well what you are doing when you write it that way. It is an intentional slight. As tatm said, a rose is a rose...... That goes both ways once again. If it doesn't matter, than call it tongues here. We both know that we are referring to the modern version of what we both agree is a Biblical reality. They may well not be the same, but we know that. Perhaps "modern tongues" would be less offensive. It irks me a little, but actually if you want to keep doing it it doesn't offend me at all and i'll just keep pointing it out where I feel it's appropriate. That's a pretty good point referring to what actually was started 2000 years ago and if it's the same. That's why most of my questions and comments go back to the Bible beginnings. I believe that things are different now than 2000 years ago though, and we are not simply limited to copying them, but ought to have grown a bit in all matters. Never the less, what I see as faulty foundations on your part(s) concerning your beliefs concerning tongues may in reality, be good ones. That's why I press on, though of course I would also like to see others convinced that tongues is for today as I think they are. Mostly I'm interested in the other view and the reasons why people came to that conclusion so I can be better informed. My tongues "doctrine" isn't real deep or complicated so some good Bible proof and debate could certainly convince me if that were to happen in only a couple of these areas. I've heard pretty much everything said here before though, and it hasn't been very convincing in the past, but it seems the people presenting it were less informed than you guys are. | ||
| xman3 Advanced Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 824 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 75.7.196.227 |
Since you have stated that tongues and the gifts have not ceased, then actually I have little to quibble over. That's exactly what I think too. You both claim that the pentacostal "religion" has it wrong and practices gibberish, but since you have no way of analyzing my tongues or proving they are not Biblical tongues, and since I limit my views to my own self rather than pentacostals at large, then you can only guess about me. This view changes the focus from did they cease, which they haven't, to what exactly are tongues I suppose, making watchman's last post a good starting point. So far, everything concerning what tongues are from watchman's definition seem ok to me. I merely think that there's more, and I have seen nothing to convince me otherwise. I also agree that some "tongues" I've heard probably qualify as gibberish. Not all though, and not in all situations. I see flaws in "our" practces at times, and I'm learning more about the doctrines, but those things (flaws) don't sway me. If you would like watchman, I will hear more about the difference. I place value on Strong's etc..., but it's not the be all and end all to understanding scripture. I am of the belief that when I pray in tongues alone that it is not the same as speaking in tongues in a church setting. In that sense, I do not even consider my tongues as exactly the same in form or function, much less comparing them to specific situations many years ago. Same or not, I don't know, but I will claim they are Biblical. To move forward, I will use the same scripture I used with tatm and see what you think. 1Cor 14:1 Pursue love, yet earnestly desire spiritual gifts. Gifts, italicized because it was added. Tongues is included quite obviously as a spiritual thing we are to earnestly desire. Now I believe God is not nuts and doesn't tell us to earnestly desire something we can't have. Why would God tell us to earnestly desire something with no intention of us receiving it? He wouldn't. Point #1. We are told in scripture to earnestly desire tongues, though what they exactly are remains to be discussed I'm sure. | ||
| mcmstaff78 Senior Member Username: mcmstaff78 Post Number: 2040 Registered: 7-2006 Posted From: 24.99.130.74 |
Okay, the whole subject of this thread is question begging. The issue is not have the works of Grace that St. Paul discusses in 1 Cor. 12 & 14 "ceased", but just what do they entail and are the behaviors exhibited by modern Pentecostal/Charismatics ("Charismacostals" for short) to be understood as the same as what the Apostle is describing. Many of us have emphatically stated that what Charismacostals practice is not what the Apostle has described. Xman, just where does St. Paul (or any other author of scripture) tell us to "earnestly desire tongues"? We are told to "covet earnestly the best gifts (charismata - Grace work}", but where can we deduce that "tongues" is a "best" charismata? The Apostle clearly states he would rather everyone "prophesy". Additionally, even as he writes "earnestly covet the best gifts" he states, "and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way." IOW, by comparison, these charismata are not "excellent". Now, the insertion of "gifts" in both 1 Cor. 12 and 14 raises an interesting point. There is a Greek word for "gift". Also, the Apostle has used other words in direct reference to the manifestations listed, including charismata (which does not mean "gift" at all). At the end of chapter 12 he specifically states "But covet earnestly the best charismata..." But now, after the interlude of chapter 13, he writes (in a more literal rendering) "Pursue love, and zealously spirituals (pneumatikon". If the thought was to mirror the end of chapter 12, why wouldn't St. Paul write "Pursue love, and zealously charismatica"? I would suggest that a more accurate understanding of chapters 12 through 14, is that the Apostle introduces his desire for them in 12:1, "Now concerning spiritual things (pneumatikon), brethren, I would not have you ignorant."; the rest of chapter 12 describes their behavior that demonstrates they are ignorant; chapter 13 elucidates what being "spiritual" really is; and chapter 14 provides a summation, reiterating in verse 1 how they should be zealous for what is described in Chapter 13, but places their fascination with manifestations in proper context. This doesn't even take into account the question of just what these individual manifestations truly are. Simply because Charismacostals interpret them to be what they practice does not mean they are. Again, there is no scriptural support for any practice of tongues unknown to the speaker being a private "prayer language". This is a doctrine cut out of whole cloth to support practices without biblical foundation (mass "praying" or "speaking" in "tongues" in a service) that then evolved into a teaching on "praying" in "tongues" in private. A joyous Nativity to everyone! | ||
| mcmstaff78 Senior Member Username: mcmstaff78 Post Number: 2041 Registered: 7-2006 Posted From: 24.99.130.74 |
Okay, the whole subject of this thread is question begging. The issue is not have the works of Grace that St. Paul discusses in 1 Cor. 12 & 14 "ceased", but just what do they entail and are the behaviors exhibited by modern Pentecostal/Charismatics ("Charismacostals" for short) to be understood as the same as what the Apostle is describing. Many of us have emphatically stated that what Charismacostals practice is not what the Apostle has described. Xman, just where does St. Paul (or any other author of scripture) tell us to "earnestly desire tongues"? We are told to "covet earnestly the best gifts (charismata - Grace work}", but where can we deduce that "tongues" is a "best" charismata? The Apostle clearly states he would rather everyone "prophesy". Additionally, even as he writes "earnestly covet the best gifts" he states, "and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way." IOW, by comparison, these charismata are not "excellent". Now, the insertion of "gifts" in both 1 Cor. 12 and 14 raises an interesting point. There is a Greek word for "gift". Also, the Apostle as used other words in direct reference to the manifestations listed, including charismata (which does not mean "gift" at all). At the end of chapter 12 he specifically states "But covet earnestly the best charismata..." But now, after the interlude of chapter 13, he writes (in a more literal rendering) "Pursue love, and zealously spirituals (pneumatikon". If the thought was to mirror the end of chapter 12, why wouldn't St. Paul write "Pursue love, and zealously charismatica"? I would suggest that a more accurate understanding of chapters 12 through 14, is that the Apostle introduces his desire for them in 12:1, "Now concerning spiritual things (pneumatikon), brethren, I would not have you ignorant."; the rest of chapter 12 describes their behavior that demonstrates they are ignorant; chapter 13 elucidates what being "spiritual" really is; and chapter 14 provides a summation, reiterating in verse 1 how they should be zealous for what is described in Chapter 13, but places their fascination with manifestations in proper context. This doesn't even take into account the question of just what these individual manifestations truly are. Simply because Charismacostals interpret them to be what they practice does not mean they are. Again, there is no scriptural support for any practice of tongues unknown to the speaker being a private "prayer language". This is a doctrine cut out of whole cloth to support practices without biblical foundation (mass "praying" or "speaking" in "tongues" in a service) that then evolved into a teaching on "praying" in "tongues" in private. A joyous Nativity to everyone! | ||
| nabashalam Senior Member Username: nabashalam Post Number: 1853 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 68.190.117.25 |
If any one can help keep the board open.... http://www.factnet.org/ We might have to shut down!!!! | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3678 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
xman3,
There is no such thing as an unacquired "heavenly" or angelic language. That is the whole problem with the gibberish ritual. You folks add into scripture something that is not there. If angels spoke among themselves in a separate language, there is no scriptural evidence to support that they communicated [impossible to do if different language] to man in that separate language -- let alone gibberish [indiscernible utterings]. Since God understands our thoughts, there is absolutely no need to communicate with Him in any language -- even gibberish. Hence, the gibberish ritual you practice is done for 2 reasons. One, to show off to your fellow man as if the Holy Spirit is within. Two, to obtain a spiritual high. Obviously, the first reason warrants no further explanation. The spiritual high some attain is the result of seducing [satanic] spirits -- not the Holy Spirit [1 Tim. 4:1]. Gibberish is nothing but vain babblings -- an ungodly experience [2 Tim. 2:16]. I am certain that your inability to agree is the result of your lack of objectivity as evidenced by your reference, "the Barbarian or ungifted". The viewer would certainly clue into this as an admonition that you are on the losing side of the argument. One cannot evaluate 1 Cor. 14:1 without understanding the context of 1 Cor. or the entire 14th chapter. 1 Cor. is written to the church in Corinth. It is giving instruction to the church and the preachers thereof. Chapter 13 sets the stage for Chapter 14 in describing the churches prime responsibility of charity [love/benevolence], which comes ahead of the ability to teach or speak non-native languages ['tongues'], as the Word is preached. Verse 1 of Chapter 14 is clumsily rendered as I previously addressed in my post to bear. It basically means that after charity, the next important gift is the ability to teach [speak under inspiration]. So, you err in your interpretation of verse 1 as well as the rest of 1 Cor. 14. | ||
| mcmstaff78 Senior Member Username: mcmstaff78 Post Number: 2042 Registered: 7-2006 Posted From: 24.99.130.74 |
In re-reading what I posted above, I wanted to revisit part of it and clarify. Now, the insertion of "gifts" in both 1 Cor. 12 and 14 raises an interesting point. There is a Greek word for "gift", but St. Paul doesn’t use it anywhere in these three chapters. Also, the Apostle uses other words in direct reference to the manifestations listed in chapter 12, including charismata (which does not mean "gift" at all), but those are not used in either 12:1 or 14:1. Why insert “gifts” in either place? It certainly seems to be a somewhat clumsy translation. At the end of chapter 12, St. Paul specifically states "But covet earnestly the best charismata..." In 14:1, after the interlude of chapter 13, he writes (in a more literal rendering) "Pursue love, and zealously [persue] spirituals (pneumatikon)". If his intent was to mirror the thought at the end of chapter 12 (earnestly desire charismatica), why doesn't he write "Pursue love, and zealously charismatica"? I would suggest that a more accurate understanding of chapters 12 through 14 is: • 1 Corinthians 12:1 introduces the Apostle’s desire for the Corinthians to have an understanding of spiritual things, "Now concerning spiritual things (pneumatikon), brethren, I would not have you ignorant."; • 1 Cor. 12:2 – 31 describes the Corinthians’ behavior, demonstrating they are ignorant or spiritual things, and St. Paul attempts to give a little instruction on the proper relations of manifestations of the Spirit. • 1 Cor. 13 speaks directly to the Apostle’s intent in 12:1 and elucidates what being "spiritual" really is, i.e. demonstrating the love of God; • 1 Cor. 14 provides a summation, reiterating in verse 1 how they should be zealous for what he has just described in Chapter 13 and places their fascination with manifestations in proper context, the thrust of which is summed up best in these three verses, “There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and no kind is without signification. If then I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be to him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh will be a barbarian unto me. So also ye, since ye are zealous of spiritual[things] (pneumatikon), seek that ye may abound unto the edifying of the church.” (10-12)) "If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual (pneumatikos), let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord." (1Co 14:37) (Message edited by mcmstaff78 on December 15, 2007) | ||
| xman3 Advanced Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 825 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 75.7.196.227 |
Verse 1 of Chapter 14 is clumsily rendered as I previously addressed in my post to bear. It basically means that after charity, the next important gift is the ability to teach [speak under inspiration]. You must have a different Bible. There is no interpretation either. We are told to desire them earnestly. It's quite clear. There is a comparison involved, but it still says what it says. Maybe if Paul had some help from you, he might not have been so clumsy. Barbarian or ungifted is my little present to you and tatm in response to gibberish. It's not a theological point. Essentially, all you have done is give what appears to be a personal opinion on what these verses say. As I said earlier, there are indeed different kinds of tongues, and I'm glad you are beginning to point out a distinction. These are indeed partly instructions for the church and preachers- earnestly desire spiritual things, tongues included. I see you can not deny that we are instructed to earnestly desire them. You merely try to explain how unimportant what God tells us to desire is. As for the tongues of angels. The Bible says if I speak with the tongues of men or angels. If there are tongues of men, then there are tongues of angels. You may make the assumption it is a figure of speech if you want, but I'll just take it for what it says. I'm not claiming my tongues are tongues of angels either. Only that there are tongues of angels. This malarky about God knowing our thoughts would be just as applicable to any prayer. You are actually advocating no prayer because God knows it already, but you just don't see it. Illogic like that in this discussion can not conveniently be applied to tongues, and not applied to all communication with God. Illogical and unscriptural. You are the only one adding to scripture so far. And your offering up a unique interpretation of it which says things totally different than the words on the page. I will be happy to evaluate the whole of chapter 14 and other places to explain why I think it says what I do. I certainly won't accept your opinions without some further evidence that your conclusions are correct. Thus far, they are all explanations why the verses don't say what they do. I have all kinds of fancy materials to check the Greek etc... so I'll go that way if you want to also, but it takes more time. I place a high value on the translators versus myself or you. Every version and sentence isn't exactly correct, but it basically says what it's supposed to. I don't know your qualifications, but I suspect in a linguistic sense the boards that formed the cannon of scripture and translated the versions commonly used are filled with experts. We all have our preconceived views going in, but I believe they were honest about it and mostly accurate. I use NAS revised primarily, generally paralelled with KJV, amplified, and NIV. NAS is my personal Bible and the one I quote from. | ||
| mcmstaff78 Senior Member Username: mcmstaff78 Post Number: 2043 Registered: 7-2006 Posted From: 24.99.130.74 |
Come on, Xman, to take one solitary verse and build a central practice of Charismacostalism around it - this has to strike you as wrong headed! No where are we given any examples in scriptures of human beings speaking in languages of angels, but we are given express description of tongues in action, and it is the languages of men. Additionally, there is no empirical evidence that the practice of Charismacostals "tongues" is language. They are merely syllables strung together, mimicing language. Read all of 1 Corinthians straight through, don't just focus on specific verses, and try to see what the Apostle is really getting at. | ||
| xman3 Advanced Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 827 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 75.7.196.227 |
I am not taking one verse and building anything. I am starting with one verse. Have to start somewhere and I like it simple rather than discussing 15 different aspects of the topic at once. The sammarin study, as I mentioned earlier, is pretty compelling in a certain sense to be sure. I've read 1Cor over and over as open minded as I can be in regards to specifics mentioned now and over time and it still says what I think it says to me. The whole chapter is only one part of the equation though. The apostle may well have a point here that is not intended to specifically support tongues, but that doesn't change the fact that tongues is heavily discussed in the context and included in what we are to desire. As I said, I'll go through it with anyone and perhaps someone will actually show me where I am in error rather than how the scripture is in error. We can't say on the one hand, this specific word means this in the greek, and then say on the other hand that there is an overall message which is the real point. Both apply. | ||
| the_apostolic_truth_ministries Advanced Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 971 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 71.229.6.252 |
Mr. Xman3: Quoting: "We both know that we are referring to the modern version of what we both agree is a Biblical reality." End quote. Again, no we are not in agreement. Faked infantile gibberish, by any other name, is simply not in scripture. Again, you run back to the "I" defense on 1 Cor 14. Why not try something original for a change. Find a rspected theologian who agrees with your point of view. Find a reference work that supports faked infantile gibberish. OPINION. To date, you and you alone have relied on OPINION. | ||
| xman3 Advanced Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 828 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 75.7.196.227 |
tatm: Nothing in your post warrants a legitimate reply. I'll see how it goes with watchman. I do not seem to be able to communicate with you very well, so I wish you well on your crusade and I'll stick with a hit and miss approach with you. | ||
| the_apostolic_truth_ministries Advanced Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 972 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 71.229.6.252 |
1glossa (Noun) Is used of (1) the "tongues ... like as of fire" which appeared at Pentecost; (2) "the tongue," as an organ of speech, e.g., Mr. 7:33; Ro. 3:13; 14:11; 1Co. 14:9; Php. 2:11; Jas. 1:26; 3:5,6,8; 1Pe. 3:10; 1Jo. 3:18; Re. 16:10; (3) (a) "a language," coupled with phule, "a tribe," laos, "a people," ethnos, "a nation," seven times in the Re. , Re. 5:9; 7:9; 10:11; 11:9; 13:7; 14:6; 17:15; (b) "the supernatural gift of speaking in another language without its having been learnt;" in Ac. 2:4-13 the circumstances are recorded from the viewpoint of the hearers; to those in whose language the utterances were made it appeared as a supernatural phenomenon; to others, the stammering of drunkards; what was uttered was not addressed primarily to the audience but consisted in recounting "the mighty works of God;" cp. Ac. 2:46; in 1Co. , chapters 12 and 14, the use of the gift of "tongues" is mentioned as exercised in the gatherings of local churches; 1Co. 12:10 speaks of the gift in general terms, and couples with it that of "the interpretation of tongues;" chapt. 14 gives instruction concerning the use of the gift, the paramount object being the edification of the church; unless the "tongue" was interpreted the speaker would speak "not unto men, but unto God," 1Co. 14:2; he would edify himself alone, 1Co. 14:4, unless he interpreted, 1Co. 14:5, in which case his interpretation would be of the same value as the superior gift of prophesying, as he would edify the church, 1Co. 14:4-6; he must pray that he may interpret, 1Co. 14:13; if there were no interpreter, he must keep silence, 1Co. 14:28, for all things were to be done "unto edifying," 1Co. 14:26. "If I come ... speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you," says the Apostle (expressing the great object in all oral ministry), "unless I speak to you either by way of revelation, or of knowledge, or of prophesying, or of teaching?" (1 Cor 14:6). "Tongues" were for a sign, not to believers, but to unbelievers, 1Co. 14:22, and especially to unbelieving Jews (see 1Co. 14:21): cp. the passages in the Ac. . There is no evidence of the continuance of this gift after apostolic times nor indeed in the later times of the Apostles themselves; this provides confirmation of the fulfillment in this way of 1Co. 13:8, that this gift would cease in the churches, just as would "prophecies" and "knowledge" in the sense of knowledge received by immediate supernatural power (cp. 1Co. 14:6). The completion of the Holy Scriptures has provided the churches with all that is necessary for individual and collective guidance, instruction, and edification. Vines Expository Dictionary, Thomas Nelson, Inc. | ||
| xman3 Advanced Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 830 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 75.7.196.227 |
The completion of the Holy Scriptures has provided the churches with all that is necessary for individual and collective guidance, instruction, and edification. A topic unto itself to be sure. This is an opinion. Vines is good, like Strongs, but neither are scripture. Still waiting for watchman to call you out on your reliance on theologians as he tried to unjustly do to me, who has yet to site one. You seem to rely on a plethora of them. Oh yeah. Aside from the writers opinions, once again nothing in there precludes tongues as I practice them. Just because the Bible doesn't preclude them or anything doesn't mean it's right or my defense however. It merely means that the verses aren't saying what you or Vine's are telling us they are. | ||
| the_apostolic_truth_ministries Advanced Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 973 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 71.229.6.252 |
Tongue <tung>: Almost invariably for either ˆwOvl; [lashon], or [glw~ssa, glossa] the latter word with the cognates [eJtero>glwssov, heteroglossos], “of strange tongues” (1 Corinthians 14:21), [glwssw>dhv, glossodes], “talkative,” English Versions of the Bible “full of tongue” (Sirach 8:3; 9:18), [glwssotome>w, glossotomeo], “to cut out the tongue” (2 Macc 7:4), [di>glwssov, diglossos], “double-tongued” (Sirach 5:9; 28:13). In 1 Timothy 3:8, however, “double-tongued” is for [di>logov, dilogos], literally, “two-worded.” Where “tongue” in the King James Version translates [dia>lektov, dialektos] (Acts 1:19; 2:8; 21:40; 22:2; 26:14), the Revised Version (British and American) has “language,” while for the King James Version “in the Hebrew tongue” in John 5:2; Revelation 9:11; 16:16 ([ Jebrai`sti>, Hebraisti]) the Revised Version (British and American) has simply “in Hebrew.” In addition, in the Old Testament and Apocrypha, the King James Version uses “to hold one’s tongue” as a translation for various verbs meaning “to be silent”; the Revised Version (British and American) in the Old Testament writes “to hold one’s peace” and in the Apocrypha “to be silent,” except in Sirach 32:8, where the King James Version is retained ([siwpa>w, siopao]). The various uses of “tongue” in English are all possible also for lashon and glossa, whether as the physical organ (Exodus 11:7; Mark 7:33, etc.) or as meaning “language” (Genesis 10:5; Acts 2:4, etc.) or as describing anything shaped like a tongue (Isaiah 11:15; Acts 2:3, etc.). In addition, both words, especially [lashon] appear in a wider range of meanings than can be taken by “tongue” in modern English. So the tongue appears as the specific organ of speech, where we should prefer “mouth” or “lips” (Exodus 4:10; Psalm 71:24; 78:36; Proverbs 16:1; Philippians 2:11, etc.), and hence, “tongue” is used figuratively for the words uttered (Job 6:30; Psalm 139:4; 1 John 3:18, etc.). So the tongue can be said to have moral qualities (Psalm 109:2; Proverbs 15:4, etc.) or to be “glad” (Acts 2:26); to “love with the tongue” (1 John 3:18) is to love in word only, and to be “double-tongued” (Sirach 5:9; 28:13; 1 Timothy 3:8 is to be a liar. A further expansion of this figurative use has produced expressions that sound slightly bizarre in English, although their meaning is clear enough: e.g., “Who have whet their tongue like a sword” (Psalm 64:3); “His tongue is as a devouring fire” (Isaiah 30:27); “My tongue is the pen of a ready writer” (Psalm 45:1), and, especially, “Their tongue walketh through the earth” (Psalm 73:9). In Job 20:12, “Though wickedness be sweet in his mouth, though he hide it under his tongue,” the figure is that of an uncultured man rolling a choice morsel around in his mouth so as to extract the utmost flavor. In Psalm 10:7; 66:17 (Revised Version margin), however “under the tongue” means “in readiness to utter,” while in Song of Solomon 4:11, “Honey and milk are under thy tongue,” the pleasure of a caress is described. To “divide their tongue” (Psalm 55:9) is to visit on offenders the punishment of Babel. INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPEDIA; VOL. 10; T-ZUZIM | ||
| the_apostolic_truth_ministries Advanced Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 974 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 71.229.6.252 |
Tongues, Gift of I. glotta , or glossa , the word employed throughout the New Testament for the gift now under consideration, is used-- (1) for the bodily organ of speech; (2) for a foreign word imported and half-naturalized in Greek; (3) in Hellenistic Greek, for "speech" or "language." The received traditional view, which starts from the third meaning, and sees in the gift of tongues a distinctly linguistic power, is the more correct one. II. The chief passages from which we have to draw our conclusion as to the nature and purpose of the gift in question are-- (Mark 16:17) (Acts 2:1-13; 10:46; 19:6) (2 Corinthians 12:1; 2 Corinthians 14:1) ... III. The promise of a new power coming from the divine Spirit, giving not only comfort and insight into truth, but fresh powers of utterance of some kind, appears once and again in our Lord’s teaching. The disciples are to take no thought what they shall speak, for the spirit of their Father shall speak in them. (Matthew 10:19,20; Mark 13:11) The lips of Galilean peasants are to speak freely and boldly before kings. The promise of our Lord to his disciples, "They shall speak with new tongues," (Mark 16:17) was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost, when cloven tongues like fire sat upon the disciples, and "every man heard them speak in his own language." (Acts 2:1-12) IV. The wonder of the day of Pentecost is, in its broad features, familiar enough to us. What views have men actually taken of a phenomenon so marvellous and exceptional? The prevalent belief of the Church has been that in the Pentecostal gift the disciples received a supernatural knowledge of all such languages as they needed for their work as evangelists. The knowledge was permanent. Widely diffused as this belief has been it must be remembered that it goes beyond the data with which the New Testament supplies us. Such instance of the gift recorded in the Acts connects it not with the work of teaching, but with that of praise and adoration; not with the normal order of men’s lives but with exceptional epochs in them. The speech of St. Peter which follows, like meet other speeches addressed to a Jerusalem audience, was spoken apparently in Aramaic. When St. Paul, who "spake with tongues more than all," was at Lystra, there is no mention made of his using the language of Lycaonia. It is almost implied that he did not understand it. (Acts 14:11) Not one word in the discussion of spiritual gifts in 1Cor 12-14 implies that the gift was of this nature, or given for this purpose. Nor, it may be added, within the limits assigned the providence of God to the working of the apostolic Church,was such a gift necessary. Aramaic, Greek, Latin, the three languages of the inscription on the cross were media, of intercourse throughout the empire. Some interpreters have seen their way to another solution of the difficulty by changing the character of the miracle. It lay not in any new character bestowed on the speakers, but in the impression produced on the hearers. Words which the Galilean disciples uttered in their own tongue were heard as in their native speech by those who listened. There are, it is believed, weighty reasons against both the earlier and later forms of this hypothesis. It is at variance with the distinct statement of (Acts 2:4) "They began to speak with other tongues." Continued | ||
| the_apostolic_truth_ministries Advanced Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 975 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 71.229.6.252 |
It at once multiplies the miracle and degrades its character. Not the 120 disciples, but the whole multitude of many thousands, are in this case the subjects of it. It involves an element of falsehood. The miracle, on this view, was wrought to make men believe what was not actually the fact. It is altogether inapplicable to the phenomena of (1 Corinthians 14:1) ... Critics of a negative school have, as might be expected, adopted the easier course of rejecting the narrative either altogether or in part. What then, are, the facts actually brought before us? What inferences may be legitimately drawn from them? (a) The utterance of words by the disciples, in other languages than their own Galilean Aramaic, is distinctly asserted. (b) The words spoken appear to have been determined, not by the will of the speakers, but by the Spirit which "gave them utterance." (c) The word used, apoftheggesthai , has in the LXX. a special association with the oracular speech of true or false prophets, and appears to imply a peculiar, perhaps physical, solemn intonation. Comp. (1 Chronicles 25:1; Ezekiel 13:9) (d) The "tongues" were used as an instrument not of teaching, but of praise. (e) Those who spoke them seemed to others to be under the influence of some strong excitement, "full of new wine." (f) Questions as to the mode of operation of a power above the common laws of bodily or mental life lead us to a region where our words should be "wary and few." It must be remembered then, that in all likelihood such words as they then uttered had been heard by the disciples before. The difference was that before the Galilean peasants had stood in that crowd neither heeding nor understanding nor remembering what they heard, still less able to reproduce it; now they had the power of speaking it clearly and freely. The divine work would in this case take the form of a supernatural exaltation of the memory, not of imparting a miraculous knowledge of words never heard before. (g) The gift of tongues, the ecstatic burst of praise, is definitely asserted to be a fulfillment of the prediction of (Joel 2:28) We are led, therefore, to look for that which answers to the gift of tongues in the other element of prophecy which is included in the Old Testament use of the word; and this is found in the ecstatic praise, the burst of sang. (1 Samuel 10:5-13; 19:20-24; 1 Chronicles 25:3) (h) The other instances in the Acts offer essentially the same phenomena. By implication in ch. (Acts 14:16-10) by express statement in ch. (Acts 10:47; 11:15,17; 19:6) it belongs to special critical epochs. Continued | ||
| the_apostolic_truth_ministries Advanced Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 976 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 71.229.6.252 |
V. The First Epistle to the Corinthians supplies fuller data. The spiritual gifts are classified and compared arranged, apparently, according to their worth. The facts which may be gathered are briefly these: The phenomena of the gift of tongues were not confined to one church or section of a church. The comparison of gifts, in both the lists given by St. Paul -- (1 Corinthians 12:8-10,28-30) --places that of tongues and the interpretation of tongues lowest in the scale. The main characteristic of the "tongue" is that it is unintelligible. The man "speaks mysteries," prays, blesses, gives thanks, in the tongue, (1 Corinthians 14:15,16) but no one understands him. The peculiar nature of the gift leads the apostle into what at first appears a contradiction. "Tongues are for a sign," not to believers, but to those who do not believe; yet the effect on unbelievers is not that of attracting, but of repelling. They involve of necessity a disturbance of the equilibrium between the understanding and the feeling. Therefore it is that, for those who believe already, prophecy is the greater gift. The "tongues," however, must be regarded as real languages. The "divers kinds of tongues." (1 Corinthians 12:28) the "tongues of men," (1 Corinthians 13:1) point to differences of some kind and it is easier to conceive of these as differences of language than as belonging to utterances all equally mild and inarticulate. Connected with the "tongues" there was the corresponding power of interpretation. VI. Traces of the gift are found in the Epistles to the Romans, the Galatians, the Ephesians. From the Pastoral Epistles, from those of St. Peter and St. John, they are altogether absent, and this is in itself significant. It is probable, however, that the disappearance of the "tongues" was gradual. There must have been a time when "tongues" were still heard, though less frequently and with less striking results. For the most part, however, the pierce which they had filled in the worship of the Church was supplied by the "hymns and spiritual songs" of the succeeding age, after this, within the Church we lose nearly all traces of them. The gift of the day of Pentecost belonged to a critical epoch, not to the continuous life of the Church. It implied a disturbance of the equilibrium of man’s normal state but it was not the instrument for building up the Church. Smith's Bible Dictionary | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3682 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
xman3,
Only you can decide whether you want to objectively study or not. I realize that the seducing spirits will not want you to not know the truth. In the KJV with Strong's Greek reference numbers - 1Co 14:1 Follow after1377 charity,26 and1161 desire2206 spiritual4152 gifts, but1161 rather3123 that2443 ye may prophesy.4395 The first clause, "Follow after charity", links this Chapter to the preceding Chapter 13, which identifies 'charity' [Greek - agape=love/benevolence] as the most important church/preacher trait [gift] to bestow upon the congregation. It today's English, the clause is best rendered as "Following after love". The word 'and' and 'but' - G1161 deh A primary particle (adversative or continuative); but, and, etc.: - also, and, but, moreover, now [often unexpressed in English]. The word 'desire' - G2206 dzay-lo'-o From G2205; to have warmth of feeling for or against: - affect, covet (earnestly), (have) desire, (move with) envy, be jealous over, (be) zealous (-ly affect). The word 'spiritual' is the Greek pneumatikos - G4152 phyoo-mat-ik-os' From G4151; non-carnal, that is, (humanly) ethereal (as opposed to gross), or (daemoniacally) a spirit (concretely), or (divinely) supernatural, regenerate, religious: - spiritual. Compare G5591. Chapters 13 and 14 are instructional for churches/preachers. In that context, the church is out to spread the Word and to gain converts to Christianity. So, what the next clause of 14:1 is describing is the natural purpose of the church/preachers -- obtaining converts for Christ. Naturally, if a church/preacher has 'love' for his/her fellow mankind, the church/preacher will be concerned for their souls. The word 'gifts' was added inappropriately. Hence, this second clause is properly translated/rendered as "and having desire for converts". | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3683 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
cont'd The word 'rather' - G3123 mal'-lon Neuter of the comparative of the same as G3122; (adverb) more (in a greater degree) or rather: - + better, X far, (the) more (and more), (so) much (the more), rather. The word 'that' - G2443 hin'-ah Probably from the same as the former part of G1438 (through the demonstrative idea; compare G3588); in order that (denoting the purpose or the result): - albeit, because, to the intent (that), lest, so as, (so) that, (for) to. Compare G3363. The word 'prophesy' - G4395 prof-ate-yoo'-o From G4396; to foretell events, divine, speak under inspiration, exercise the prophetic office: - prophesy. Again, in context of church/preacher instruction [Chapters 13 and 14], the word 'prophesy' simply means 'teach'. After charity/love, the next important trait/gift is the ability to teach the Word of God. Thus, the words 'but', 'rather', and 'that' can be better rendered/translated in context. The word 'but' is improperly rendered in the KJV in an adversarial or opposite role. In fact, it is a continuation of the teaching of Chapter 13, in which charity is declared most important. The word 'but' is best rendered 'now is'. or even better as unexpressed since it is covered by the lead word 'following'. The meaning of 'rather' is 'more in a greater degree'. It is simply stating the next most important trait/gift of the church/preacher after 'charity'. 'Rather' is best rendered/translated 'next'. The word 'that' means 'in order that (denoting the purpose or the result)'. It is leading into the ability to 'speak under inspiration [of God]' or 'teach'. It is specifying what is next in line after 'charity'. It is best rendered/translated in common parlance as 'in order is that'. A proper rendering/translation of 1 Cor. 14:1 would be - "Following after love and having desire for converts, the next in order is that you teach." | ||
| xman3 Advanced Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 832 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 75.7.204.167 |
A proper rendering/translation of 1 Cor. 14:1 would be - "Following after love and having desire for converts, the next in order is that you teach." I must say, that is one of the strangest conclusions I've ever seen out of this chapter. Funny, you never even addressed tongues which is all over the chapter and the reason I used that verse to start. Seems to me your Strong's stuff supports my view pretty well. I see nothing about converts in your post or in this chapter. I don't really know what to say actually because I can't even connect the dots in your post to your conclusion. I have no problem, obviously with the love angle, because it's clear that love is number 1. The rest just says covet spiritual things (gifts as rendered, but added I agree) and tongues is heavily discussed. I fail to see how that undermines what I believe at all. It appears to me to support it. Thanks. | ||
| jrs New member Username: jrs Post Number: 4 Registered: 11-2007 Posted From: 76.209.58.13 |
Hello, New to this all this. Just found the site. I was able to read some of the posts. It seems as though the discussion is – Is the gift of tongues for today? Because I haven’t read all the posts, maybe this will seem too simple. I ask the question – Why couldn’t it be for today? | ||
| xman3 Advanced Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 833 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 75.7.204.167 |
Hello jrs. No question or comment is too simple. I'm pretty involved in this discussion, and I know full well that some of this is rehashing what others discussed in the past, but the nature of factnet and the internet is such that it's all fresh to me and you, and reading old posts doesn't always serve to adequately answer our questions or adress our views in particular. As to your question. Being a tongue talker myself, I'll leave that up to the other side to deal with. I believe they are for today. | ||
| jrs New member Username: jrs Post Number: 5 Registered: 11-2007 Posted From: 76.209.58.13 |
Hello xman. Couldn’t agree with you more about the posts – They usually apply to a particular contents and train of thought and to read a few, one might pick up on the subject and depth of discussion, but that is not the usual result. As I said, this is all new to me – the web sight and discussions. I have had the privilege to experience may of God’s gifts over the years. Tongues just being one of them. jrs | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3686 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
xman3,
I translated first to the proper meaning and then reworded 1 Cor. 14:1 in modern parlance.
I have covered it many times -- 'tongues' means non-native languages -- not gibberish. In fact, I have provided an overview of the first 14 verses. Here is the link - http://www.factnet.org/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=3&post=461438#POST461438
No it doesn't. The word 'spiritual' [Greek pneumatikos] is speaking of human spirits -- i.e. souls. I only used the word 'converts' to avoid debate as to soul v. spirit. The fact that it speaks of 'human' souls renders your understanding of this scripture erroneous. 1Cor 14 has nothing whatsoever to do with the 'tongues' [gibberish] rituals that you folks practice. In context it is instructing the church/preachers about teaching to those that speak other languages. | ||
| xman3 Advanced Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 835 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 75.7.204.167 |
Pursue love, yet earnestly desire spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy. Which convert is mr. prophesy? Your interpretation is just plain silly to me and I'll leave it at that. Just when I thought that someone was actually going to make sense of this too. | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3690 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
xman3, You misquote the scripture. It is (KJV) - 1Co 14:1 Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy. One has to be suspicious of the supstitution you made -- 'yet' for 'and'. The meaning of the word in Greek - G1161 deh A primary particle (adversative or continuative); but, and, etc.: - also, and, but, moreover, now [often unexpressed in English]. Sorry, yet is not appropriate. If you quoted an authority correctly, then we can conclude that authority purposely altered scripture -- a religious hack. The substitution inextricably alters the meaning. | ||
| xman3 Advanced Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 836 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 75.7.204.167 |
Sorry. You are correct. I misquoted. It says desire earnestly, not earnestly desire. As I've already told you, my personal Bible and the one I quote from is the NAS, and it is indeed a quote from the religious hacks that translated it. You do seem pretty knowledgeable about these words to be sure, and I appreciate the effort, but I'll take them before you at this point. If it were a more meaningful difference, I'd investigate more deeply because there are a lot of minor and major words mistranslated or shakily translated probably, but I don't know them off the top of my head, but it just doesn't change what it says either way. And, but, yet. They say the same thing. If anything, the word "and" is stronger and more closely comparative to love in context than either the words but or yet. Of course, that's English thinking, not Greek. It just seems to me that in this case, you are nitpicking at a fairly insignificant word, and are interpreting the whole chapter in light of your own belief rather than what it says. Personally, at this time, I am making nothing more of this chapter than to say what I have, and that is quite clear to me. Once again, my only claim is that the verse, or chapter if you must, says and I once again quote the scripture- "Pursue love, yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy." My simple claim is that we are instructed by scripture to desire earnestly spiritual things, of which tongues is the PRIMARY one discussed in the chapter, albeit for instruction. What I am not claiming, is that God told us to desire gibberish. I feel your best point thus far concerns the word spiritual. That one would potentially be significant and I really had to look closely at what you were saying there, but in light of the fact that the entire chapter is instruction on spiritual things, the word converts or souls doesn't fit and would only apply to someone with your preconceived theology which is unique. Vines added a significant amount of personal opinion there. It's not scripture. Who was mr. prophesy again? That last part just doesn't make sense substituting souls. Pursue love, yet desire earnestly souls, especially that you may prophesy. Makes no sense because that's not what it says. Now put gifts, or things, or nothing at all there, and it now makes sense because that's what it says. You may call Paul clumsy, but once again, I'll take his word at this point. I am going to examine that word more closely though with some of my fancy tools and try and see it from your view because I do see how it would be a significant part of your argument, though not mine. That starting verse really was just a springboard for me and though the chapter must be discussed since there really isn't a lot said about tongues specifically outside of it, it isn't essential now because it is instruction on use rather than doctrine. I want you to know, everything I say is my own view. I quote no one else but scripture, and I am solely approaching this by personally going over each verse or chapter anew and am relying on my preconceived view in my initial statements, but continuing on in good faith by restudying and considering what you are saying. Not a lot of agreement so far, but if I wanted to hear what those who agree with me say, I'd talk to my wife about it. I'm not going to get into a soul/spirit debate just so you know. You say bipart, I say tripart, but so what. The Spirit and soul are essentially inseperable anyway and I don't really care. I apologize for the length. its hard to read long posts and I don't blame you if you gloss over it. | ||
| mcmstaff78 Senior Member Username: mcmstaff78 Post Number: 2045 Registered: 7-2006 Posted From: 167.193.134.61 |
Xman, while I agree in part with Watchman's approach, not entirely. That said, you keep quoting 14:1 as if the word "gifts" was in the original, it is not. The text reads "Pursue love, and zealously (or earnestly if you prefer, though the Greek word is "zealotes") 'pneumatikon' - i.e. spiritual things." The question becomes, what are the "spiritual things" the Apostle is speaking of. As I pointed out, if he means by this the manifestations listed in chapter 12, why doesn't he use the same word as at the end of chapter 12, "charismatica" (which would raise a different discussion)? The problem clearly in the Corinthian Church was they were elevating these "gifts", these "workings", to a level more important than how you treated one another. This attitude is quite evident in Charismacostal circles today, where a man's "anointing" (so called) supercedes his character, the way he lives his life and treats those around him. The Apostle is obviously trying to correct this a demonstrate the "more excellent way" of loving one another. Chapter 14 builds on this, and points out the superiority of "prophesying", in so far as it communicates to all the people present whereas "tongues" only to those who understand the tongue. If no one present understands it, and if there is no interpreter present, then tongues is absolutely useless to the congregation, only building up the person who speaks (i.e. the native language speaker). Yes, St. Paul says "I wish you all would speak in tongues" - IOW, I want the Gospel spread in all languages - I want you all to be missionaries. But every commendation of tongues is followed by a "but". And, once again, there is no support for any "private prayer language" here as it the Apostle closes out by writing "let everything be done decently and in order", clearly indicating again that the whole discussion is in the context of worship services. | ||
| oneway Advanced Member Username: oneway Post Number: 850 Registered: 1-2007 Posted From: 69.30.157.124 |
"And, once again, there is no support for any "private prayer language" here" mcm, but what if you're wrong? Is that not possible? Anyone that is able to logically think and reason can clearly see this language in 1 Co 14 is not some earthly language. Let's suppose for a moment that these tongues in 1 Co 14 are a known language. Now let's suppose these tongues that the Pentecostals are using are from demons. It appears to me that these demons are messing up bigtime. If they're going to mimic the tongues in 1 Co 14, then these Pentecostals should be speaking in someone's native language and spreading lies in the name of God thru these demons. But they're not doing that, are they? But if these Pentecostals are truly speaking with tongues of demons, then it appears that these demons are trying to mimic a prayer language, such as in 1 Co 14. It all makes sense that way. The other way is a contradiction. My whole point is this. Even tho I no longer speak with tongues, nor do I care to, one really needs to understand what these tongues in 1 Co 14 are before they can ever conclude what these tongues that Pentecostals use are. | ||
| xman3 Advanced Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 848 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 75.7.204.167 |
I have acknowledged over and over that gifts is not there, I have italicized it every time, and commented that it was added every time I used it. I am perfectly happy to use the word things, and it has been my word of choice actually. The question indeed is what are spiritual things. I say, in context, spiritual things are prophcy, tongues and interpretation. The whole chapter is about them and I am baffled why anyone would quibble. It is so obvious. Now I said I do not claim that God wants us to desire gibberish. Obviously we have different ideas about what tongues are here, but they are there in abundance. For one moment I will let my guard down here. I have not spent much time on the personal prayer language angle. I never needed to because I pray in tongues almost every day. When I get that far, I will look much more closely. I think there is, but I'm not ready to support it offhand. I'm slow moving because it's not just my goal to convince anyone I'm right. I am trying to actually understand step by step what you(generic) believe scripture says and if it is even logical or fits the whole of scripture, or if my beliefs do. I believe the majority of this chapter is instruction on the operation of tongues and prophecy etc... in the church meeting. I believe that certain doctrine can be supported and inferred from this chapter, but it's mostly instruction. I accept things, but not souls or converts. It makes no sense UNLESS one has already theologized that that's what it's going to say. It just doesn't say that or make sense, and I have a real hard time granting credibility to someone who thinks it does. Of course, it is a convenient way to dismiss what the chapter says quite specifically and obviously about tongues. I will simply say regarding ch 12 that these are 2 seperate things and eventually I might actually get that far. As I said elsewhere, when asking if tongues were really a gift. I am inclined to believe sometimes they are, and sometimes they are not. Of course, everything is a "gift" in a real sense, but I am referring to the specific mention of the "gifts of the Spirit". Some of this is real old theology for me though and I haven't studied it in years and that word's difference is possibly a good point. I will investigate a little. I will also move on from this verse. Since you can accept it is spiritual things, rather than souls, And I am quite sure you believe Biblical tongues were from the Holy Spirit, with you I could go forward in my fashion, but I can't see how I could with tatm or watchman because we are so fundamentally different in our beliefs far beyond tongues. | ||
| mcmstaff78 Senior Member Username: mcmstaff78 Post Number: 2047 Registered: 7-2006 Posted From: 167.193.134.61 |
Oneway, no, you're incorrect. This has been worked through several times. The problem is that people insist on investing the word "tongues" with a Charismacostal understanding of it and building their interpretation from that. There is no "prayer language". It has never been taught by any group prior to the last 75 years. Even the first modern "Pentecostals" didn't teach this concept. What Charismacostals are "speaking" is a simple mimicry of human languages. It stems from their own "sub- conscious" and is a non-language. It is a psycho-linguistic phenomena. I believe it is deception, but I don't believe it is some demonicaly enabled activity. | ||
| coolinfinity New member Username: coolinfinity Post Number: 1 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 71.194.182.119 |
tongues, tongues and more tongues. . . since the day of Pentecost "yesterday, today and forever" Opinions are not scripture. "Let God be true and every man a liar" "Jesus is the SAME YESTERDAY, and TODAY AND FOREVER." Hebrews 13:8 "I speak in tongues more than you all" the Apostle Paul said including praying in tongues, and singing in tongues unknown to any man! Paul goes on to share all the many many benefits he lists of superceding his limited mind(brain) and praying "in the spirit" "with the spirit" "according to Gods will" Romans 8:26 1Cor 14 Your limited mind, reasoning and knowledge LIMITS your ability with God. "lack of knowledge" only "knowing the truth". Paul explains that the HOLY SPIRIT in us takes the limits off of our limited flesh. It takes the knowledge of Gods word and faith (which comes by Gods word) to operate in the nine gifts of the spirit which includes to operate in and pray in tongues. Tongues is the Holy Spirits doorway to all the nine other gifts. Satan hates tongues. Dry religion hates tongues. Fearful people hate tongues. Ignorant people hate tongues. Satan is religious. Like others who hold to the look of being religious but denying the very power. It is always the case that People who hate tongues kack Holy Spirit understanding, are in directed denial and refuse to take responsibility of Gods word and Holy Spirits power. They have no fruit of Gods Holy Spirit power or any of the nine gifts of the Holy Spirit. Do you serve a power filled supernatural God who paid the highest price so that he gave us power to come upon us by the Holy Spirit? or do you have no supernatural fruit of Gods love poured out meeting the needs of all mankind? Jesus said "The works that He did and Greater works than those He did will we do BECAUSE he would make available to all who would believe and receive and do, and pour out His power by the Holy Spirit. "The same power that raised Jesus from the dead is in us" Romans 8:11 | ||
| coolinfinity New member Username: coolinfinity Post Number: 3 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 71.194.182.119 |
tongues, tongues and more tongues. . . since the day of Pentecost "yesterday, today and forever" Opinions are not scripture. "Let God be true and every man a liar" "Jesus is the SAME YESTERDAY, and TODAY AND FOREVER." Hebrews 13:8 "I speak in tongues more than you all" the Apostle Paul said including praying in tongues, and singing in tongues unknown to any man save the Holy Spirit in them who could interpret and impart to all who ask! Paul goes on to share all the many many benefits he lists of superceding his limited mind(brain) and praying "in the spirit" "with the spirit" "according to Gods will" Romans 8:26 1Cor 14 Your limited mind, reasoning and knowledge LIMITS your ability with God. "lack of knowledge" only "knowing the truth". Paul explains that the HOLY SPIRIT in us takes the limits off of our limited flesh. It takes the knowledge of Gods word and faith (which comes by Gods word) to operate in the nine gifts of the spirit which includes to operate in and pray in tongues. Tongues is the Holy Spirits doorway to all the nine other gifts. Satan hates tongues. Dry religion hates tongues. Fearful people hate tongues. Ignorant people hate tongues. Satan is religious. Like others who hold to the look of being religious but denying the very power. It is always the case that People who hate tongues kack Holy Spirit understanding, are in directed denial and refuse to take responsibility of Gods word and Holy Spirits power. They have no fruit of Gods Holy Spirit power or any of the nine gifts of the Holy Spirit. Do you serve a power filled supernatural God who paid the highest price so that he gave us power to come upon us by the Holy Spirit? or do you have no supernatural fruit of Gods love poured out meeting the needs of all mankind? Jesus said "The works that He did and Greater works than those He did will we do BECAUSE he would make available to all who would believe and receive and do, and pour out His power by the Holy Spirit. "The same power that raised Jesus from the dead is in us" Romans 8:11 | ||
| mcmstaff78 Senior Member Username: mcmstaff78 Post Number: 2049 Registered: 7-2006 Posted From: 167.193.134.61 |
Cool(?) - you're simply regurgitating the company line. There is no "praying in tongues" (show me where the scriptures use that phrase) in the sense that Charismacostals mean it. Quoting St. Paul's statement doesn't equate to it meaning what you mean by "speaking in tongues". St. Paul did speak in tongues more than all of them because he was an Apostle and was in many foreign lands, evangelizing and spreading the faith, speaking in other languages. None the scriptures you quote (though you actually quote very few, you make more assertions than quotes) support, in context, what you are attempting to show. You last paragraph is especially egregious as our Lord nowhere says what you write, but you have pieced together a a few thoughts from different texts and made them read as one. | ||
| oneway Advanced Member Username: oneway Post Number: 851 Registered: 1-2007 Posted From: 69.30.157.124 |
mcm, I had an exp with tongues sometime ago. I am truly interested in understanding what I experienced, because the experience went bad. Judging by arron's last response to me, it appears that he has judged me as guilty and that I'm condemned, even tho what happened was no fault of mine. And also notice, not one Pentecostal in here wants to even touch on what I experienced. I'm not entirely convinced that any of the Pentecostals are speaking in tongues via the Holy Spirit, but at the same time I don't count it out as a possibility that they may be, and likewise I'm not convinced tongues in 1 Co 14 are some known earthly languages. You stated that these Pentecostals are only merely deceived, and this is not demonic forces at play. I would think that any type of deception on proclaimed Christians would be thru seducing spirits of some type. There are far too many instances of people speaking in tongues. There has to be a force behind all of this...either the Holy Spirit, or some demonic forces. | ||
| arron Senior Member Username: arron Post Number: 3864 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 71.85.119.3 |
oneway where did i say that you were condemned unjustly? i simply answered your question that i beleived it to be demonic and not JESUS and you confirmed it when you said you were not speaking in JESUS power. i for one will deal with it and i am pentecostal and i tell you it was not and is not GOD that led you to even have thaose thoughts or vision you said you had | ||
| mcmstaff78 Senior Member Username: mcmstaff78 Post Number: 2050 Registered: 7-2006 Posted From: 24.99.130.74 |
Oneway, you need to seek out linguistic studies on modern glossalalia, especially those by William Samarin. There is nothing "supernatural" about modern "speaking in tongues". It is a fairly common cultural phenomena, an unconsciously learned behavior. Acts provides us with the template of tongues in action, and it was known languages. There is no scriptural reason to believe otherwise. Unfortunately, the Charismacostal movement has invested 1 Cor 12 & 14 with such baggage that is difficult for most people heavily influenced by them to unpack it. | ||
| matt_hatter Senior Member Username: matt_hatter Post Number: 4372 Registered: 5-2006 Posted From: 24.214.93.12 |
Factnet readers, "coolinfinity" is once again TRS showing up as another identity. The whole idea of hers that she and Ultimate1 use the same router or whatever at work to have the same ISP is pure nonsense. So what now, we have another person at the same job posting the same repetitive stuff? Is any work getting done at this business???  Anyone can pick up TRS's writing style, it is juvenile, insulting and extremely trite. Just thought you should know...just look for the ISP 71.194.182.119 | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3702 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
xman3, Regarding 1Cor. 14:1, there are many translations - (ALT) Be pursuing love, yet be seeking earnestly the spiritual [gifts], but rather that you* shall be prophesying. (ASV) Follow after love; yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy. (Bishops) Folowe after loue, and couet spirituall [giftes] but most chiefelie that ye may prophesie. (CEV) Love should be your guide. Be eager to have the gifts that come from the Holy Spirit, especially the gift of prophecy. (Darby) Follow after love, and be emulous of spiritual manifestations , but rather that ye may prophesy. (DRB) Follow after charity, be zealous for spiritual gifts; but rather that you may prophesy. (EMTV) Pursue love, and desire the spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy. (ESV) Pursue love, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy. (Geneva) Folowe after loue, and couet spirituall giftes, and rather that ye may prophecie. (GNB) It is love, then, that you should strive for. Set your hearts on spiritual gifts, especially the gift of proclaiming God's message. (ISV) Keep on pursuing love, and keep on desiring spiritual gifts, especially the ability to prophesy. (JPS) (KJV) Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy. (KJV+) Follow after1377 charity,26 and1161 desire2206 spiritual4152 gifts, but1161 rather3123 that2443 ye may prophesy.4395 (KJV-1611) Follow after charitie, and desire spirituall giftes, but rather that yee may prophesie. (KJVA) Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy. (LITV) Pursue love, and seek eagerly the spiritual things, but rather that you may prophesy. (LXX) (MKJV) Follow after charity and desire spiritual things, but rather that you may prophesy. (Murdock) Follow after love; and be emulous of the gifts of the Spirit, and especially, that ye may prophesy. (RV) Follow after love; yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy. (Webster) Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy. (YLT) Pursue the love, and seek earnestly the spiritual things, and rather that ye may prophecy, Most, including your NAS, do not make sense as rendered in English. That is why I went back to the original language and brought forth the proper rendering. | ||
| bear Senior Member Username: bear Post Number: 1004 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 24.236.150.133 |
Oneway, Here is some interesting research which I posted on another thread: In a massive study of tongue speaking from a linguistic perspective by Professor William J. Samarin of the University of Toronto's Department of Linguistics, published after more than a decade of careful research, he rejected the view that glossolalia is xenoglossia, i.e. some foreign language that could be understood by another person who knew that language. Professor Samarin concluded that glossolalia is a “pseudo-language.” He defined glossolalia as “unintelligible babbling speech that exhibits superficial phonological similarity to language, without having consistent syntagmatic structure and that is not systematically derived from or related to known language.” (William J. Samarin, “Variation and Variables in Religious Glossolalia,” Language in Society, ed. Dell Haymes, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972 pages. 121-130) Felicitas D. Goodman, a psychological anthropologist and linguist, engaged in a study of various English, Spanish and Mayan speaking Pentecostal communities in the United States and Mexico. She compared tape recordings of non-Christian rituals from Africa, Borneo, Indonesia and Japan as well. She published her results in 1972 in an extensive monograph (Speaking in Tongues: A Cross-Cultural Study in Glossolalia by Felecitas D. Goodman, University of Chicago Press, 1972). Felecitas Goodman concludes that “when all features of speaking in tongues were taken into consideration, which is the segmental structure (such as sounds, syllables, phrases) and its suprasegmental elements (namely, rhythm, accent, and especially overall intonation), she concluded that there is no distinction in tongues between Christians and the followers of non-Christian (pagan) religions. Goodman in the prestigious Encyclopaedia of Religion (1987) wrote the “association between trance and glossolalia is now accepted by many researchers as a correct assumption”. Goodman also concludes that glossolalia “is, actually, a learned behaviour, learned either unawarely or, sometimes consciously.” Others have previously pointed out that direct instruction is given on how to “speak in tongues,” ie. how to engage in glossolalia. In fact, it has been found that the “speaking in tongues” practiced in Christian churches and by individual Christians is identical to the chanting language of those who practice voodoo on the darkest continents of this world. | ||
| xman3 Advanced Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 851 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 75.7.204.167 |
Thanks for the list watchman. Obviously, I think every one of them says exactly what I said it does though, in many different ways. I will move on though from this point in my next post, as we will never agree. Both in English and Greek it says the same thing and now we have 21 more ways to help establish it. Lest anyone look at that list and make the seemingly obvious conclusion that watchman believes we are to desire spiritual gifts or things, that is what I say, not him. Contrary to the chosen translation of all 21 of these, watchman believes the word spiritual ought to be rendered souls(not in the spirit versus souls sense) or converts. I believe it should be rendered exactly as it is written. We are at impass and I will move on. | ||
| mcmstaff78 Senior Member Username: mcmstaff78 Post Number: 2051 Registered: 7-2006 Posted From: 167.193.134.61 |
Xman, you make a valid point (  ), but I'm guessing your proclivity would be to then interpret "spiritual things" as "gifts", "acts", "workings", etc. "Things" is probably not the best understanding, either, because it tends to connote some clearly discernable, definable, entity - something one can see, hear, touch, taste, feel. The Apostle writes in 1 Cor. 2:14-16, "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he that is spiritual {pneumatikos) judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man." In 1 Cor. 3:1 (the very next verse following 2:16) he writes "And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual (pneumatikois), but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ." He then continues, in verse 2 & 3 "I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. 3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?" So the distinction is between the pneumatikois who understand pneumatikon and the sarkikois, the fleshly, or carnal, ones who cannot yet understand spiritual ideas, the spiritual life. The Apostle clearly, from the beginning of 1 Corinthians, is telling the Corinthians they are carnal, and don't understand the spiritual life, the pneumatikos and those "things" (pneumatikon) that are part of it. But in chapters 12 - 14, he attempts to explain - "Now concerning the spirituals (pneumatikon), brethren, I don't want you to be ignorant." He goes on to point out that the (so-called) gifts of the Spirit, the Phanerosis ("open display" or manifestation) which have been dividing the Corinthians, are all from the same Spirit and they are one Body. It is not the phanerosis of the Spirit that are the pneumatikon he doesn't want them ignorant of - they are obviously not ignorant of those things. However, it is precisely the issues of love, of the mystery of the Body of Christ and the need for one another, these are the pneumatikon he of which he does not want them ignorant. The explication on tongues, prophesy, and the rest, is simply to demonstrate how they fit together and what is profitable ("ediying") for the Body of Christ. Feliz Navidad! (Message edited by mcmstaff78 on December 18, 2007) | ||
| watchman_2 Senior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 3707 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
xman3, You missed a subtle point that I was making in listing all the various renderings [public domain renderings]. They all carry through the error of the earliest English rendering -- the Bishops Bible of 1568. That error is the addition of the word 'gifts', which others have changed to 'things'. The word 'gifts' or 'things' is not even in the scripture and does not belong therein at all. The word 'spiritual' is also a mistranslation. As a noun it means 'spirit', more specifically human spirits -- i.e. 'souls'. By adding the word 'gifts', the English rendering altered the intent of a noun to an adjective. Anyone reading 1 Cor. 13 can see that Paul was addressing the zeal of the Corinthians in the church to go proselytize. 1 Cor. 14:1 simply acknowledges this zeal. It is a complete bastardization of scripture to suggest 'tongues' is the resultant of 1 Cor. 14:1. | ||
| xman3 Advanced Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 857 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 75.7.204.167 |
mcm: Xman, you make a valid point I do think along the line of things, only for lack of a better term though. I actually agree with most everything you wrote there and I don't think any of it negates the intent of why I used that verse, so we can somewhat agree here and I'll move on. | ||
| xman3 Advanced Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 858 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 75.7.204.167 |
watchman: I didn't miss it. I turned it around to point out the obvious. 21 versions (and a lot more unlisted) all wrong, and watchman right? Ok, whatever. We all know gifts was added. ANYONE can see that? That's a nice figure of speech, but in reality practically NO ONE sees that. Its all predicated on your unique choice of the word souls/converts to replace spiritual. I've addressed it already and like I said, I'll stick with the experts and the hundreds of translations that all disagree with your conclusions. | ||
| ultimate1 Advanced Member Username: ultimate1 Post Number: 563 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 71.194.182.119 |
Millions of Christians have operated in all the gifts of the Holy Sirit for centuries. They are supernaturally powerful, revelational, insprirational, and informational to help bring people into relationship with the supernatural God through Christ Jesus. They are needed to be effective more now, today in this time than ever. One of the biggest reasons that the body of Christ hasn't made a greater impact on our generation today, is because of the failure to operate in the gifts of the Holy Spirit. 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. (HOW DID THEY KNOW THE HOLY SPIRIT FELL ON THE GENTILES!) 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. 46For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God" Acts 10:44-46 THEY HEARD THEM SPEAK WITH TONGUES 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. 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? | ||
| ultimate1 Advanced Member Username: ultimate1 Post Number: 564 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 71.194.182.119 |
Millions of Christians have operated in all the gifts of the Holy Spirit for centuries. They are supernaturally powerful, revelational, insprirational, and informational to help bring people into relationship with the supernatural God through Christ Jesus. They are needed to be effective more now, today in this time than ever. One of the biggest reasons that the body of Christ hasn't made a greater impact on our generation today, is because of the failure to operate in the gifts of the Holy Spirit. 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. (HOW DID THEY KNOW THE HOLY SPIRIT FELL ON THE GENTILES!) 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. 46For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God" Acts 10:44-46 THEY HEARD THEM SPEAK WITH TONGUES 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. 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 Senior Member Username: bear Post Number: 1008 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 24.236.150.133 |
U1, I am a former Pentecostal/Charismatic. I have not spoken in tongues since June 2007. I am still just as blessed, if not more, spiritually. I am still in tune with the Holy Spirit and his leading. In your P/C position, how do you explain that? | ||
| xman3 Advanced Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 875 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 75.7.204.167 |
That's real recent Bear. Was it discussion here that prompted the change? | ||
| |
