| Author | Message | ||
     xman3 Junior Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 33 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 76.251.218.162 |
Hey watchman,(or anyone else too) I thought since that other one was so long I'd continue here. I do not have a personal rapture theology. I avoid the topic like the plague usually. It seems like we have a fair agreement on enough to narrow it down to the gibberish stuff. I think how the meaning of tongues ought to be in any given verse will probably come up then, so I'll avoid the general languages issue and get more specific. I'm going to go step by step through the reasons and support I have for my beliefs looking more closely at the key words (such as tongues) in the original language and see how it stacks up to my study. On the surface I have good solid scriptural reasons. I am going to re-examine this however, and see if what I think scripture says is actually what it does say. I'm doing this for a couple reasons. First off, I see a lot of stuff that doesn't look right to me concerning tongues already, though I myself do not practice them. Secondly you guys make some good points worth a further look. I really haven't studied this issue for many years, and a lot of it I take for granted based on what the scripture appear to say, and what I've heard taught, so I definitely think I will learn something. Essentially my stand is that gibberish, if you will, is one form of tongues. That would manifest primarily in my own prayer life, and for me is as natural as English. This is why past tongue talkers can turn it on still if they have the Holy Spirit. I believe this prayer is inherent to having the Holy Spirit and is not a gift that the Spirit must initiate. Now I didn't tell you that to jump into a discussion on each specific. I'm saying that these beliefs are what I am going to examine now and see how they stack up to my study. If I conclude they do, which is obviously what a charismatic would assume going in, then I will clearly outline my defense for gibberish. If they don't, well I guess I'd have to re-think the gibberish issue. That's where I stand currently. I'm going to keep posting and commenting, but study this out in the meantime. It's really making me study the Bible a little deeper than I have been lately so I'm enjoying it, disagreements and all. | ||
| mcmstaff78 New member Username: mcmstaff78 Post Number: 19 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 24.99.130.74 |
Wow, Xman, this pretty much makes your position totally disjunct from any concrete argument or rational disputation. It is a purely existential rationale. You start with your experience and will, no doubt, use some scriptures to attempt to support it, but there is not empirical or scriptural support for "glossa" to be nonsense speaking. It devolves the work of the Holy Spirit to the level of shamanism. The Holy Spirit the "author" of gibberish? Honestly, it would fill me with a holy fear to hold this. Might I suggest that before embarking on such a task, you first attempt to discover whether "glossa" has ever been used in Greek literature to mean something other than a language or the actual human tongue. If scriptures interpret scriptures, as most here are wont to claim adherence to, then for your position to even be tenable, you must be able to show where "glossa" is used in the scriptures to represent nonsensical utterances. | ||
| watchman_2 New member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 20 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
xman3, I appreciate your efforts. Yes, I agree that the primary issue is the legitimacy of gibberish. I believe that it was easeltine that stated that the central doctrine that binds all the p/c churches is the speaking of gibberish, with the belief that it is 'tongues' inspired by the Holy Spirit. If this is true, I think it is fair to conclude that, absent the veracity of gibberish as tongues, the entire p/c religion collapses like a house of cards. Because p/cers know that your religion's foundation is gibberish as tongues, your so-called objective analysis of the legitimacy thereof, which might lead to the conclusion that gibberish is not tongues, would also impel you to also conclude that the so-called healings, miracles, and other manifestations that you also believe are of the Holy Spirit, and do love about p/cers, are false. The ultimate conclusion, from a discernment that gibberish is not tongues, is that the entire p/c religion is not of Christ. I take it one step further -- it is of Satan. Accordingly and I have posted the same before, I don't believe that you can be objective in your analysis since your study thereof gibberish is biased toward the p/c view. It is a foregone conclusion that the outcome of your study will be that gibberish = tongues. For, if it were not, it would mean that your own personal experiences were not of the Holy Spirit -- which leaves seducing [Satanic] spirits as your connection by default. All those healings and miracles would be fake. And, you would have to conclude that you have been participating in a false religion for all those years of your life. Of course, you are not prepared to go there; hence, your study cannot be objective. God knows what we all think. It is certainly unnecessary to communicate with Him in any specific language at all. Certainly, it is complete err to think that praying in gibberish is of special significance. If it was significant, Christ, Himself, would have prayed to God in gibberish in order to instruct us how to pray. | ||
| xman3 Junior Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 35 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 76.251.218.162 |
If scriptures interpret scriptures, as most here are wont to claim adherence to, then for your position to even be tenable, you must be able to show where "glossa" is used in the scriptures to represent nonsensical utterances. That is kind of the crux of the matter. I also agree my experience carries more weight to me than you think it should. I think "tongues'" meaning will be more evident in context. In the end, I may not be able to show tongues is what I think. We'll see. It is a difficult position to argue against. Like I said, I'm not real theological. That's why I have little problem with some of what you guys say, and I have little problem with some of the p/c stuff. The only Biblical problem I see here for me of any consequence is the gibberish thing. To call it non sensical though is incorrect to me. To call it non sensical to you, or anyone who chooses to hear it as such is fine. I believe it is not non sensical to God. That is the main difference in our perspective. It is usually "non sensical" to me though. | ||
| arron Senior Member Username: arron Post Number: 3945 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 71.85.121.123 |
i believe that the tongues as in scripture, not as in some theological work of man, is a SPIRITUAL GIFT FROM GOD AS IS THE GIFTS OF HEALING AND THE OTHERS LISTED IN I COR. i believe that this gift as well as the others can ONLY BE OPERATED when THE HOLY GHOST gives the command to do so. we as people can do nothing of ourselves so it is always GOD who does them. joshua held up his hand and commaned the sun to stand still but it was GOD WHO DID IT not joshua and it never happened again as there was no need, moses held up his staff and the waters parted and they went across but it was GOD WHO DID IT. in the same way when a gifts is used IT IS THE HOLY GHOST that does the work and not man.this is how i believe (Message edited by arron on January 05, 2008) | ||
| easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1905 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 66.245.201.122 |
The modern Pentecostal/Charismatic idea of what the Gift of Various Kinds of Tongues is defined below by some of the more modern members of this movement. Quoting from Jim Gott's book, "Releasing Spiritual Gifts." The Gift of Various Kinds of Tongues 1. THE GIFT OF VARIOUS KINDS OF TONGUES DEFINED A. Kenneth Hagin, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_E._Hagin (1917-2003) - "Diverse kinds of tongues is supernatural utterance by the Holy Spirit in languages never learned by the speaker, nor understood by the mind of the speaker, nor necessarily always understood by the hearer. Speaking with tongues has nothing whatsoever to do with linguistic ability; it has nothing to do with the mind.} B. Dick Iverson, (Still living. Was minister of Bible Temple) - "The gift of tongues is the God-given enablement to communicate in a language one doe not know. This is a "manifestation of the Spirit" and not human ability. It has absolutely nothing to do with natural ability, eloquence of speech or a new sanctified way of talking. The gift of tongues is a supernatural manifestation or expression of the Holy Spirit through a person's speech organs. It is a direct manifestation of the miraculous." C. Derek Prince http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Prince- 1915-2003 Graduate Kings College, Cambridge - "The "gift of tongues" is the supernatural ability given to a believer by the Holy Spirit to speak in a language not understood by the speaker. Each believer has the potential to speak in a language that he normally uses and understands. When speaking in an unknown tongue the believer is speaking to God things not understood, which builds himself up." D. David Pytches - Charismatic Anglican Bishop See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Pytches "This is spontaneous inspired utterance by the Holy Spirit, where the normal voice organs are used, but the conscious mind plays no part. The languages spoken are entirely unlearned by the speaker." E. John Wimber -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wimber 1934-1997 "Kinds of tongues are Spirit-inspired, spontaneous utterances in whcich the consicous mind plays no part. It is speaking in a language (whether earthly of angelic) which the speaker has never learned or understood. This is used privately be a bleiever and may be used at will for his own edification. Tongues are also used in public as an ecstatic utterance following an annointing from God." | ||
| easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1906 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 66.245.201.122 |
Below is another definition from a well known figure from early Pentecostalism, Smith Wigglesworth, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Wigglesworth 1859-1947 This is taken from the book, "Smith Wigglesworth on Spiritual Gifts" Three Types of Tongues "There are three types of tongues, and this is where the confusion comes in; this is where the people judge you, and this is where people have gone wrong. I know, and every person who interprets tongues knows, that there is an intuition of divine appointment at this time. Every person who has been given the interpretation of tongues when they have had nothing before them except glory of God will agree with this. Now, the first type of tongues is when people are receiving the Holy Spirit, and the speak in tongues as an evidence of their baptism. There is another approach to tongues when you are in a prayer meeting. You need to know exactly on thing: if you are in a prayer meeting when people are praying in the Spirit, never seek the interpretation. The Scripture declares it clearly; "For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries" (1 Cor. 14:2) You will find that in a prayer meeting people will pray and speak in the Spirit, but it will be unto God and not for interpretation.... The third type of tongues is for interpretation. What type of tongues is this? "Different kinds of tongues" (1 Cor. 12:10) What are these "different kinds of tongues"? The are languages with perfect syllables. When a person gets up with a perfect language by the Spirit, you will find it is decisive, it is instructive, it is lovely to hear, it is divine in its appointment. It has to have interpretation because God is speaking to us in words that are not our native language." | ||
| xman3 Junior Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 37 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 76.251.218.162 |
In my opinion, the scriptures from the book of Acts do not apply to most of this discussion. They emphatically support the fact that Biblical tongues manifested upon receiving the Holy Spirit. Since there is no ongoing follow up, we can not use these to determine or support anything about gibberish. We could quibble as to whether there is room for gibberish to be possible but I am satisfied that what was spoken could well have been known languages. My point is that based on scripture and my experience, I do not neccessarily believe that what is initially experienced is the same as the ongoing practice of "gibberish" anyway and I will not use these verses to support it. For me, that brings me to 1Cor12. If I read chapters 12-14 as a continuous flow, I see several things. Chapter 12 makes it emphatically clear that he is talking about spiritual gifts when the word spiritual is used. This establishes the legitimacy of that assumption in chapter 14 and I am now absolutely convinced of this through scripture. He then spends 3 chapters talking about these gifts. Now chapter 12 does say this, that all do not speak in tongues do they? This indicates to me that the tongues he is talking about are specifically the gift of tongues, and he is doing so in context of public use. It stands to reason, that he is continuing to talk about the same thing through chapter 14, so these are the gift of tongues in operation. It seems reasonable to assume the tongues of chapter 14, being the same as chapter 12 are something not all have. In chapter 14:2,14 I would be interested in hearing what anyone thinks those verses mean. One thing that I do see is that by using the term pray with my spirit in a context where it is obvious he is referring to praying in tongues, it lends credibility to the idea that other references to praying in the spirit also refer to tongues. I haven't looked them up in this "study", but it's just an observation. It also establishes there is "praying" in tongues rather than simply speaking in tongues. Doesn't address what they are though, but they are most assuredly something that was continuing well after the examples from the book of acts, and independent of a fresh salvation experience and freshly receiving the Holy Spirit. | ||
| xman3 Junior Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 38 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 76.251.218.162 |
I think theses chapters establish a few things pretty clearly. 1. Tongues manifested upon receiving the Holy Spirit. Now watchman makes some claim of the rushing wind sound being meaningful, but it is also absent in the other references in Acts and it is clear it is from it being the initial outpouring to me. 2. Tongues continued into the church at Corinth. 3. Tongues were not limited to the moment of salvation or receiving the Holy Spirit. 4. We are told to desire tongues, as one of the spiritual gifts to edify others. 5. Tongues were able to be misused, and NOT chastised by Paul as therefore not being tongues. 6.Paul, in verse 18, also appears to indicate he speaks in tongues both inside and outside the church and explains that in the church he would rather speak with understanding for their benefit. Almost alludes to an idea he speaks in tongues more outside the church, than within. This would, of course, in no way preclude that from always being a known language, nor to other people. 6. Since this is instruction for church conduct, it seems reasonable to assume that there is not definitive proof here yet of a "personal" prayer language practice. To me, these things are pretty clear so far based simply on the context of these verses. Short of those few verses (14:2,14-15), there isn't too much to establish gibberish related prayer, but on the surface it is not precluded either. I find chapter 14 to be as difficult to establish tongues as always languages as I do to establish gibberishes credibility though. It just isn't so clear as you say it is and I can easily understand better how come there is so much strong opinion concerning some of this. | ||
| matt_hatter New member Username: matt_hatter Post Number: 19 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 24.214.93.12 |
Xman, you know we are buddies. So don't take this wrong. But that even you are beginning to refer to gibberish as gibberish is making this personal prayer language thing sound more like... gibberish. To say that 'praying in the spirit' means uttering a bunch of nonsensical syllables is a leap, but that is just my opinion. | ||
| xman3 Junior Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 40 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 76.251.218.162 |
I just gave up on the terminology. I could keep saying tongues, but then it leads to a fresh posting saying that it isn't tongues. I could say unknown language. I will have to do that I suppose. In no way do I agree that my tongues are non sensical syllables though. Definitely not to God, if they appear such to myself or others. It's really hard to say that about some of what I've heard though but I can only venture an opinion on others. If I approached this solely from an intellectual or scientific perspective, I might immediately conclude the same as you. That sammarin thing claims to demonstrate that it is non sensical syllabeles. Mostly all I've determined is that there is room for unknow languages. I think it's a good point, or at least reasonable to say it's a great leap to say praying in the spirit is uttering a bunch of ..., but I'm just making some observations so far as i read here. I do not think it's a leap to say praying in the spirit means praying in tongues. Actually, I think that part is clear. I'm still figuring out how to make that leap to a personal prayer language though. | ||
| watchman_2 New member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 25 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
The entire p/c religion is based upon the leap in logic that 'tongues' = 'gibberish'. Of course, there is no biblical support for such a presumption. The only basis for 'gibberish' is their misinterpretation of one scripture -- Acts 2:4. Act 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. The p/cer claims the word 'other' can be assumed to include 'gibberish', which is verbal utterings unknown to the speaker. Of course, the Pentacostal account of Acts 2 does not bear this out. Act 2:6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. So, the disciples, which were speaking in the cloven tongue, fully understood what they were saying too. Accordingly, 'gibberish' is excluded as 'tongues'. The personal testimonies of those here that admit that they do not understand their own utterings is proof that they do not speak 'tongues'. Therefore, the only conclusion that one can attain from the Greek word 'glossa' [from which the English word Glossary is derived], rendered 'tongues', is that it means languages. | ||
| arron Senior Member Username: arron Post Number: 3955 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 71.85.121.123 |
watchman 2 .. i for one did not leap into logic or what ever i did not leap into THE HOLY GHOST as i already had HIM LIVING in my heart. i do not speak in gibbersih as you call it but in tongues as THE HOLY GHOST gives utterence. we practice the gifts as THE LORD directs us too. i am saved and am not saved because i believe that the gifts are there for they had nothing to do with my salvation but are given to be used in this life. i cant understand why there is no talk abput the gifts of healing, the working of miracles, or any of the other gifts only tongues are spoken against by the ones who do not belive in them on this board. what about the other gifts? are they going to be talkied about or left out | ||
| watchman_2 Junior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 26 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
arron, It is not a gift of the Holy Spirit to speak gibberish. The gift of the Holy Spirit regarding tongues is the ability to understand and speak other non-native languages. The Holy Spirit itself is a gift. The various talents the Holy Spirit bestows on the many-membered body of Christ varies [1 Cor. 12]. Gibberish does nothing for the many membered body and is not a gift. Gibberish is not 'tongues'. | ||
| xman3 Junior Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 41 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 76.247.134.85 |
Watchman. Your interpretation still makes no sense. You are creating some confusing mess with the speakers speaking one thing, but hearing it in their own language, while all the while a multitude of other listeners also hear it in their own language. Then you claim this doesn't support gibberish. If I ever heard a good case for it, this is it, because it's the only way it would work to me. Heck, I said I wouldn't use this to support unknown languages, but your way it fits real good. If all gibberish means to you is verbal utterings unknown to the utterer, than as far as I am concerned you are calling what even mcmstaff believes are Bilical tongues gibberish. I can consider that the unkown tongues spoken were known languages of the earth that the speaker didn't know. I don't buy into any notion that tongues ever were some utterance that the speaker understood. This is clearly shown as incorect. First of all, the mere fact we have interpretation is proof. Second, Paul expressly says if you already speak in tongues, pray that you may interprate. Also the verses concerning the spirit praying and mind unfruitful. Languages or not, I don't quite see your view as viable at all. Every refers to the hearers, not the speakers, but should you choose to take that leap, I think it brings a whole host of problems that lead to support of an unknown language. | ||
| xman3 Junior Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 42 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 76.247.134.85 |
I can understand your take on cloven tongues, and personally believe this first incident is unique in many aspects because it's the first. I don't fully understand it, but it seems that you believe it solely refers to spoken tongues as opposed to any appearance of fire or something. The NAS renders it appeared to them as tongues of fire, so it sounds like something you see. Appeared is not definitive. | ||
| watchman_2 Junior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 32 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
xman3,
I certainly apologize if I have not presented my arguments in a coherent fashion, which makes no sense to you. So, I will attempt to elaborate further, as follows: P/C 'Tongues' Presumption No. 1 - The 'other tongues' reference in Acts 2:4 means 'gibberish'. There is nothing in scripture to support this presumption. Acts 2:6 clearly proves otherwise as "every man" heard it. The disciples also understood what they were saying as well. If they didn't, then how could it be reported what was said - Act 2:9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Act 2:10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Act 2:11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. Yes, one of the languages of the cloven tongue was that of the Jews. The message that the disciples heard as well was "the wonderful works of God". P/C 'Tongues' Presumption No. 2 - The disciples actually spoke all the different languages of mankind in Acts 2. There is no evidence in scripture supporting this presumption either. What was the 'cloven tongue'? It was the Holy Spirit that brought forth the message to the disciples to speak. However, the work of the Holy Spirit was not that the disciples spoke all those languages, but was that all heard the message in their native languages at the same time. Act 2:6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. The 'other' tongue spoken by the disciples is purely misinterpreted by P/Cers. The word 'other' means 'different' [See Strong's]. Yes, they spoke the words of the Holy Spirit [not their own words]; but spoke them in their own language. We all do this in our daily lives. As sinners, our corrupt flesh makes statements that are sinful in nature. These words are not of God. However, when we testify to the wonderful works of God, we do so with the blessing of the Holy Spirit. In both cases, we speak our native language; but, we speak a different language [words] there in. For both bitter and sweet water cannot both come from God. The 'other tongue' in Acts 2:4 is simply speaking the words of the Holy Spirit. This will occur again in the endtimes when the elect are delivered up for trial by Satan. P/C 'Tongues' Presumption No. 3 - The 'cloven' tongue of Acts 2 is the same 'tongue' referred to in 1 Cor. 12-14 Again, there is no scriptural support for this presumption either. The Pentacostal 'cloven' tongue was never mentioned again in scripture. Nor did the disciples ever speak under the utterance of the Holy Spirit in that 'cloven' tongue again. | ||
| watchman_2 Junior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 33 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
cont'd The P/Cers confuse the term 'gift'. A 'gift' is given without repentance. It is the abilities that God gives us through the Holy Spirit. We use it at our own discretion -- not at the discretion of the Holy Spirit. The Pentacostal tongue is never described as a 'gift'. It came upon the disciples at the Holy Spirit's discretion and the words spoken were that which the Holy Spirit wanted spoken. The 'gift' associated with 'tongues' is clearly described in 1 Cor. 12:28 as 'diversity of tongues'. Clearly, if the 'gift' was the 'cloven' tongue, Paul would have stated so. There can be no doubt that the Holy Spirit's 'gift' is the ability to speak and understand non-native languages -- not 'cloven' tongue. I hope that this makes better sense to you. The 'cloven' tongue is not the same as the 'gift' of tongues. The 'cloven' tongue was miraculous. The 'gift' of tongues is the ability to communicate in other languages for the benefit of the congregation [many-memebered body of Christ]. >>>>>
Some time ago, I provided dictionary definitions of what the word 'language' means. If the person making the utterings does not understand, then it is not a language for there is no 'exchange' from the utterer to the hearer; and, therefore it cannot be 'tongues'. The Greek word of 'tongues' is glossa, from which the English word 'Glossary' is derived. A 'glossary' is a group of words and their definitions. So, unless YOU KNOW the meaning of your gibberish, it is not a language and YOU are not speaking in tongues. So, the only remaining argument is circular back to the Pentacostal tongue in which the Holy Spirit, at the Holy Spirit's discretion, spoke through man, which I have thoroughly debunked as not the 'gift' of tongues. Absent the precursor signs thereof the Pentacostal tongue and the message thereof, your gibberish can never be construed to be the Holy Spirit speaking through you. As for mcmstaff's position, you should take it up with him.
Again, Paul describes the 'gift' to be 'diversity' of tongues [languages]. Hence, his comment regarding 'interpretation' needs to be kept in that context -- not circular referenced back to the 'cloven' tongue, which needed no interpretation as the Holy Spirit allowed everyone to hear the words in their own native languages. 1Co 14:13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in a tongue pray that he may interpret. The scripture only states that one should pray to fully understand the language that one is speaking in. Of course, the most likely interpretation of 'tongue' in this case is 'non-native language', since the context of 1 Cor. 14 is proselytizing to the world, which speaks many languages. | ||
| blucey6008 New member Username: blucey6008 Post Number: 1 Registered: 1-2008 Posted From: 207.200.116.135 |
watchman, After reading your view on speaking in tongues, which is not Biblical, I would like to hear your view on Sanctification. Speaking in tongues is a gift from God and not all will recieve this gift. | ||
| watchman_2 Junior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 35 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
blucey6008, Why should I provide you with my view on 'Sanctification' when you already [errantly] declared, without documentation, my view on 'tongues' to not be biblical? You should start another thread and state your position on Sanctification. Then, others can chime in if they choose to disagree or support your position. | ||
| xman3 Junior Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 43 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 76.247.134.85 |
the work of the Holy Spirit was not that the disciples spoke all those languages, but was that all heard the message in their native languages at the same time. If you want to argue your view is correct, I can ceratinly understand how you arrived at it. In my opinion, a cloven tongue which can be heard in many different languages at once sounds like an unknown tongue. I personally do not think it occured in this fashion, but it is very credible. Because it is quite clear to me that the every man refers to the hearers and not not the speakers, I see absolutely nothing precluding the speakers speaking in the languages of every man present. I see plenty of evidence in this section, however, that sets this incident apart from others. The cloven tongues are no dissimilar than the sound of a rushing wind. Neither are repeated even in the future mentions of tongues in Acts. I don't see any distinction between cloven tongues and the gift of tongues being miraculous. If there is any difference, they are still from the Holy Spirit. I also don't see any more of a stretch to say that these cloven tongues were an unknown tongue than I do to say they were just miraculously heard. It is very obvious 1Cor12 and 1Cor14 are talking about the same thing. To just ignore the rather obvious fact that Paul spends essentially the entire three chapters talking about spiritual gifts and their orderly and proper use is mind boggling. Your fundamental misunderstanding of this obvious fact makes it nearly impossible to accurately deal with the verses contained. You simply write them off as referring to something other than what they say. As far as tongues is concerned, they either are known languages, or they are not always known languages, but whatever they are they are a major subject in this section. One can play a game and say that the phrase "gift of tongues" isn't expressly noted, but tongues are clearly included in the category of gifts, however gifts is used throughout these chapters. It's really anything from the Holy Spirit in one sense, hence the problem if one just tags it gifts because the translators did. If these are not the same as Acts 2 tongues, then we now have 2 types of Holy Spirit tongues. If the tongues of Acts 2 are not the same as Acts 10, and they also are not the same as these, well now we have 3 types. If the tongues of Acts 10 are the same, and tongues must be understood by the speaker to be real, the we have some real problems with these tongues in Corinthians which need interpretation and are at times, unfruitful to the mind. These dilemnas are very real in your presentation thus far, and would help explain why you must try and make tongues in !Cor14 something other than what they are, languages or not. | ||
| watchman_2 Junior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 38 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
xman3, The definition of 'cloven' - G1266 diamerizō dee-am-er-id'-zo From G1223 and G3307; to partition thoroughly (literally in distribution, figuratively in dissension): - cloven, divide, part. It means 'to partition thoroughly'. Surely, the cloven tongue of Acts 2 was spoken once, but divided among those that heard the words in their own language -- including those speaking. There is no evidence that the disciples spoke anything other than their native languages, but the words that the Holy Spirit gave utterance to. Surely, the Holy Spirit would put into the disciples minds the words they know how to speak. The P/C religion is based upon their misinterpretation of these NT references to 'tongues'. The only possible Biblical link to 'gibberish' is the English rendering 'other' tongues in Acts 2. As I have debunked this connection based upon the 7 precursors of the 'cloven' tongue, which are not ALL present when P/Cers speak gibberish, I can also debunk 'gibberish' based upon the outcome. Your 'gibberish' wouldn't be 'gibberish' to me if it were the 'cloven' tongue. I should be able to hear it in English and in the very Midwestern dialect that I grew up with. The multitude that assembled to hear the disciples speak on Pentecost were not necessarily believers [Acts 2:8-11]. In fact, they doubted and mocked them - Act 2:12 And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this? Act 2:13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine. So, even those, that are not 'believers' in the P/C tradition of man misnamed as 'tongues', would be able to hear your 'gibberish' in their native languages. The fact that no one understands 'gibberish', but another P/Cer that is 'gifted' with the ability to 'interpret', is proof again that it is not the 'cloven' tongue of Acts 2 and, hence, is not biblical.
Not so! There is no biblical connection between the 'cloven' tongue of Acts 2 and the 'diversity' of tongues in 1 Cor. 12. I have proven this over and over again. The fact is that the p/c religion is dependent on 'gibberish' being a 'gift' of the Holy Spirit. The only way they can attempt to pull this farce off is by cross-connecting Acts 2 with 1 Cor. 12-14. The only possible support for 'gibberish' as a 'tongue' comes from [p/cers misinterpretation of] the 'cloven' tongue of Acts 2. The only possible support for a 'tongue' being a 'gift' of the Holy Spirit comes from 1 Cor. 12. Absent this presumed linkage, 'gibberish' as 'tongues' fails to be a 'gift' of the Holy Spirit. The P/C religion, thereby, collapses like a house of cards. It is the P/Cer whom deseperately [and inappropriately] attempts to link these two separate references to 'tongues', where no linkage exists. P/Cers know that their belief system collapses without 'gibberish' as 'tongues'. | ||
| watchman_2 Junior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 39 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
xman3, With respect to the 'tongues' references in 1 Cor. 12 and 14, I agree that it is the same 'tongues' referred to. This 'tongues' is nothing more then 'languages'. However, there is no linkage of the 'tongues' here to the 'cloven' tongue of Acts 2 in the Bible. Paul would certainly be cognizant of the Pentecostal tongue of the disciples. Had he meant 'cloven' tongue in 1 Cor. 12, 14 he would have stated so. In addition, there is a Greek word for 'unknown' - G50 agnoeō ag-no-eh'-o From G1 (as a negative particle) and G3539; not to know (through lack of information or intelligence); by implication to ignore (through disinclination): - (be) ignorant (-ly), not know, not understand, unknown. In fact, Paul uses this word in 2 Cor. 6:9. So, if Paul actually had intended to refer to the 'tongue' in 1 Cor. 14 as 'unknown', he certainly would have used the word 'unknown', which was fully within his vocabulary. Clearly, the insertion of 'unknown' in 1 Cor. 14, in description of 'tongue', was wholly inappropriate. One can only objectively conclude that the 'tongue' references in 1 Cor. 12, 14 are simply languages -- not-native languages, but known languages. Certainly, it is not referrring to the 'cloven' language of Acts 2 or unknown languages. >>>>> With respect to Acts 10, again, one must read it for what it actually states -- not what the p/cer wants it to state. Act 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: The context of what Peter is about to tell Cornelius and friends is commenced by the word "THEN". The message is that one's race in not important to God. Act 10:35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. The Jew is no more privileged then the Gentile since Christ finished His role as Messiah. All whom revere the Lord are accepted. Act 10:36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all  The Word delivered unto the Israelites is meant for all mankind. Act 10:37 That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached; The Word was already published and distributed throughout Judea. It was the NT works commencing with John the Baptist. Act 10:38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him. Peter is just recounting the history of events to Cornelius -- giving a brief on that which transpired and is contained in the publications. | ||
| watchman_2 Junior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 40 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
cont'd Act 10:39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree: Peter tells Cornelius how the disciples witnessed everything that Christ said and did, and, how Christ was crucified. Act 10:40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly; Peter briefs Cornelius on the resurrection. Act 10:41 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead. Peter briefs Cornelius about whom saw Christ upon resurrection from the dead. Act 10:42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead. Here we get to Pentecost Day. Peter briefs Cornelius on the command Christ gave them before ascension. See Acts 1. Act 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. Peter briefs Cornelius the general mission given the prophets that witnessed the ascension and what they were speaking about when they gathered together at the end of Pentecost day. Act 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. Peter is expalining what happened on Pentecost Day when the Holy Spirit came upon them. Act 10:45 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. Peter describes the Pentecost event on how the Holy Ghost was given to the Gentile as well [heard the words in their own lanuguage]. Act 10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, A new subject commences by the word "THEN". By rightly dividing the Word, we can see that Acts 10 is not a new event in which the Holy Spirit descended upon Peter and Cornelius and they all spoke in the 'cloven' tongue. It was simply Peter's briefing to Cornelius of the NT events, which were published throughout Judea, but is intended for the Gentile as well. Peter described to Cornelius what took place on Pentecost Day. It is not a new 'tongue'. The word 'tongues' simply means 'language'. There are two contexts in which it is used. There is the Pentecostal 'cloven' [divided] tongue which was the Holy Spirit's testimony, heard by all in their native language, as to the wonderful works of God. All other references are to speaking and understanding verbal communication, native or non-native. | ||
| bear Senior Member Username: bear Post Number: 1060 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 66.227.244.201 |
blucey6008, You posted: watchman, After reading your view on speaking in tongues, which is not Biblical, ????????? It is very biblical, although, not through the P/C interpretation. That is what is comes down to; interpretation. As a former P/C, I have to agree with watchman. It makes perfect sense, not from a P/C bias historical account, rather, from a close textual and historical critique of the texts involved. | ||
| xman3 Junior Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 44 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 76.247.134.85 |
It means 'to partition thoroughly'. Surely, the cloven tongue of Acts 2 was spoken once, but divided among those that heard the words in their own language -- including those speaking. There is no evidence that the disciples spoke anything other than their native languages, but the words that the Holy Spirit gave utterance to. Surely, the Holy Spirit would put into the disciples minds the words they know how to speak. I'm clear on what you think here. I do not think it says that, but we can agree that this incident does not support a personal prayer language. I can' speak for the entire p/c religion, but this verse isn't even one I would use for support anyway. I am satisfied it says they spoke in the languages that were heard. As for Acts 10, it's again clear to me this is not Peter telling a story, but an actual event of people receiving the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues. Not much more to say. You spent a lot of time trying to say that the whole p/c religion depends on the tongues of Acts2 and 1Cor being the same. That's funny because I don't even think they are the same. As long as we agree ch.12 and 14 are the same, then we're all set. Acts2 tongues, and 1Cor tongues may or may not be the same. You put too much weight in this notion that Paul could have used the same word in different letters or paragraphs. Concerning tongues, I find this tact real easy to use against almost every point you make, but I don't think it captures the intent of scripture always and takes up time. For the sake of argument, and maybe correctly, I will say Acts 2 tongues and 1Cor tongues are not the same. 2 different types of tongues as I had said. Unless one reads Acts 10 as Peter telling a story, than there are either 3 types, or a second appearance of most likely the cloven tongues. You can say language for now if you want. It is identified as a gift in verses 12:10,30 and all of ch.14. The point is Paul is quite clearly talking about "12:7 the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good." Quibble about the choice of the word gift if you want but the reality of the spiritual manefestation of tongues is evident. The case for a personal prayer language must be made from 1Cor and the other verses concerning praying in the Spirit and other relevant verses concerning the Holy Spirit. Nothing earth shaking there, and pretty much what mcm said. I will get into it a bit in the next post. | ||
| xman3 Junior Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 45 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 76.247.134.85 |
Now as I initially said in jumping into this topic, I don't have a ready made theology on tongues, or more particularly a personal prayer language. It's not that hard for me to read these verses from both views, because it's been many moons since I've paid much mind to them anyway. We know I speak in tongues, so I am coming from that viewpoint. Overall, I see a few things early on. 1. Tongues can be a manifestation of the Holy Spirit, as can interpretation. This is an important distiction between speaking any language outside of it being a manifestation of the Holy Spirit. 2. Tongues were in use in the church in Corinth. 3. Tongues could be misused. They were still tongues, however. 4. Paul spoke in tongues both in and out of the church. It could mean languages in missionary work, but that would make verse 14:9 not make any sense because the manifestation and it's intent would be exactly the same concerning the very thing he is diclaiming here. 5. The people were able to speak in tongues on their own volition. Here are the verses that trouble me in reading languages, and I would presume are the primary ones used to allow for a personal prayer langage. Verse 14:2 verse 14:15. This is not proof of gibberish, but it is sufficient explanation as to why I have no problem with what may sound like gibberish to the untrained ear being perfectly clear to God. Overall it sounds like people were all speaking in tongues at once or in too great of numbers and Paul had to tell them to keep it to themselves and let 2 or 3 go, and let one interprate or else they'ld look like a bunch of idiots to the visitors and no one would be edified. Essentially the language view must be saying that they were irresponsibly speaking foreign languages, just because they could. That's versus irresponsibly speaking an unknown language just because they could. | ||
| xman3 Junior Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 46 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 76.247.134.85 |
I seems like a lot must be made of verse 19. There isn't much evidence outside of this verse and the ones referring to praying in the Spirit to actually connect tongues with praying. If I look at it soley from the view that Paul supernaturally spoke in the language of whatever culture he preached in when necessarry, it is plausible and he is a unique individual in a class different than today's average joe Christian. Where it gets confusing again here, is where he says let 2 or 3 go, and let one interprate. If there is no interpretor, let them keep silent in the church, and speak to himself and God. Interpretation, being a manifestation of the Holy Spirit, can't simply be an unbeliever or foreigner hearing it in his language. If it is a fellow believer hearing it and translating it into the common language, then again there's nothing supernatural about that either. Now besides that, what value would a person get speaking to God a message simply intended to edify the church that went unspoken for lack of an interpretor? I see no reason to discount the fact that in several places now, we find that there is value to speaking in tongues beyond simple evangelism. So far, the best I see out of this is that those who believe speaking in tongues is always languages is that what you refer to as gibberish isn't really a language. There is evidence of speaking in tongues in and out of the church, in and out of order, openly and between oneself and God, and for personal edification and other's edification. I don't see anything supporting every stammering utterance of the tongue the mind of man can come up with, but I do not see anything saying personal speaking in tongues is not a language either. It's fairly clear we don't have to refer to as the gift of tongues, because it is obviously used at the speakers discretion at times. I don't see how they ever acquired these gifts and practices either, but there is no evidence of the theatrics and pressure I've seen in places. The bottom line so far is that there isn't much here about ongoing personal prayer in tongues. It's primarily about tongues in the church. There's a few principles and good instruction, but there are problems with strictly using known languages. It could be known languages, but then I would simply say so could my tongues. It could be a language that God understands too, but not in the church. For me, If Sammarin II were to establish that lo and behold, my tongues actually were a language, then everything fits together just peachy. If some were just soulish babble or something, than all that would mean is that some were babble. Thus far, nothing foundational for any religion has been undermined. You've merely addressed the religious practice of speaking "gibberish" instead of the intended tongues. Tongues have not only not been discredited, they have been established. It's all a matter as to whether my tongues are really tongues or not. Thus far the best of arguments have left the door open for an unknown language, and have no effect at all really if my tongues were to actually be languages. The broad view of tongues always being known languages has those problems though. Seems like a greater leap to justify a lot of what the p/c pratice though so far. To come up with some of the kind of public prayer "warfare" and stuff I've seen in light of this study is astounding. I'm not sure how some of this stuff came about, but it's hard to find it in the Bible. | ||
| watchman_2 Junior Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 50 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
xman3, When I read your posts in general, I am reminded of this scripture - 1Co 13:11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. I posted awhile back that I knew that the foregone conclusion of your study will be that 'gibberish' = 'tongues' because any other outcome would mean your personal experience was false, your years speaking 'gibberish' were spent in error, and your belief system was messed up. I stated that you were not prepared to go there; hence, you are presently unable to be objective. As the above scripture points out, you think, understand, and speak like a child. Your underlying love of 'gibberish' precludes rational objective analysis of the scriptures. Heb 5:12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. Heb 5:13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. Heb 5:14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. There are basically two classifications for the professed Christians that frequent this site. There are the 'babes' in Christ and there are those that are 'adults'. The 'babes' in Christ I fondly refer to as 'religious hacks' or 'religionists'. They only can accept the bible interpretations fed them [milk] from their specific denominational view. They can only discuss/debate scripture up to a certain point, which never results in them concluding their specific rituals/interpretations are false. You, my friend, fall into this category. The 'adults' in Christ partake of the 'meat' thereof God's Word. They will go where Truth leads them. Bear falls into this category. [Bear, I hope it is ok with you that I use your example.] | ||
| watchman_2 Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 51 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
cont'd Bear simply loves the Word of God moreso then any religion. As a P/C minister, he was steeped in knowledge of all of the P/C interpretations. His own testimony indicated that he wrote papers in justification of P/C interpretations. Undoubtedly, he has researched this 'gibberish' as 'tongues' interpretation far more than I have. As he pointed out, the thing that convinced him that the 'gibberish' ritual was not biblical was that it did nothing for the betterment of the ministry -- the many-membered body of Christ. One cannot read 1 Cor. 12 and not understand that the various skills bestowed by the Holy Spirit, including charismata [a misnomer], were intended for the betterment and service of the many-membered body [including new converts]. What kind of testimony to an outsider is it to see a P/Cer, whom has attained his/her 'spiritual high', barking like a dog while claiming that was a manifestation of the Holy Spirit? Now, I realize that all P/Cers don't speak 'gibberish' in the same manner. Nonetheless, Bear's comment was exactly on point. As the higher-level apostles, prophets, teachers, and good works all benefit the many-membered body of Christ/ministry as a whole, so should the 4 gifts. As an 'adult' in Christ, Bear was compelled to leave the P/C ministry, from which he had acquired the resources to care for his family and start over somewhere else. Though Bear and I have had heated debates in the past and we may still not agree on certain scriptural interpretations, he certainly has my respect. I know he is an 'adult' in Christ and does 'eat' the 'meat' of God's Word. As for the 'babes' in Christ, I am reminded of a program on the History Channel regarding Galileo's heresy trial. Of course, his telescope was pointed at the planet Jupiter and the moons thereof were in plain sight. The religionists [religious hacks] of the day believed that the earth was the center of the universe and all celestial bodies revolved around the earth. Hence, by way of their interpretation of scripture, it was impossible for any celestial body to revolve around anything but the earth. [BTW, there are still people today that believe the sun and all celestial bodies revolve around the earth.] So, when those religionists peeked into Galileo's telescope and saw those moons with their very eyes, most, if not all, denied the existence of Jupiter's moons and held to their religious-hack beliefs. So, each of us has to decide for ourselves whether we will be a 'babe' or an 'adult' in Christ. Can you see the moons of Jupiter?? | ||
| watchman_2 Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 52 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
xman3, Though I have never attended a P/C church, I have some knowledge thereof. My late wife was a hook-line-sinker Pentecostal in her youth. She bought into all the 'gibberish' rituals and brought into that church many people while informing them of the wonderful 'rapture' that would spare them the endtime tribulation. Well, there came a point in her life that she realized that 'gibberish' was nothing more then 'gibberish'. She was the same good and blessed person; but, she was no longer impelled to fall in line with the other congregation in speaking 'gibberish' or faking that she could interpret the 'gibberish' of others. She realized that such a large portion of time was spent on the 'gibberish' ritual and very little time teaching the word of God. So, she started asking questions of the pastor of that P/C church. Well, the Pastor could not satisfactorily answer her questions, which only led her to ask more questions of him. Eventually, his only response to her was, "Ye of little faith" [kind of like the P/C argument here]. Of course, she knew that 'faith' was not the issue -- but, the Pastor's lack of knowledge was the problem. She ceased participating in the weekly 'gibberish' ritual and recommended to her fellow congregants to do likewise. This was declared outright rebellion by the Pastor and my late wife was excommunicated from that church. You see, my late wife became an 'adult' in Christ and stopped thinking, understanding, and speaking as a child. The P/C church that she attended could not tolerate any questioning of their ritual. | ||
| watchman_2 Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 53 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
xman3,
You are plainly in error. If you believe that Peter is not recounting the events surrounding Christ, then the statements preceding Acts 10:44 must also be new too. Which, of course, means crucifying Christ again. The English rendering of the word 'these' in Acts 10:44 is improper and misleading. See Strong's - G5023 tauta tow'-tah Nomitive or accusative neuter plural of G3778; these things: - + afterward, follow, + hereafter, X him, the same, so, such, that, then, these, they, this, those, thus. It means 'these things'. In the context of what Peter was speaking, Acts 10:34-43, which is clearly a recounting of the life of Christ, the 'these things' is best rendered 'those same'. With the tense of verse 34-43 being past, there is little doubt that verse 44 is also past tense since verse 45 is also past tense. Your interpretation requires a jump from past tense, to future tense for verse 44, and back to past tense for verse 45. >>>>> You seemed to miss the entire point regarding the disassociation of the Acts 2 and 1 Cor. 12,14 tongues. If you agree that they are not the same, then you have no basis for claiming 'gibberish' = 'tongues'. Your only link [which has been debunked] to 'gibberish' is the wording 'other tongues' in Acts 2:4. Your only link to the repeat practice of the 'spiritual gift' of 'tongues' is Acts 12. Hence, absent a scriptural connection of the 'other tongues' in Acts 2 to the 'spiritual gift' of 'tongues' in 1 Cor. 12, you have no legitimate basis to support your 'gibberish' ritual as 'tongues'. >>>>>
I have never argued that the ability to speak and interpret languages is not a 'gift' of the Holy Spirit. So are all the other skills listed in 12:28. Of course, there is no connection whatsoever in 1 Cor. to 'gibberish' as a language or an 'unknown' language. [BTW, in Chapter 14, 'tongues' is not discussed as a 'gift'. We have already covered the inappropriateness of adding to the scriptures.] >>>>
There is no such concept in scripture as 'prayer language'. God knows your thoughts before you speak them. One does not have to verbalize a thing in order to pray. | ||
| arron Senior Member Username: arron Post Number: 3984 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 71.85.121.123 |
i have spoken in tongues as a gift and it was interperted. i have spoke in tingues whne i was praiseing GOD nd it was not to be interperted for i was talking to HIM i have a few times got in such a state of prayer that i began to pray in a tongues and it was also to GOD OR GOD praying through me by the power of THE HOLY GHOST | ||
| watchman_2 Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 54 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
arron, You give heed to seducing spirits. See 1 Tim. 4:1. There is no such thing as 'gibberish' = 'tongues'. | ||
| arron Senior Member Username: arron Post Number: 3985 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 71.85.121.123 |
it must be you watchman 2 who is giving heed to doctrnes and seducing spirits for im not. and for you to speak against tongues proves one thing you are givng heed to seducing spirits | ||
| watchman_2 Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 59 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
arron, I would appreciate it if you would never read or respond to my posts. You have a long track record here of never supporting any of your beliefs; yet, you continue attacking the beliefs of others. I really don't want to disturb your sleep for, IMO, God has placed the Spirit of Stupor on you for your own protection. See Rom. 11:8 -- sleep on! | ||
| xman3 Junior Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 47 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 76.247.134.85 |
watchman: I obviously disagree that Acts2 has to be established as what you call gibberish. I do not consider it the same thing as what we see in 1Cor, though I can't say absolutely for sure. You're preaching to the choir if you're saying they're different, and it makes no difference. Calling these manifestations of the Holy Spirit "skills" is incorrect. These are spiritual things, not skills. If you, or anyone else could explain those three verses I brought up, I would appreciate it. They, and the dilemnas I discussed, are where I encounter confusion reading tongues as always languages. Really, none of my questions or points were really addressed at all. These are the things I encountered in my thinking in studying this now. Making a leap to justify much of what I've seen is difficult to do. A lot just isn't supported by scripture, or apparently by church tradition. I see plenty of reason to question known languages and your view on what tongues are in addition to seeing the possibility of tongues being unknown languages. More possibility than evidence though. I don't see much support in 1Cor for personal prayer language in tongues though. I see, as I explained earlier, value in tongues to the speaker and the hearer, but I don't see it being practiced outside of this context except for Paul's one claim. It's true enough that if I am satisfied that tongues can be a language that God understands, but sounds like gibberish to you, that that will be sufficient for me. The simplest route to stop that is to prove that tongues always are languages, as opposed to a language or languages that must be spiritualy interpreted. Thus far, the points I made above, and the questions concerning those few verses are where I have the most problem accepting that premise. | ||
| watchman_2 Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 66 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
xman3, 1 Cor. 14:2 - One needs to go back to verse 1 to pick up the context - 1Co 14:1 Follow after charity, and desire spiritual, but rather that ye may prophesy. The word 'prophesy' - G4395 prophēteuō prof-ate-yoo'-o From G4396; to foretell events, divine, speak under inspiration, exercise the prophetic office: - prophesy. Two questions arise - 1. What inspiration? Of course, the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. 2. Speak to whom? Well, one has to go back to Chapters 12 to understand whom one needs to speak under inspiration to. 1Co 12:1 Now concerning spiritual, brethren, I would not have you ignorant. 1Co 12:2 Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led. Paul is reminding them that they used to be Gentiles following dumb [unspiritual] idols. 1Co 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. Paul instructs that one cannot declare Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit within them. 1Co 12:7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. There you have the purpose of the various skills allocated by the Holy Spirit and to whom the skill to 'prophesy' is directed. It is directed to 'withal'. 1Co 12:12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. The 'withal' is clearly identified as the many-membered body of Christ. 1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. There is no mistake as to whom the various skills, including gifts, are to be directed. It is to whomsoever hears the Word and believes. So, when we go forward to 14:1, we know that to whom we are to 'prophesy' is to the other many-membered body of Christ -- not to God. | ||
| watchman_2 Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 67 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
cont'd Hence, 14:2 becomes clear - For he that speaketh in a tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries. In the context of 'speaking under inspiration to the many-membered body', we can discern that the 'tongue' reference in this scripture speaks of a non-native language. Surely, God knows all of the languages of man and will understand when one speaks in any of mankind's languages. However, when the congregation does not understand the language one prophesies in, one's spiritual inspiration will be a mystery to them. This verse is clarified by Paul himself - Co 14:3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort. 1Co 14:4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church. In verse 3, it is made clear again that the purpose of 'speaking under inspiration' is for the betterment of the congregation. In verse 4, Paul explains verse 2 so as to leave no doubt. When one speaks in a language unknown to the congregation, only helps himself. However, the entire church is helped if one actually communicates to the congregation. 1Co 14:5 I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying. Paul makes it clear that it is more important to speak under inspiration than to speak languages. The exception being those that can interpret the various languages of people to edify the church. Bear was correct in his assessment of 'gibberish'. It does nothing for the furtherance of the many-membered body or for the edification of the ministry. (Message edited by watchman_2 on January 09, 2008) | ||
| watchman_2 Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 68 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
1 Cor. 14:9 - Verse 9 is simply the lesson to be learned from the analogy presented in verses 7-8, which is based upon the subject given in verse 6. 1Co 14:6 Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine? Again, the purpose of speaking tongues is to serve the many-membered body of Christ as declared in Chapter 12. Paul is saying that it is of no value to the brethren unless he conveys to them revelation, knowledge, prophesying [speaking under inspiration], and/or doctrine. If he speaks in a non-native language unfamiliar to the brethren, it will be of no use. Verses 7-8 are an analogy to the subject given in verse 6. 1Co 14:7 And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped? 1Co 14:8 For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? Verse 7 indicates that even lifeless things make sounds. But, it is our distinction of these sounds which give meaning to them. Verse 8 gives an example thereof. The call to battle was given by a trumpet sound. Unless the batallion understands what the trumpet sound means, they will not go fight. So, when we get to verse 9 - So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air. the wording 'so likewise ye' refers to the analogy given regarding the pipe, harp, and trumpet. Paul is simply informing them that if they don't speak a language the brethren can understand, the brethren will not know what one is informing them about. It will be like talking to the air. | ||
| arron Senior Member Username: arron Post Number: 3997 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 71.85.121.123 |
watchman 2 you dont want me to respond to your post about me. well that is a new one even for you ... but i will keep right on beliveing in tonguse as a gift from GOD. 1cor 14:39,40 says wgerefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues. let all things be done decently and in order.in our church we speak in tongues if it is a messege in tongues everybody get quit and then the interpertation follows. we do not rant or rave but follow GOD nd what HE teaches us to do may GOD bless you | ||
| watchman_2 Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 70 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
arron, It is ok for you to live in ignorance. I would never get in your way regarding your own choice. Rom. 11:8 makes it clear that God places that spirit on some for their own protection. So, please sleep on. | ||
| arron Senior Member Username: arron Post Number: 3999 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 71.85.121.123 |
if you will read verse 7 you will find that the election is not blinded and sice i belong to JESUS i am not blinded nor have the spirit of slumber may GOD bless you | ||
| watchman_2 Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 71 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
arron, If you don't have the spirit of slumber, then you need to get your head out of your backside when it comes to understanding scriptures. So far, all I can see from you is that your head is too far buried in Pentecostal dogma to ever see daylight. You are the most clueless person that I have come across at this site when it comes to understanding scripture. That is why I concluded that no one can be so stupid all of the time; therefore, you must have the spirit of slumber upon you. If you are going to debate, then you need to provide scriptural proof to support your positions. When you are proven wrong [and you have and will be again], you need to thank the other person for edifying you. If you stick to your same flawed beliefs after you have been proven wrong, then you have no credibility. People, like me, will just think you are a religious hack. So what will it be?? Are you a student of the Word of God or are you a religious hack? | ||
| arron Senior Member Username: arron Post Number: 4003 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 71.85.121.123 |
my head is free as is my soul and spirit. i have beeen born again by THE BLOOD OF JESUS THROUGH FAITH IN THAT BLOOD. i am going in the rapture and NOT with the antichrist either. ive got sense enough to know that there was only one adam and eve who were created on the sixth day and no more were the second man as am calls it is just a retelling of how he was created. there are no three earth ages with one where every one has a chance to be saved. there is aliteral hell that will last forever and there is a heaven that HAS AND WILL LAST FOREVER and only the saved are there now ( those who died in the faith ) satan is not there neither is the rich man the rich man is confined to hell satan is alive and at work in the hearts of men right now. i will be raptured and caught away with THE LORD WHEN HE RETURNS FOR HIS CHURCH WHICH IS HIS BODY. I BELIEVE IN AND PRACTICE ALL the gifts OF THE HOLY GHOST. I BELIEVE THAT BECAUSE JESUS CAME OUT OF THE GRAVE , AROSE I WILL TOO , IF you UNDERSTOOD SCRITPURE AND DIDNT TRY TO TAKE WHAT THIS ONE SAYS AND WHAT THAT ONE SAYS AND WHAT A GREEK OR A HEBREW SAID AND TAKE WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS you would be better off may GOD bless you | ||
| watchman_2 Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 72 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
Just as I thought -- religious hack! | ||
| turtle Senior Member Username: turtle Post Number: 1730 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 72.66.229.201 |
Watchman, sometimes God puts a fog over ones eyes for a purpose. Sometimes the purpose is unknown until a later time. I know for a fact the word says not to know what your left or right doing. Matthew 6:3 KJV (3) But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: I know out of context, but you know being a follower of Christ sometimes we do not know what we are doing our job is to obey God. I just thank God for alot of patient and understanding people. | ||
| watchman_2 Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 73 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
turtle, I have commented the same. It is also in Rom. 11:8. It is for one's own protection to have the fog over their eyes. If the fog is lifted a little -- they may blow their opportunity here in the flesh. Those that God protects this way will have their opportunity in the millennium to come. Hopefully, the good teaching during the Lord's Day will sink in. That is why I kindly asked him to stop reading and responding to my posts. It is better that he does not know so that God will not hold him accountable for his messed-up beliefs. We all respect his right to believe as he so chooses. But, that does not give him the right to run around and declare those with different beliefs to be in error--without proof. Each time he is asked for documentation, he states his beliefs again. I just want him to respect others to have their own beliefs without his criticism -- never supported with proof. There is Chinese proverb -- 'Empty tin makes loudest noise'. | ||
| turtle Senior Member Username: turtle Post Number: 1731 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 72.66.229.201 |
Amen! veiled for a reason. I just wish i get the rest of the fog off my eyes. | ||
| xman3 Junior Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 48 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 76.247.134.85 |
You make a distinction for some reason, between speaking under inspiration, and "languages" as you call them, tongues as they called in the Bible. Both are inspiration, and when interpreted, tongues are equal to prophecy in terms of edification. That was a pretty good explanation of that verse. Overall I can see much more clearly thus far how tongues (whatever we may think they are) when manifested in the church, are for edification and appear to often, if not always, be languages of someone present. I don't see anything so far to explain what I've seen and participated in concerning tongues in corporate prayer meetings though. It makes me wonder where some of these practices started and why. I don't automatically discount anything just because the Bible doesn't have a specific example, but there's some stuff that's quite a leap as we say. All things considered so far, I agree it is much more difficult to support pentacostal tongues using these verses than it is to support known languages. I remain puzzled by the other two verses (and my own additional thoughts on the one you addressed) and the fact that there is also the reality of interpretation. We may fundamentally disagree as to whether this is a "gift" or Holy Spirit manifestation, but I believe it is. This is not necessarry when simple translation is occuring. It could, of course, be a supernatural ability to hear it in a language and translate it, but then it would be like those cloven tongues. I believe as I explained earlier that the most proper understanding of tongues is not languages, but rather anything uttered by the organ of the tongue, with language implied. I did'nt make it up or have a pre-planned definition. That is how I see Strong's and it's context. Because of this, and my current views, it's not enough just to say gibberish can't be concluded. I see room for unknown languages, and I see good proof of known languages. I see problems with that strict view though, and that's why I am centering on them. Here is what I see thus far. Tongues, when operating in a public setting, should be orderly and interpreted so that others can be edified. If they are not interpreted, they still edify the speaker, but he should keep it between himself and God. I see equal value to a view defining tongues as known languages or as unknown languages. Actually, unknown languages fits better because of interpretation. The issue of praying in tongues outside of these gatherings is not addressed and I find a complete lack of support for most of what I've seen concerning public praying in tongues, and little support for a prayer language unless it is addressed concerning our speaking to God in verses 2 and 14-17. I find more holes in strictly using languages than I do using unknown languages, though I do not equate unknown languages with what you are generally calling gibberish. I view unknown languages as appearing to mean languages that ought best be interpreted for the edification of others also, or else kept to oneself and God. Outside of someone's personal opinion that languages must fit the linguistic parameters of a study like sammarin's or be an earthly known language, unknown and even strange sounding tongues fit just as well as known languages, and better in some ways. This does not prove every stammering utterance is tongues at all. It doesn't establish any of the p/c practices I've seen. Really, I see hardly anything resembling them in the Bible. I'm going to have to research a little and find out how some of these things came about. I'm forced to really wonder about that here. | ||
| xman3 Junior Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 49 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 76.247.134.85 |
You know watchman, addressing your comments about bear and maturity. I understand what you are saying concerning bear. He studied it out and made a choice based on what he found. When I study it out, I can really understand how all of the extreme excesses and extra Biblical practices of p/c churches would push him that way. I would hope you are not so vain to think maturity is measured by agreement with your own conclusions. Because you and I have fundamental disagreements as to what Biblical tongues are, TOTALLY ASIDE FROM THE GIBBERISH ISSUE, we can only go so far. In my view, you are wrong to relegate them to simple the skill of speaking and translating languages. This greatly hinders further establishing that languages must always be known languages, which is really the issue for me. You don't view it as a supernatural manifestation of the Holy Spirit, so your explanations don't address my questions always. If I, or anyone else just lazily arrived at our conclusions by listening to others and going on our tradition, perhaps we would be children in our understanding and practice. If one arrives at their conclusions through careful study and prayer, and they are different than our own, they are not necessarily the children. My view is that you are a real student of the word, and a credit to your group to boot. We greatly differ in some important areas where I believe you are as wrong as you believe I am. I know you are as convinced by scripturee as I am, so I do not think any more or less highly of myself in regards to you, nor do I ever feel the need to toss out scriptures or scriptural principles that hint that someone who disagrees with me doesn't measure up. You can file that away for personal meditation, because I'm sure you'll say how you are only edifying with the truth. I already believe that's what you are doing, and give you the appropriate credit, agreement or not. Bear's conclusions are somewhat reasonable and I tend to agree with most of them, except that I think tongues are for today and could be used properly. I can't say what that means to "the p/c religion". Tongues is a big part. | ||
| turtle Senior Member Username: turtle Post Number: 1732 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 72.66.229.201 |
xman, Think about this if you seen abuses it would cause a major effect, experience is half the battle. One almost has to lay experience down to discover what God truly speaks about in His word. That why things must be put in order as fact, faith and feelings in that order. | ||
| xman3 Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 52 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 76.247.134.85 |
turtle: I've seen abuses it appears, of tongues. I've not seen too many abuses of people concerning tongues. Mostly I see that a lot of what is accepted as normal and practiced regularly has very little Bible support. Tongues itself has plenty. In that sense I can see why p/c as a whole are indicted. I'm in about 95% agreement with easeltine though. Almost all healing, prophecy, and any tangible moving of the Holy Spirit is found in p/c churches. Misuse of tongues and all, there's something of the life and presence of God that I find there that I don't find in many places. Label it a feeling, or a personal preference, but that's how I feel about churches. I seek the perfect balance, but have yet to find it. To me, all of those things have a regular place in church and in our lives, and you won't find them where they are not believed or preached. I'm more of a clean up the mess and save the good stuff person than I am throw the whole group out. After all, I am "one of them", seeing as how I believe the same manifestations of the Spirit discussed in the Bible ought to be, and are occurring today./ | ||
| termin8d Advanced Member Username: termin8d Post Number: 795 Registered: 7-2005 Posted From: 218.161.3.149 |
Always enjoyed reading your posts Xman3, God bless. | ||
| turtle Senior Member Username: turtle Post Number: 1733 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 72.66.229.201 |
I agree xman, and yeah easeltine and I agree quite a bit as well. I do not think there is a perfect church. The Spirit moves even in non pc/c churches. I think sometimes people fail to see. I think the most unique service I ever seen took place in a pc/c church was one of total silence, until people testified. I have never been to a quaker service, but the way this service went i wonder if it would not of been very much like it. I do not think we can limit the move of God to pc/c churches. I do not think we can leave out others churches because there worship is different then what is normal to us. What is meaniful to one group may not be to another, yet we judge groups that traditions are different then ours. If I go to a catholic church i would hope I would still experience God in my heart, just as if i go to a pc/c i hope it not just emotional show, but inward one. I was raised baptist and service though still and calm and peaceful God still moved there. I think we limit God if we say God is only in one group of believers. | ||
| arron Senior Member Username: arron Post Number: 4005 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 71.85.121.123 |
turtle .. i do not know if you are refering to me when speaking about the veil that is iver ones eyes. but i do believe as i do and state so. watchman seems to want to spread his beliefs but doesnt want to hear mine. i know how i believe and you know how you believe. i used to be a baptist and went to their church regurall i was saved in the baptised church i was baptised in the baptist church i still have many of the doctrines of the baptist church that i hold to faithfully but as i studied (and i know i will be condemned for saying so ) the bible i saw there was more for me. i never spoke in tongues in the baptist church for they do not believe in it and i will not cause confusion. but when i found holiness i went to it and here i am today. i do not claim never and never will that my church is perfect for if it was i could not be a member for i would make it imperfect as i am yet imperfect but i am still going on to , as paul said to perfection. yes i worship different fromt the baptist now and i probally worship different than you or the others on this board. but that is my prevalige as it is theirs. this is a discussion board and is for all who want to discuss their beliefs and that is what i do as do all the others on here some agree some disagree some claim to be christian and will cuss or curse or write it out in the stars and astexis so that you can know what they mean. sure i cant write well on here sure i dont have a college education, sure i only went to the twelfth grade no i dont know greek or hebrew but i do know what the word OF GOD say according to the kjv which is all i read. if i dint know what some of the different religions belief on here are i would say so but i have made it always a point to listen to or to read what a denomanation says about themselves before i make a comment about them. i have studied books by mormons, jehovah wittness holiness (which some folks hate for person to mention) pentecostals charamatics independents methodist and different other denomanation. i have found that the holiness church is closer to the truth of the bible AS I UNDERSTAND IT, than any of the others. we all have different beliefs and say so watchman has his own you have yours i have mine and so do the others here but it is alway the pentecostals that are put down about anything they say. i d not accuse you of anything but was just wondering if you were talking about me. i do not have a viel over my face. it was removed when i gave my heart to JESUS many years ago. i have been SAVED ever since and will keep on bing saved till JESUS comes again , for HIS CHURCH of which i am a part may GOD bless you | ||
| watchman_2 Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 78 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
xman3,
Of course -- so does the Bible. The KJV renders 'speaking under inspiration' as 'prophesy' and 'languages' as 'tongues'. Different words have different meanings. In rightly dividing the Word, we need to keep them separate as well. The 'diversity [not just gibberish in addition to native language] of tongues' is simply one of the four types of 'gifts' bestowed upon some within the many membered body, which includes people throughout the world speaking many languages. I find it highly suspicious that the P/Cers place such emphasis on only two of the 'gifts' -- healings and tongues. Little or no emphasis is place on 'governments' and 'helps', which are equally part of the 'charismata'. The reason, IMO, is the so-called 'inspiration' which you mentioned. One can hardly claim any 'inspiration of the Holy Spirit' in day to day operations using one's 'charisma' of 'government' or 'help' to the brethren. Hence, I conclude that the P/Cers linkage of 'tongues' to 'inspiration of the Holy Spirit' is wholly inconsistent with 'charismata' -- and, hence, another proof that the 'gibberish' ritual is unbiblical.
Well, you do err here. There is nothing in scripture to correlate a 'gift' of the Holy Spirit to 'inspiration' of the Holy Spirit. Different words and different meanings. If you look at 14:5, it only equates 'prophesies' [speaking under inspiration] to interpreted tongues [understanding many languages] for the edification [betterment] of the church [many-membered body of Christ]. It does not mean that interpreted tongues is 'inspired'.
Of course. I cannot imagine anyone standing up in front of the congregation attempting to deliver an inspired message of a parable from Christ and speak in indiscernible utterances, like a barking dog, and expect anyone to understand. | ||
| watchman_2 Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 79 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
cont'd
I haven't really addressed the issue of 'interpretation' because I would think that it is patently obvious as to what I would say about it. How is that you conclude 'interpretation' is real? After all, you, yourself, do not know what your 'gibberish' means. Who is to say that the interpretor is not just faking it too? Whom are the interpretors -- are they other Christians or only Christians within the P/C sect? If the interpretor is a Christian, the Holy Spirit can communicate directly with the individual. Why does the Holy Spirit need to go thru a medium to convey a message? How is it that the clear context of tongues being languages spoken to the multi-lingual brethren then switches to a personal 'gibberish' interpretation? Obviously, as the context of tongues is languages in service of the brethren, likewise, interpretation thereof is of the many languages of the many-membered body of Christ. I will not address the remainder of your first post earlier today as you conjecturalize in effort to try to see legitimacy in speaking in 'gibberish'. As I stated a few times in the past, you will always conclude that 'gibberish' equals 'tongues' -- not because it is biblical, for, indeed the evidence is overwhelming that such ritual is not, but, because you are unwilling to alter your religious affilitation, which the proper conclusion from scripture impels one to do. There is not such thing as 'private' tongues or 'prayer language' in scripture. So, when you wonder how some of these practices get started, the Bible tells us -- they are traditions of man that make void the Word of Truth. Your 'gibberish' ritual, the fake interpretations, the fake healings [like Benny Hinn], Easter, rapture, born again, etc. are but a few. There are false practices of feet washing, women can't wear pants, women can't have short hair, wife must be subservient to husband, no woman can preach, infant baptism, etc. Only God knows how bad Christians have bastardized the Word in their so-called religious practices. Your practice is just one of many. | ||
| turtle Senior Member Username: turtle Post Number: 1734 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 72.66.229.201 |
Arron, I was talking about me, watchman was talking about you read the post more carefully next time. It like he also was talking about bear. | ||
| watchman_2 Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 80 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
xman3, Regarding Bear's testimony, you are certainly entitled to derive whatever conclusions you wish to reach therefrom. However, my reading thereof does not derive that Bear discontinued the P/C religion because of the excesses and abuses of the 'charismata' by some/many. It was clear to me that Bear left the P/C denomination because the practice of 'charismata', as performed within the P/C religion, did not fit historic and textal context. In layperson's terms, he is saying that the P/C 'gibberish' practice was unbiblical. His conclusion was derived from two general reasons. The first being the impossibility of justifying 'gibberish' as 'tongues' within the scriptures. The other reason being that there was no benefit to the ministry that resulted from 'gibberish' practice and the resulting 'spritual high'. I believe the only difference in Bear's position from mine is that I connect the 'spritual high' of the P/Cer to 'seducing' [Satanic] spirits as identified in 1 Tim. 4:1. Bear, at present, is not willing to make such a declaration.
Of course, I have never stated that. And, I have never stated that an 'adult' in Christ has anything to do with age. A person can go to church each week for decades and still be a 'babe' in Christ. Many churches teach the 'salvation' message week in and week out, despite the Bible's warning to refrain from this. A person may never receive the 'meat' of God's Word. I already indicated that Bear and I have had heated debate in the past and that we still do not see eye to eye on every issue. Yet, I described him as an 'adult' in Christ because he was able to objectively look at his own religion, see that the most prevalent practice thereof his religion was unbiblical, realize that he can no longer serve in such a religion predominated by unbiblical practice, and, despite the fact that he would not have the means to support his family, he was compelled to make a change. That is my definition of an 'adult' in Christ! Bear has my complete respect. >>>> I won't address the remainder of your second post this morning because it is simply more conjecturalization. The outcome of your study is foregone as I have previously posted. It is the difference between being a 'babe' or an 'adult' in Christ. If you review the meaning of 'gift', it should help you. It is a 'gratuity' or 'endowment' given by the Holy Spirit. It is given by the Holy Spirit upon acceptance. The use thereof and thereafter is determined by the receiver -- not by the Holy Spirit. The evidence that the 'gift' is given from the Holy Spirit is how it benefits the many-membered body of Christ -- not thru 'gibberish'. One would never speak an unknown language to edify the brethren. | ||
| arron Senior Member Username: arron Post Number: 4007 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 71.85.121.123 |
turtle im sorry i though it was you. may GOD bless you | ||
| turtle Senior Member Username: turtle Post Number: 1735 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 72.66.229.201 |
Arron, I think this passage might help you it is one of my favorites it talks about unity of faith. Ephesians 4. I believe we are all learning that is why factnet becomes an addiction for some of us. Its like a mega discussion about beliefs even if people disagree. Think about this one day every Christian will be in unity with one another. When I believe that will take place in heaven.For understanding and knowledge we will have complete. | ||
| turtle Senior Member Username: turtle Post Number: 1736 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 72.66.229.201 |
By the way Arron, many great scholars were not highly school educated, I think Einsten was one of them. | ||
| mcmstaff78 Junior Member Username: mcmstaff78 Post Number: 37 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 167.193.134.61 |
Er, Einstein graduated in 1900 from the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich (the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) with a degree in physics. True, he didn't "graduate" high school - but he learned all he could and decided to apply directly to the ETH. Please, list the "great scholars" who were not "highly (sic) schooled educated" and what they accomplished. | ||
| turtle Senior Member Username: turtle Post Number: 1737 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 72.66.229.201 |
Will one problem mcmstaff, my husband might if he seen a show on history, but I can not, history was my downfall. Some of it stuck and some it will you get the idea fell to the wayside or did it. Actually i have two years of college. Made a D in old testament class, and a C in new testament. I guess you can say i did not apply myself or maybe bordom. | ||
| arron Senior Member Username: arron Post Number: 4011 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 71.85.121.123 |
well i had considered going to a bible school wheni was younger and just saved but i did not have the money necessary to do so. so i learned the bible by listen to others and of course first of all by reading THE WORD OF GOD i thank GOD i never got mixed up in acult or cultic beheavor in all this time GOD has kept me and i praise HIM for that. i read enough OF GODS WORD THE BIBLE to know when something isnt right and then i now it too because of the decernment given to me by THE HOLY GHOST. i praise HIM for that may GOD bless you all | ||
| turtle Senior Member Username: turtle Post Number: 1740 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 72.66.229.201 |
Mcstaff maybe someone with the initial B. G. lol just talked to hubby. | ||
| oneway Junior Member Username: oneway Post Number: 46 Registered: 1-2007 Posted From: 69.30.157.124 |
xman3, don't ever let these people in here cause you to get confused. You already have the correct understanding of what tongues is in 1 Cor 14, and that is a heavenly supernatural prayer language. Some of these in here are trying to compare these tongues with the tongues in Acts 2. I wonder why Acts 2 doesn't mention needing an interpreter, but 1 Cor does? I wonder why, in Acts 2, that each person heard the marverlous works of God in their own language without the need for an interpreter, but in 1 Cor 14 no man can understand, unless there is an interpreter. I honestly don't believe your problem is what tongues are in 1 Cor 14, I think your problem is why these tongues would be necessary today. You have to consider what was happening during that time. Christ had just resurrected and eventually ascended unto the right hand of the Father in heaven. These gifts were sign gifts. They were necessary to get the church started. Remember, the finished New Testament was not avail at the time. Now we have the finished new testament, and now we have what was recorded, so now it's all about faith in God's Word. Either we believe what God's Word says or we don't. Sign gifts are no longer necessary, just like animal blood sacrifices are no longer necessary. Each served its purpose until that was which was perfect came. As far as the blood animals sacrifices, the perfect that done away with that was Christ. As far as the sign gifts, the perfect that done away with that, was the completed New Testament. | ||
| watchman_2 Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 83 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
oneway wrote:
LOL! The answer is quite obvious. All one has to do is read the scripture for what it is conveying instead of attempting to force a meaning out of them. Regarding the Pentecostal tongue, we can see that the Holy Spirit came upon the bystanders - Act 2:6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. . . Act 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. Act 10:45 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. Act 10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. So, there is no mystery why interpretation was not needed for the Pentecostal tongue. With respect to the 1 Cor. 14 tongues, the purpose of the tongue and to whom the gift is given is defined in Chapter 12 - 1Co 12:7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. 1Co 12:10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: 1Co 12:14 For the body is not one member, but many. The scriptures are abundantly clear that the gift of diversity of tongues is to serve the many-membered body of Christ. 1 Cor. 14 also addresses the multi-lingual body of Christ - 1Co 14:21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. Paul declares from the law that people of one language will speak [under inspriration] to people of other languages 1Co 14:22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe. Paul makes it clear again. Tongues are a sign to the unbeliever. However, the 'speaking under inspiration' serves only the believer. . . 1Co 14:26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying. 1Co 14:31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted. Paul is abundantly clear that the purpose of tongues is to 'prophesy' [which is speak under inspiration] in order to edify [not oneself, but the many membered body] so that all may learn and be comforted by the Word of God. Oneway's comment that there is a "supernatural prayer language" is complete hogwash. The scriptures prove oneway wrong. | ||
| turtle Senior Member Username: turtle Post Number: 1746 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 72.66.229.201 |
zek, I wonder why people try and make more of it then there is, and fail to recognize what it is all about sharing the good news. Nothing but stupid confusion. God bless. | ||
| easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1926 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 66.245.201.240 |
Acts 2:4 - "And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost and began to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." Also, see Acts 10:46 above. The 120 disciples were speaking in other languages. The disciples did not know the languages they were speaking in. Though the people there heard their own personal language from one of the 120 disciples. 1 Corinthians 14:2-5 - "For anyone who speaks in a tongues, (another language, or unknown tongues to the speaker), does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit, (or by the Spirit), But everyone who prophesies speaks to men for their strengthening, encouragement and comfort. He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church. I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, (or another language, or an unknown language to the speaker), but I would rather have you prophesy. He who prophesies is greater than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprests, so that that church may be edified." The person in these verses is speaking in a different language than they know, they don't know what the language is. Paul says that they are edifying themselves, and not that it is wrong to edify themselves. See the below verses where Paul instructs the Corinthians was to do with speaking in prayer in another language that they don't understand themselves. 1 Corinthians 14:13-19 - "For this reason the man who speaks in a tongue, (or another language, an unknown language to the speaker), should pray that he may interpret, (since he doesn't know what he is saying), what he says. For if I pray in a tongue, (unknown language to the speaker), my spirit prays, (the person is praying in another language by the Spirit), but my mind is unfruitful, (the person doesn't know what he is saying, it's in another language, or unknown tongue), So, what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, (the other language see above verse), but I will also pray with my mind, (my language that I know); I will sing with my spirit, (see above verse, singing in another, unknown, language), but I will also sing with my mind, (the language that I know), If you are praising God with your spirit, (unknown, or another language), how can one who finds himself among thos who do not understand say "Amen" to your thanksgiving, since he does not know what you are saying? (For the Pentecostal), You may be giving thanks well enough, but the other man is not edified, (because your are speaking in another language). I thank God I speak in tongues more than all of you, (Paul is saying that he speaks in more languages, in context unknown languages to the speaker). But in the church I would rather speak 5 intelligible words to instruct others than 10,000 words in a tongue, (more Scriptures for an out of order Pentecostal service)." Therefore: * It is very clear that the person was praying in another language that they themselves did not understand. * Paul calls this speaking in another language that they don't understand, praying in the spirit. * Paul instructs us to pray and sing in the spirit, in another language that we do not understand. * Paul says that this really should be done in pray at home. * Paul thank God that he speaking in more languages than the Corinthians, in context that is languages that is not understood by the speaker, and why it needs to be interpreted. | ||
| mcmstaff78 Junior Member Username: mcmstaff78 Post Number: 42 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 24.99.130.74 |
The scripture does not say that they spoke in languages they did not know. If you look at the Greek, "as the Spirit gave them utterance" applies to the verb "spoke". It is an assumption that the language was unknown to the individual. Now, I'm not saying it was not, but Acts 2 does not specify and there is room to interpret it either as a speaking miracle, a hearing miracle, or a message miracle, i.e. that the "inspired utterance" is the message they spoke rather than the method of transmission. For 1 Cor. 14, you insertions are not biblical and are precisely what is being debated. Alternative (and far older) interpretations have been offered in the thread on 1 Cor. 14. Clearly, in the context of 1 Cor. 12 & 14, the languages needed to be interpreted so that the hearers could understand the message and be edified, not the speaker. Without hearers, there is no purpose to tongues, whether the language is known or unknown to the speaker. | ||
| watchman_2 Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 90 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
easeltine, I already covered your inappropriate interpretations of the scriptures you posted. Please scroll up and review my posts to xman3 for the proper interpretation thereof. The Acts 2 Pentecostal 'tongue' reference is in no way related to the 1 Cor. 12, 14 'tongue' reference. Mcmstaff is absolutely correct in the post above. | ||
| easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1927 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 66.245.201.161 |
Watchman, It's just amazing to me! With all these posts I see nothing on 1 Corinthians 14:13-19 taken in it's full context. There doesn't seem to me to be a justification for interpreting differently than I have stated. The Apostle Paul is instructing us in these verses to pray and sing in the spirit with languages that we do not understand. He also is telling us to pray for an interpretation to the language that we are speaking in that we don't understand. Why else would we need to pray for an interpretation? | ||
| turtle Senior Member Username: turtle Post Number: 1747 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 72.66.229.201 |
Okay guys who study are you using? Are you enjoying yourself? | ||
| oneway Junior Member Username: oneway Post Number: 49 Registered: 1-2007 Posted From: 69.30.157.124 |
"The scripture does not say that they spoke in languages they did not know." mcm, I believe it does. Look at vs 5-12 closely. 5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. 6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. 7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? 8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? 9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, 10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. 12 And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this? I believe that there are enough clues in those verses alone, that those speaking in tongues were speaking languages unknown to them. Otherwise, why did this multitude marvel over this? Would you really marvel if a bilingual person that knew your language , fluently spoke your language? Or would you marvel at someone who had never spoken your native language in their life, suddenly and fluently speak your language? | ||
| turtle Senior Member Username: turtle Post Number: 1748 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 72.66.229.201 |
You know even with english there is many dialects. There be no way to speak all the languages correctly. Maybe I should take up a new language. Sign Language might be best for a while.  | ||
| easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1928 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 66.245.201.37 |
Oneway, That's the way I take those verses. Also, remember the following verse: Acts 2:13 - "Some, however, made fun of them and said, "They have had too much wine." The reason they were making fun of the 120 was that they were all speaking in different languages that were unlearned. This is what an independent, non-denomination, souce, The Quest Study Bible, says regarding 1 Cor. 14:2-4, and I think it is the better interpretation of the Scriptures: "The person speaking in tongues speaks to God. So the speaker edifies himself or herself with this gift of the Holy Spirit, gaining in a supernatural way greater assurance of God's love and power. In a related way, the church can be edified by an utterance in tongues -- just as by prophecy -- if it can be interpreted for the congregation (v. 5). Some things that are real are beyond the rational mind. A similar passage, for instance, says that the Spirit communicates our needs to God through groans that cannot be expressed in ordinary speech (Romans 8:26)." | ||
| turtle Senior Member Username: turtle Post Number: 1750 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 72.66.229.201 |
Easeltine who puts out Quest Bible study? I have not seen that one. | ||
| easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1929 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 66.245.201.37 |
It is also interesting to note that Charles Ryrie and some of the other Dispensationalists do not disagree with my interpretation of speaking in tongues from the Scriptures. MCM, Paul clearly gives the purpose of Tongues for the individual praying with them in the Scriptures I gave - MINUS - my attempt to make people see what clearly Paul is stating in those Scriptures. vs. 4 says you are edifying yourself, and vs. 16 says you are praising God with your spirit. One is giving thanks to Almighty God in the different language, for other it plainly says that one should pray for the Gift of Interpretation of the language. | ||
| mcmstaff78 Junior Member Username: mcmstaff78 Post Number: 43 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 24.99.130.74 |
Oneway, you quoted the key verse but you don't see it? 8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? The NKJV makes it a bit more clear, ""And how is it that we hear, each in our own language in which we were born?" The case can very easily made that the miracle was in the hearing. They don't say "how is it these men are all speaking languages other than Aramaic (or Hebrew)" but "how is it that we hear..." Your observation reminds me of the old proverb "there is none so blind as those who will not see". Modern bible study notes are meaningless. The "Quest Bible" was undoubtedly put together by a bunch of Charismatics. The note is pure P/C propaganda and demonstrates the dangers of "study bibles". | ||
| easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1930 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 66.245.201.37 |
Turtle, The Quest Study Bible was put out by Zondervan. It's a Bible that "was made with the combined efforts of Leadership and Christianity Today and scores of contributors, the study helps in the Bible tackle difficult questions that you've always wanted answered but never had a chance to ask." | ||
| turtle Senior Member Username: turtle Post Number: 1751 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 72.66.229.201 |
I do have alot of questions and not alot of answers sometimes. It funny how one can get trapped by questions of one's faith. I have learned though some answers are hidden in the heart. Been there but to zealous for info to see it. Thanks for the information when I get some money maybe I will try and get a copy of it. | ||
| easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1931 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 66.245.201.37 |
MCM, The "Quest Study Bible" is not Charismatic. Here is what that good old "Charismatic" Matthew Henry said about Act 2 "They began to speak with other tongues, besides their native language, though they had never learned any other. They spoke not matters of common conversation, but the word of God, and the praises of his name, as the Spirit gave them utterance, or gave them to speak apophthengesthai - apophthegms, substantial and weighty sayings, worthy to be had in remembrance." | ||
| mcmstaff78 Junior Member Username: mcmstaff78 Post Number: 45 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 24.99.130.74 |
Ease, again, there is room for differing interpretations of the scripture. It may a speaking miracle, but it may be a hearing miracle. As for Quest, I'd have to see a list of the compilers. BTW, for my response regarding interpreting 1 Cor. 14, see here. I simply don't have the energy to rehash it all over again. There is no "prayer language", if "tongues" are languages not learned by the speaker, they are certainly not the pseudo-language gibberish practiced by P/Cs, and the importance of them is in what they do for the hearers not the speakers. | ||
| turtle Senior Member Username: turtle Post Number: 1752 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 72.66.229.201 |
Easeltine do you think it as important how one spoke or the effect it had on those around them? | ||
| turtle Senior Member Username: turtle Post Number: 1753 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 72.66.229.201 |
I did not think matthew henry was charasmatic?? | ||
| easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1932 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 66.245.201.37 |
Quest Study Bible's General Editor was Marshall Shelley, who was the Editorial vice president of Christianity Today. It's a long list of people. Most of the statements give both ideas in Christianity. For example, regarding Acts 2:2-4: "Could this happen again? Some believe what happened on the day of Pentecost was unique--it happened only once, they say, and we should not expect it to be repeated. Others claim it can happen again in a person way to those who surrender to God's Spirit. Specific features of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit never occurred again in Scirpture precisely the same as in Acts 2. The Gifts of the Spirit, however, are mentioned in some of the New Testament letters (Romans 12:6-8; 1 Cor. 12:1-11; 1 Peter 4:10)." See, that's a balanced, politically correct, not coming down one side or the other comment. As for the interpretation of 1 Cor. 14 there is no need for me to review all that junk. My mind is made up that the Scriptures plainly say to me what I posted in post #1926. The books on my bookshelf that deals with this subject agrees with me also. | ||
| turtle Senior Member Username: turtle Post Number: 1754 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 72.66.229.201 |
I agree easeltine, my mind is like yours I have come to a point I do not even want to debate about tongues, but I do find it interesting to see other scholars perspective. I think in my heart I had the answer all along, just got a little confused. Devil does love to confuse people. Thanks for your help and all the others that were trying to help. | ||
| oneway Member Username: oneway Post Number: 51 Registered: 1-2007 Posted From: 69.30.157.124 |
"The case can very easily made that the miracle was in the hearing. They don't say "how is it these men are all speaking languages other than Aramaic (or Hebrew)" but "how is it that we hear..." mcm, I notice that you are putting emphasis on hearing. So do you mean hearing like 'those who have ears to hear', that type of hearing? Or since vs 11 tells us that they are hearing the wonderful works of God spoken in their language, that this is the miracle in the hearing? Why can't all of these be true that you stated as possibilities(but Acts 2 does not specify and there is room to interpret it either as a speaking miracle, a hearing miracle, or a message miracle)? Have you ever considered that there might be more than one miracle being manifested here? Afterall we are talking about God. God is not confined to our finite understanding of the way things might be done. What might seem illogical to us may very well be logical to God. (Message edited by oneway on January 12, 2008) | ||
| xman3 Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 54 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 76.247.134.85 |
That's a good viewpoint ease. That is how I see it, especially after studying it here. For the most part it's a unique occurance that we can get some principles from, but not much more. As for 1Cor 12-14, it clear to me tongues are a language unknown to the speaker. They edify oneself, but are primarily , in the church, to edify others. Unknown language could be Chinese, or it could be a language only God understands. There is room for both, though I agree with watchman that these spiritual interpretations are real subjective. I've seen this occur many times, primarily with my tongues being interpreted, and I get uneasy. Essentially, to justify praying in tongues and especially the corporate prayer stuff I've done using these verses is impossible. The connection has to be made between Paul saying praying in the Spirit and other verses concerning this. There is a certain amount of faith in doing this, as the verses aren't definitive, but to claim that these are known languages, especially known or understood by the speaker, is unworkable scripturally. This is partly where those darn experiences get in the way. People who believe they will speak in tongues, making this leap of faith, often do. This may or may not line up with church tradition and practice, I don't know, but it does line up with a view of scripture which says tongues is an unknown language. Nowhere do I see anything indicating this is a make or break issue to anyone. As a matter of fact, if someone does not believe tongues are for today, then this ought to be a very minor thing as limiting it to languages in a meeting makes it quite insignificant, especially with the prevelance of prophecy. For the tongue talker it has many benefits and a place of importance, but nothing to do with salvation or is it some indication of the Holy Spirit versus someone who doesn't. | ||
| turtle Senior Member Username: turtle Post Number: 1755 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 72.66.229.201 |
Many miracles would be more correct. But I get caught up with the fact that the Holy Spirit spoke the wonderful works of God. Wonderful works. Proves what the Holy Spirit speaks of. That it is truly the Holy Spirit, not a magicians trick. I doubt the question was to me but I am answering my thoughts anyway. | ||
| xman3 Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 55 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 76.247.134.85 |
I'll say this. Of all of the stuff watchman presented, the argument concerning cloven tongues and the miracle of hearing seems best. I have no problem at all with that view. I've enjoyed hearing the other sides reasons. I've also enjoyed being told how arrogant we p/c are, all the while being belittled and dismissed by the accusers. That's funny. Wading through the extra commentary though, I think tongues are here to stay and argue about untill the end because the only real arguments aginst them are "why do we need them", and "they ceased", and "they are only languages". None of these are supported enough to dismiss the reality that tongues are an unknown language to the speaker. How this translated to some p/c practices is a mystery to me, but it's not that great a leap to say praying in tongues (between oneself and God) is scriptural. The best left is to argue that the utterances are not actually language (known or unknown), and this opinion is just as subjective as my opinion that tongues can be a different language than we know. Maybe sammarin's stuff proved something, maybe it didn't. I find the well studied detractor to have generally good reasons for their opinion, and wish them well. One day, we will certainly find out the absolute truth of these things, and it won't come from facnet. | ||
| watchman_2 Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 91 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
xman3,
That has never been my argument at all! My argument is that we do need them and they have never ceased. However, the gibberish, which the P/Cers claim is 'tongues', is a farce. Gibberish is completely unbiblical as I have thoroughly proven. The Biblical context of 'tongues' is human languages, not gibberish, that are used to prophesy and edify the many-membered body of Christ. P/Cers efforts to force the scriptures to fit their gibberish ritual always fall short. | ||
| easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1933 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 66.245.201.244 |
Charles Ryrie - see http://www.theopedia.com/Charles_C._Ryrie Known for the Ryrie Study Bible, years Dean of Dallas Theologican Seminary, a Dispensationalist that believes that the Gifts of the Holy Spirit have in the main ceased. An anti-Pentecostal/Charismatic. One of his books is called, "The Holy Spirit." In this book he says the following about the Gift of Tongues: Tongues (1 Cor. 12:10) Tongues are the God-given ability to speak in another language. In the recorded instances in the bood of Acts the languages of tongues seemed clearly to be foreign languages. There is no doubt that this was true at Pentecost, for the people heard in their native languages; and it seemed to be the same kind of foreign languages that were spoken in the house of Cornelius (for Peter says that this was the same thing that occured at Pentecost, Acts 10:46; 11:15). The addition of the word "unknown" in 1 Corinthians 14 has led many to suppose that the tongues displayed in the church at Corinth were an unknown, heavenly language. If the word is omitted, then one would normally think of the tongues in Corinthians as the same as those in Acts; i.e., foreign languages. This is the natural conclustion. Against this view stand 1 Corinthian 14:2 and 14 which seem to indicate that the Corinthian tongues were an unknown language." Watchman, MCM, Ezekiel, (wherever you are), and even Bear, in your zeal to disprove the Gift of Languages, or the Gift of someone speaking in a Language unknown to them you have outdone the Dispensationalist that Gifts of the Holy Spirit have ceased. Your interpretations are not shared by scholars. I have just been showing you that your interpretations are not shared by A. Matthew Henry, B. Charles Ryrie, and C. The Fundamentalists of The Quest Study Bible. It is my view that you have forced the Scriptures and they are of private interpretation, not shared by Bible Scholars. | ||
| xman3 Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 56 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 76.247.134.85 |
Yes watchman. Some of the things I refer to weren't things you said. I have to agree partly with you. After studying it hard, there really isn't a heck of a lot to support praying in tongues. Many of the things practiced don't seem to be in the Bible. Based on 1Cor14:2, 14-17, and 15:28 and the fact that tongues is a language unknown to the speaker, there is room for a language that is only necessary for God to understand. No, that doesn't prove that every thing called tongues is true, but I believe it doesn't discount everything not understood either. Turning those vague references, which are somewhat speculative at best in supporting personal praying, does require s certain amount of faith, but that is where experience which lines up with scripture is helpful. Some, like bear, decide their experiences don't line up with the word. Some, like myself decide their experiences do line up with the Word. Not all though. I have to agree that Acts2 is a miracle of hearing. Your explanation has me convinvced that that is a better view of that incident. The corporate prayer I participated in doesn't have any support. Ongoing personal prayer is sketchy, but not as great a leap as I thought you fellows would prove it to be. I believe that tongues has withstood scrutiny here, particularly in the face of any attempt to establish they have ceased. No, they can't be proven by me, but neither can they be shown to be anything other than an unknown language, which leaves the door open at the very least. Noone has effectively shown they are always known languages, because they are not. The p/c religion and all of it's practices would be hard pressed to stand up to much debate on my part, but I never intended to defend them. Tongues is all in all a small part of our lives for most, and totally insignificant to a non tongue talker. For some it's a bigger part of their life and church, but some or all of us can always use some correction in many areas I imagine. | ||
| bear Senior Member Username: bear Post Number: 1067 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 66.227.244.201 |
Eastline, I believe that the so-called "prayer language" tongues are incorrect, not those described by C.R. 1 Cor. 14:2, 14 are not proof of an "unknown" tongue, especially when taken within the context. Most scholars agree that speaking in tongues is real, though in opposition to those practiced within Pentecostalism. Your statement: It is my view that you have forced the Scriptures and they are of private interpretation, not shared by Bible Scholars. makes for an interesting counter-comment: 1. My view is shared by the scholars. It is reputable scholars that helpped me draw my conclusion. 2. The P/C church has won the blue ribbon on "private interpretation" on many doctrines, especially those concerning the Holy Spirit. 3. Reputable scholarship has shed a bright light on these private interpretations, and as a result, the P/C world has gone into overdrive in an attempt to defend these doctrines and discredit the scholarship. | ||
| easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1937 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 66.245.201.120 |
Bear, What I was showing is that most Bible scholars do not share the idea of Acts 2 being a "miracle of hearing." For that example I gave Matthew Henry. If you could show me some Bible scholars that would state it is a miracle of hearing I would be interested. On the interpretation of praying in the spirit, being praying in an unknown language by the speaker I gave, "The Quest Study Bible", and Charles Ryrie. My point about Ryrie is that if you read his 2nd paragraph he is not stating as a absolute that one could not get the Pentecostal interpretation from 1 Cor. 14, he states: "Against this view stand 1 Corinthian 14:2 and 14 which seem to indicate that the Corinthian tongues were an unknown language." Please suggest alternative Bible Scholars that have a different viewpoint. I read Matthew Henry, and he is one that sounds like he has a different viewpoint. Who is another modern Bible Scholar that is taking the alternative viewpoints that are being presented here on FACTNet? I have attempted to give my "Fundamentalist Resources", all the other books I have would be considered Charismatic/Pentecostal and therefore be rejected by all of you. I simply would like to know the other resources you are looking at. On The Baptism of the Holy Spirit being a secondary experience, I have given Charles Finney, D.L. Moody, R.A. Torrey, E.G. White, Rees Howells, and Evans Roberts all as examples that believed in the Baptism of the Holy Spirit being an additional blessing to salvation before Pentecostalism. I have given historical evidences of Gifts of the Holy Spirit and Speaking in Tongues before Pentecostalism. From the 1800's I gave around a dozen incidents. John 20 and Acts 2 Saved, Indwelling, and then Baptism of the Holy Spirit seems to be obvious to me to support a secondary experience involving the Holy Spirit after salvation. Even Ryrie would agree with me that the Holy Spirit can fill you after you are saved. Bear, as far as I can tell I keep quoting the Bible Scholars, (all with reference to the quotations), give historical evidences, and all I get in response is people's private interpretations of Scripture. That's all I get from you guys is a bunch of private interpretations with no reputable Bible Scholars - Except for TATM. | ||
| bear Senior Member Username: bear Post Number: 1068 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 66.227.244.201 |
Eastline, I can sense yout frustration, and I can sympathize. It is frustrating when your sources are discredited. I feel the same when non P/C sources receive the same treatment. 1. I do not believe that Acts 2 was a hearing miracle. 2. My mention of reputable scholars is not to imply that those you mentioned are laking in that area, though I may disagree with their interpretation of 1 Corinthians 12 and 14. This is a result of their Pentecostal background, and has the tendemcy to be bias. I love Matthew Henry, Charles Finney, D.L.Moody, J.H Hertz, F.F. Bruce, Gordon Fee and others. I do not agree 100% with all of their teachings on certain subjects, for they do not all agree either. My point was more along the lines of interpretation, or should I say, your accusation (pardon me if this seems harsh; it is not meant to be) of those who do not hold to the P/C interpretation as the only ones who have a "private interpretation". This is bit unfair and bias in my opinion. It is also typical of the P/C world. We can all point to examples in history of practices that support our belief, yet may be bogus to those who believe a different way. There are an equal amount of scholars who support a non P/C view, and their scholarship always seems to be discredited. That seems to be, as I mentioned, bias and unfair. Actually, you and I are scholars, which means "student". Usually I prefer the term Theologian to describe the people whose writings and scholarship we hold dear. For the record, I believe that the Holy Spirit fills us after salvation, even though I abhor the practices of the P/C world. The key word is practices. This filling is in accordance with Acts 1:8. The reason is for "power" to be a witness for Christ. Also, the term "dunamis" can better be defined as "ability". A close study of this word shows this definition to be more usuable within the context of the verse. You may be mixing up some of my comments with others, for there are statements that you have accused me of making which I have never mentioned. | ||
| easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1941 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 66.245.201.120 |
Bear, Maybe, I was a bit overzealous in including you with others, I said, "even Bear". At least you believe that one can be Filled with the Holy Spirit after salvation. The point I am saying is that I am quoting NON-PC Bible Scholars to prove my "PC" points, and nobody is coming back with any notable Bible Scholars to prove their points. I mean, it's like these interpretations that are being thrown out are being disagreed with by NON-PC's that I am quoting. We give examples throughout history of Gifts of the Holy Spirit, yet the Hyper-Dispensationalist types reject history because they say it is "corrupted" by the Catholic Church. You bet I am frustrated, because I don't see anybody giving NON-PC notable Bible Scholars disputing anything I am putting out there, only my NON-PC notable Bible Scholars agreeing that my P/C interpretation might be Truth. | ||
| turtle Senior Member Username: turtle Post Number: 1761 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 72.66.229.201 |
Easeltine, are you aware of any church group that actually teach church history with Bible principals beside schools and colleges. I know some ministers including mine uses some scholars and quotes them, but in general unless you know church history like you know your Bible it is impossible to use these examples. You are highly educated whether school or by personal study. | ||
| turtle Senior Member Username: turtle Post Number: 1763 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 72.66.229.201 |
Have you ever consider this unless Christian families and churches begin to teach it no one else well. It need to be assessible and learnable in easy to learn formats. | ||
| easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1943 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 66.245.201.120 |
Turtle, It's a little bit on the expensive side, but http://www.thechristians.ca/company_page.html have made some pretty good Christian Hisory Books. | ||
| turtle Senior Member Username: turtle Post Number: 1766 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 72.66.229.201 |
I probably can not afford it, but i will take a look at it. Thank you. | ||
| turtle Senior Member Username: turtle Post Number: 1767 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 72.66.229.201 |
I taken a look, something worth checking into at a later date. | ||
| easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1945 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 66.245.201.57 |
Bear & MCM, For example, check out where MCM is coming from. I have heard stories of Charisamatic Orthodox Churches turning the lights off to allow the angels to come in and light the oil lamps in the Church. I don't know if it is true angels or not? The point is that there are Charismatic Orthodox Churches that would totally reject his interpretation of speaking in tongues since they are practicing the P/C definition. It goes farther than that. I have given here examples of Orthodox Church Fathers that believed in the P/C definition of speaking in tongues - St. Pachomius. I will go one step further. Based on what I know of the mysticism in the Orthodox faith, (praying through Icons, etc.), I don't think MCM can find one single Orthodox theologian agreeing with his interpretation of saying it is definite that all P/C speaking in tongues is false. That's the challenge I am giving him. I think MCM won't be able to find one notable Orthodox theologian to be so dogmatic in rejection of all P/C speaking in tongues as MCM is. | ||
| easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1946 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 72.164.43.195 |
There is a billion Roman Catholics, name one Roman Catholic Bible Scholar as dogmatic against P/C as you guys are. No, the past two Popes would be on the P/C side. Now go to Protestants, and name them, not Charles Ryrie, maybe John Mac Arthur, though in his Commentary even Mac Arthur cannot state from 1 Cor. 13 that all the Gifts have ceased as a definite stance. Indeed, I don't think Mac Arthur would agree with this Interpretation bit at Act 2 either. | ||
| watchman_2 Intermediate Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 105 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
xman3,
That is not a fact! The word 'unknown' was added by the religious hacks of those days that the renderings were made. If you simply delete the word 'unknown' and read the scriptures again in context, you will get a different understanding for what Paul is conveying. If the word 'tongues', itself, is not defined by some attached adjective, the reader is forced to understand the context of that which is spoken so that the reader understands what specific 'tongues' Paul is identifying. What you have done is completely inapproriate and invalid scholarship. You have taken the added [not in manuscrits] word 'unknown' and forced it on the context of the scriptures. Proper interpretation is the opposite approach. As I detailed in my exegesis of 1 Cor. 14:2, the context of 'tongues' in this chapter is for prophesying to and edifying the many-membered body of Christ, which consists of many people speaking many different languages. If one felt compelled to alter these scriptures by adding an adjective to define 'tongues', the proper adjective should have been "not-native" instead of 'unknown'. P/Cers have taken an unverified English-rendered scripture and made a religion out of it. With respect to the latter part of your above quote, the scriptures even speak against talking to God in your so-called 'unknown' tongue - 1Co 14:27 If any man speak in a tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. 1Co 14:28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God. Under the P/C interpretation, there should be no 'gibberish' prayer language because there is no interpreter present. What it actually means is that, when one speaks in a foreign language to another, there should be others present that also know that language to ensure that it is properly understood and conveyed as intended. If there is no interpreter whom can conveying back and forth between the two languages, then an individual should not attempt to speak that foreign language in church due to the possibility of mistatement. In such event, speak to oneself and to God.
I really beg to differ here. As the purpose of tongues has clearly been demonstrated to be the edification of the many-membered body of Christ, one is hard-pressed to justify how an individual is edifying anyone in gibberish when that individual has no clue what they are saying. | ||
| watchman_2 Intermediate Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 106 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
cont'd It seems to me that your reasoning assumes that it is the Holy Spirit which is doing the edifying -- not the individual speaking gibberish. Such concept/teaching of the P/Cers is also falacious in that, in order to consider that valid, one has to rely upon the Pentecost Day tongue of Acts 2, in which they spoke and others heard what the Holy Spirit gave utterance to be communicated. There is no such mention of the Holy Spirit speaking thru an individual in the tongues of 1 Cor. 12, 14. In fact the 'diversity of tongues' is called a 'gift' of the Holy Spirit. It is distributed among the many-memebered body of Christ. If it is a 'gift', it does not need to be continually given to you each time you speak gibberish -- you should already have it. If one maintains correct scriptural context and makes the distinction between the Pentecostal tongue of Acts 2 and the 'gift of diversity of tongues' in 1 Cor. 12, 14, one would see there is no place in the Holy Spirit speaking through an individual -- using them as a medium to convey a message to another. In effect, you are demeaning the gift of the Holy Spirit [committing the unpardonable sin of blaspheming the Holy Spirit according to easeltine] by suggesting that the Holy Spirit requires mediums [P/Cers] to accomplish it's goals in conveying messages. If the Holy Spirit wants to convey a message to any Christian, the Holy Spirit, within that Christian, can do it directly. You have no scriptural support indicating that a spiritual medium is required. Accordingly, I see that the tongues of 1 Cor. 12, 14 would exclude 'gibberish' as there is no support therein for mediums for the Holy Spirit. | ||
| watchman_2 Intermediate Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 107 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
easeltine,
On the other thread, I freely admit that I don't read anything from the links that you post regarding the works of those men. As Bear as elaborated, there are sources that speak out otherwise. Frankly, IMO, I find such efforts to discuss/debate Bible truths, based upon one's interpretation of whom is a 'scholar' or credible 'theologian', completely meaningless. I dismiss all such comments, on either side of an issue, as unfruitful bantering -- often the result of poor Bible literacy. Since we have the most credible source of information one could have, the Bible, right in front of our noses, it seems to me that the best approach to document one's position is not from the exegesis of others, but directly from the Word of God. So, if I frustrate you, I will say -- GOOD! | ||
| turtle Senior Member Username: turtle Post Number: 1769 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 72.66.229.201 |
Have you ever consider that the Bible is one thing most Christian agree on there is always that percentage that do not agree with the truth of the Bible but those that do is where understanding comes from. If one teaches scripture as it should be taught historically and in context you still will get different meanings, but the correct context and history. (Message edited by turtle on January 14, 2008) | ||
| easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1948 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 72.164.43.195 |
"[committing the unpardonable sin of blaspheming the Holy Spirit according to easeltine] by suggesting that the Holy Spirit requires mediums [P/Cers] to accomplish it's goals in conveying messages." "On the other thread, I freely admit that I don't read anything from the links that you post..." It's obvious that he doesn't read anything that I post, or he lies about what I posted, or he would not have stated that this is what I believe regarding Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. | ||
| watchman_2 Intermediate Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 108 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
easeltine, I apologize -- you did clear up that you did not agree with the predominant P/C belief, thereby opting for Billy Graham's [erroneous] definition. I should have stated in my comment the 'predominant P/C belief according to easeltine' instead. | ||
| easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1949 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 72.164.43.195 |
Ok Watchman, I realize from the other post that you may have stated that before I was more clear on the subject. Just for the record - I do not like the predominant P/C belief for obvious reasons. | ||
| xman3 Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 58 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 76.247.134.85 |
watchman: You wasted a lot of time writing about something I never did or said. I no more have to add unknown, than I would to add known where scripture refers to known. It's not a word added here or there. It is the obvious meaning of the word tongues. Unknown languages. Not known by the speaker. If the Holy Spirit wants to convey a message to any Christian, the Holy Spirit, within that Christian, can do it directly. You have no scriptural support indicating that a spiritual medium is required. Therefore no need for teachers, pastors, or your commentary here. Ridiculous reasoning. Same list as apostles, teachers, prophecy, etc... Oh yeah, there's tongues. How wonderful it would be if the Holy Spirit conveyed His message so clearly to us. And healed us every time, and saw no believer go hungry or be poor, or any of the other things that so many need and desire. Yes, if only it were exclusively up to him and we had no part. It isn't the Holy Spirit who needs the help here. It's the people. Your fundamental mistaken idea these are skills rather than the spiritual things scripture refers to them as, is a convenient, yet completely wrong argument concerning tongues and interpretation. I have to agree that not all p/c things are supported, but there is plenty of evidence that tongues are a language unknown to the speaker, and known to God. You can call that whatever you want. I do believe tongues is manifested as the Holy Spirit wills at times, and at our desire at times. I feel both are established in 1Cor 12-14. Neither are independent of the Holy Spirit, ever. Tongues apart from the Holy Spirit are something else. Gibberish spoken and called tongues is just that. Gibberish. It has nothing to do with what the Bible does say about tongues, except it's something you can guess is not really tongues. You keep trying to make me out to be saying things I not only don't say, but don't even believe. My goal here is not to establish that what you call gibberish or what p/c churches do is right. My goal is to find out what tongues are. I found out. They are languages unknown to the speaker, but known to God, and that includes earthly and any language God understands. Whether that justifies any individuals prayer practices or not, that will have to be up to them. | ||
| turtle Senior Member Username: turtle Post Number: 1770 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 72.66.229.201 |
Okay i get it now what? You all do write a bit better then me. | ||
| mcmstaff78 Junior Member Username: mcmstaff78 Post Number: 48 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 167.193.134.61 |
Ease, there are no "Charisamatic Orthodox Churches" in the sense that you mean the word "charismatic". The Orthodox Church rejects the whole "charismatic" movement as false and not representative of the true Grace of the Holy Spirit. You can "hear" lots of things (and P/Cers usually do) but that doesn't mean they really exist. Also, I think y'all have misinterpreted my position. I have simply stated that Acts 2 lends to either interpretation. Oneway, I actually lean to the both position myself. I readily acknowledge that the biblical gift of tongues may be a language miracle whereby a person speaks in a language he has never learned - however, these are human languages intended to communicate an inspired message to an individual or group of individuals. However, the scriptures may be interpreted in different fashions and be perfectly consistent, as Watchman has pointed out. There are some quite convincing papers out there presenting the view that "tongues" is a language known to the speaker but either a} not Hebrew (vis. Pentecost in Acts 2); or b} not the predominant language of the local church (1 cor 12 & 14). Again, however, I have no problem with the language miracle interpretation. This does not, however, make the case of the P/C practice of "tongues", which is both not language and not biblical in its practice. P/C "tongues" is pseudo-language (as Watchman says, "gibberish"). The are no language miracles going on in P/C services or in the "prayer closets" of the individual P/C adherent praying in his pseudo-language. | ||
| turtle Senior Member Username: turtle Post Number: 1772 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 72.66.229.201 |
 I get it what now? | ||
| easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1950 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 72.164.43.195 |
"The Orthodox Church rejects the whole "charismatic" movement as false and not representative of the true Grace of the Holy Spirit." "The charismatic renewal movement in the Eastern Orthodox Church never exerted the influence that it did in other mainstream churches. Individual priests, such as Fr. Eusebius Stephanou of the Greek Orthodox Orthodox Archdiocese of North America, founder of the Brotherhood of St. Symeon the New Theologian, Fr. Athanasius Emmert of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese and Fr. Boris Zabrodsky of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in America, founder of the Service Committee for Orthodox Spiritual Renewal (SCOSR) which published "Theosis" Newsletter, were some of the more prominent leaders of the charismatic renewal in Orthodoxy." Please explain about what COC Charismatic Orthodox Church is. | ||
| easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1952 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 72.164.43.195 |
http://userpages.aug.com/~mdkersey/questions.html | ||
| mcmstaff78 Member Username: mcmstaff78 Post Number: 52 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 24.99.130.74 |
Ease, the COC is not part of the Orthodox Church. They are a bunch of self-appointed wannabes who liked the "smells and bells" but were charismatic. They are no more "Orthodox" than the "Charismatic Episcopal Church" is part of the Anglican communion. You are welcome to see here for a listing of the Orthodox Churches throughout the world, including the USA. As for the priests this was in the 70s and, IIRC, only Fr. Eusebius still maintains any sort of "charismatic" "ministry". He is basically ignored and, again IIRC, not even assigned to a parish. For an accurate take on the Orthodox view of the Charismatic movement, please read this. As one Orthodox author has written "There is nothing Orthodox about the charismatic movement. It is incompatible with Orthodoxy, in that it justifies itself only by perverting the message of the Fathers, suggesting that the Church of Christ needs renewal, and indulging in the theological imagery of, Pentecostal cultism. With such things, one cannot be too bold in his language of condemnation and reprobation." | ||
| watchman_2 Intermediate Member Username: watchman_2 Post Number: 109 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.92.33.240 |
xman3,
No -- I didn't waste my time. I touched on a major flaw in your logic. You believe that it is the Holy Spirit conveying the message since you are clueless as to anything your gibberish means. This brings us right back to the Pentecostal tongue in which they spoke what the Holy Spirit gave utterance to them to speak. Yet, in past posts, you have denied any linkage between the Pentecostal tongue and the 1 Cor. 12, 14 tongues. You have created a logic paradox that you cannot escape from. There is nothing in the 1 Cor. 12, 14 tongues, which indicates that the 'gift' of diversity of tongues means speaking what the Holy Spirit gives you utterance to say. Hence, since 'diversity of tongues' is a 'gift' -- one received initially upon accepting Christ, you would simply be able, at your own will and from your inspired thoughts, to prophesy in an unknown language to others. The message of the tongues spoken [edification of the many-membered body] would have to come from you -- not the Holy Spirit. If it has to come from the Holy Spirit, then it was never a 'gift' received upon acceptance of Christ. Accordingly, irrespective of whether one believes the 'tongues' of 1 Cor. 14 is an acquired non-native language or a language unknown to mankind at all, in order for it to qualify as a 'gift' of the Holy Spirit without linkage to the Pentecostal tongue, you would have to know the message that is being conveyed. If you indicated that you wanted to convey your inspired message to the other party and gibberish came out of your mouth, but was understood by the other party, you would almost have a credible argument that you spoke tongues. But, by your own admission, you had no clue as to the message behind your gibberish. Thus, you are [allegedly] relying upon what the Holy Spirit gave utterance, which was the Pentecostal tongue -- not the 1 Cor. gift of diversity of tongues. Through this exercise, it can be concluded that the issue of what kind of 'tongue' is referred to in 1 Cor. 14 is not even relevant to whether or not one speaks with the 'gift of diversity of tongues'. In order to speak 'tongues', one has to know the message conveyed. Otherwise, in order for one to argue that they speak 'gibberish' as tongues, one has to claim the Pentecostal tongue is the same tongue as the 1 Cor. 12, 14 tongue [which was my point long ago]. IN NO WAY DID YOU EVER SPEAK WITH THE 'GIFT OF TONGUES'! Much of the remainder of your post is a smoke screen intended to derail the topic from the inescapable logic paradox that you have created for yourself. | ||
| easeltine Senior Member Username: easeltine Post Number: 1954 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 72.164.43.195 |
Thanks you, MCM I did not know the Orthodox Church held such dogmatic opinions against the Charismatic Renewal. I thought they allowed it. | ||
| xman3 Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 59 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 76.247.134.85 |
watchman: You apparently misunderstand. There is a clear link between all the references. The Holy Spirit. I don't know about all your lingo for different tongues and your opinion on their source, but I believe they are a result of having the Holy Spirit. Here's tongues 101. You receive the Holy Spirit. Then you can speak in tongues. It's that simple, potentially. There is no more depth to it than that to complicate it for me. If you don't have the Holy Spirit, you don't speak in tongues. Impossible, unless for His own reasons, God should choose to operate as he did before the Holy Spirit was given. He could if He wanted. It's ok with me. You can call it a gift, a skill, diverse or not. Your terminology doesn't change what tongues are nor does your complete misunderstanding or misrepresentation of my views change what the Bible has to say. If it doesn't fit together for you, you are not listening to me, because it is not only clear to me, but easy to explain. None of those "dilemnas" exist for me at all and are non existent. I'm not saying what you include in your constant mention of these "gibberish rituals" is explainable. I am saying my view is explainable. I have no problem accepting Acts 2 could well be a miracle of hearing. It could be speaking and hearing. It doesn't matter because the point I made from day 1 with tatm and repeated multiple times is that tongues, whether the cloven tongues of Acts 2 or the tongues of 1Cor are from the Holy Spirit. That is what is reaffirmed here also. Your assertion tongues are always languages, in the sense we both understand you mean, doesn't hold up. Your assertion tongues in 1Cor 12-14 are nothing more than simple speaking and translating skills also doesn't hold up. As we bandied about earlier, it is incumbent on you to twist the meaning of the phrase translated spiritual gifts in order to maintain this incorrect reasoning. Unless one holds to a view such as yours that whatever tongues are in Cor, they are merely a skill, they would not see the dilemna you think exists. If one thought they were languages, but still a product of the holy Spirit, your dilemnas would be irrelevant. They are exclusive to a humanistic view of tongues and thereby dependent on the definitive establishment that tongues are always simple translated languages, which hasn't been done at all. You see, it doesn't matter if I initiate it or the Holy Spirit does. One may or may not be The "gift" of tongues in operation, but being the willing vessel I am, I wouldn't be concerned about those particulars. It is no more difficult for me to pray in tongues than it is to pray in English or to pray for the sick or any other spiritual activity. At any given moment, any one of those spiritual activities could be completely led by the Holy Spirit or mostly initiated by me. They may be effective, or they may not, though when I believe I am moved by the Holy Spirit to do something, I find there tends to be more effective results. That has included tongues, prophecy, prayer, giving, and a whole host of things. 1Cor ch. 14 most clearly establishes that tongues and their use are subject to us, not simply God's mighty will. The bottom line is that tongues, whoever initiates them, are only available to those who have the Holy Spirit. Like most aspects of our spirituality, how we work that out is dependent on ourselves and God. | ||
| xman3 Member Username: xman3 Post Number: 60 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 76.247.134.85 |
Setting tongues and what they are aside for the moment, here, watchman, is where I think we differ that impacts this discussion. I believe that tongues in 1Cor 12-14 is as much a "gift" or manifestation as anything else listed in chapter 12. This is emphatically established by verses 12: 7,11. But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. But one and the same Spirit works all things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills. Now I'm sorry watchman, but using the same logic you try when convenient, Paul didn't change what he was talking about in our 2 chapters later and start in on something that is not a manifestation of the Holy Spirit. Your relegating this to a skill , when both tongues and interpretation are established as manifestations of the Holy Spirit, is a fundamental area of disagreement that precludes you from seeing any further truths dependent on this. A second area is this mysterious notion you have acquired that seems to think the speaker must know what he is saying. This is disproved in 12:10,30 14:13-15,28. Verse 13 in particular is reason enough to discount this idea, but it is really overwhelmingly proven incorrect by scripture. Even if one relegated tongues exclusively to earthly languages to be translated by a practicioner, the speaker still doesn't need to know, and if he did, would hardly need to "learn" to interprate as a means of correction. Paul didn't correct by saying it wasn't tongues when he said to keep silent if there is no interpretation. He just said keep it silent. As far as I'm concerned, these are 2 examples of areas of your personal bastardization of scripture, or whatever your terminology of the moment might be. A lot of your arguments are predicated on these views, and thusly are irrelevant even to the orthodox Christian who holds similar anti p/c beliefs. It's not that they can't be answered. It's that the answer is always going to be that you have twisted the scripture to say what you want. This is why a lot of your commentary on gibberish or your view of my example don't really get addressed. Our fundamental disagreements here mean that unless one of us changes their view, it never ends. For someone like myself who believes that tongues, whatever they are, are still around and available for use today, the issue revolves around whether they are always languages and whether praying in tongues is legit (or how bad is it if they are off). I've already scripturally settled the issues concerning their ceasing or source. | ||
|
