Churches that Don't Allow Tongues and Prophecy in Meetings disobey Bible

[homwardbound]

i'm going to turn this back on you - LET'S FIND AN APOSTLE WHO IS EQUAL TO PAUL OR PETER TODAY.
forget partial or superior.

EQUAL....name ONE.

having the Bible doesn't make ME superior to paul - it makes COMPLETE KNOWLEDGE/REVELATION (which GOD GAVE in ALL OF SCRIPTURE) superior to PARTIAL.

you can read the WHOLE thing today. if you started studying as a kid and never stopped, you'd know everything Paul is recorded to have known AND THEN SOME. because you have everything all in one place - including the visions of New Jerusalem John saw, by which time the others had died or been killed. so did THEY live to see the COMPLETE COME?

NO.

Peter got the vision of the unclean animals. did he know what that meant before he found out?

did Peter live to find out the vision John got?
how about John the Baptist?
did he even live to see anything the Apostles did?
and yet he was Jesus' cousin and the forerunner.
he had to send his own disciples to ask: Are You the Messiah or should we KEEP LOOKING FOR ANOTHER!

Tell me when does God view anyone better than another? please scripture as God seeing anyone better than another.

 

[PG]

Sadly this is true in many churches today. In my own church, our Senior Pastor doesn't even preach the gospel anymore and I've been discouraged from preaching the full Gospel message. It's pretty discouraging but we must keep preaching, teaching and living out the Word of God. We are living in a day when people are content with wishy washy feel good sermons.

 

[homwardbound]

It is only being born again from God to the one's that believe that the true Gospel is carried on through us that give up the self and agree to be co-crucified with Christ. The deeper one dies to self the deeper one sees the new life provided to us by God through the cross of Christ

[h=3]Philippians 3:10-11[/h]Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

[SUP]10 [/SUP]that I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;
[SUP]11 [/SUP]if by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.

Too much confidence in flesh today
Philippians 3:3
For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh

2 Corinthians 10:2 but I beseech you, that I may not be bold when I am present with that confidence, wherewith I think to be bold against some, which think of us as if we walked according to the flesh.

 

[notuptome]

I agree with you that the men on the day of Pentecost were fake, but if you maintain that tongues were fake, then how can you hold that Acts 2 is telling the truth?

The only thing that is fake is your attempt to make what you do equivalent to what went on at Pentecost. If what goes on in the Pentecostal church is one man speaking and everyone hearing him in their native tongue then we are onto something. Tell me that is how it works and I'll listen.

When Paul says that he 'speaks with tongues more than ye all' in the context of discussing a spiritual gift, do you think he wasn't talking about a spiritual gift of tongues?

Paul preached Christ throughout the region. Do you think he talked to people of different languages? I suspect Paul preached Christ to folks of every known language. Is this how tongues work in the Pentecostal church?

And why wouldn't the gifts of the apostles be charismata also? Don't they come from grace? Paul said he outlabored the other apostles, yet not he, but the grace that was with him. Don't you think God's grace (charis) worked through Paul when he did what you called 'apostolic gifts.' If so, then why would they not be charismata?

I know the Holy Spirit ministered greatly through Paul. Paul was used of God to bring many souls to a saving knowledge of Christ. That was Paul's burden. Paul had a great desire to see men saved and added to the kingdom of God both Jew and Gentile. Did God enable Paul to preach the gospel in languages he did not speak? The evidence would lead one to that conclusion.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[presidente]

The only thing that is fake is your attempt to make what you do equivalent to what went on at Pentecost. If what goes on in the Pentecostal church is one man speaking and everyone hearing him in their native tongue then we are onto something. Tell me that is how it works and I'll listen.

Would you listen to I Corinthians which actually tells how it worked IN THE CHURCH. No one present understood, and someone was needed who functioned in the gift of interpretation of tongues.

Do you accept I Corinthians 14 as scripture, or do you reject it for not being the exact same thing as Acts 2? You may want to sit down and carefully and prayerfully read I Corinthians 14 before responding.

Paul preached Christ throughout the region. Do you think he talked to people of different languages? I suspect Paul preached Christ to folks of every known language. Is this how tongues work in the Pentecostal church?

Greek was a lingua franca. Paul went to the cities, the population centers, primarily in Greek speaking areas (and either Aramaic or Hebrew speaking areas in the holy land.) There is no evidence that anyone proclaimed the Gospel in tongues. Acts 2 speaks of the marvelous works of God, but doesn't go into detail on what they said. It was after Peter stood up and preached, apparently in a commonly understood tongue, that 3000 of those present believed.

I know the Holy Spirit ministered greatly through Paul. Paul was used of God to bring many souls to a saving knowledge of Christ. That was Paul's burden. Paul had a great desire to see men saved and added to the kingdom of God both Jew and Gentile. Did God enable Paul to preach the gospel in languages he did not speak? The evidence would lead one to that conclusion.

Whether God gave Paul the power to preach in other languages, we do not know. We do know he did much of his ministry in Greek-speaking cities in the Greek-speaking world.

 

[notuptome]

Would you listen to I Corinthians which actually tells how it worked IN THE CHURCH. No one present understood, and someone was needed who functioned in the gift of interpretation of tongues.

Do you accept I Corinthians 14 as scripture, or do you reject it for not being the exact same thing as Acts 2? You may want to sit down and carefully and prayerfully read I Corinthians 14 before responding.

You apparently have no idea of what was going on in the Corinthian church. Even so it is not what is going on today in the Pentecostal church. 1 Corinthians requires that the tongues be languages. Interesting that the visual appearance of the Holy Spirit as fire upon the heads of the disciples is lost in the confusion of todays interpretation of what went on that day.

Greek was a lingua franca. Paul went to the cities, the population centers, primarily in Greek speaking areas (and either Aramaic or Hebrew speaking areas in the holy land.) There is no evidence that anyone proclaimed the Gospel in tongues. Acts 2 speaks of the marvelous works of God, but doesn't go into detail on what they said. It was after Peter stood up and preached, apparently in a commonly understood tongue, that 3000 of those present believed.

Peter preached Joel and explained what they were witnesses of on that day. Peter further preached Jesus and souls were saved that day. Paul certainly knew Greek and Hebrew even some Latin thanks to the Romans but he did minister in some very remote places.

Whether God gave Paul the power to preach in other languages, we do not know. We do know he did much of his ministry in Greek-speaking cities in the Greek-speaking world.

There is no doubt that many of the cities that Paul traveled to were port cities and there were represented there all kinds of folks many of whom spoke different languages. Paul's ministry in the gospel was very fruitful in that he established many churches in the cites where he traveled. Your endeavor to limit Paul's language ability to Greek is only due to your bias.

If only the Pentecostals had a passion for souls like their passion for tongues that ended centuries ago. They lack faith to believe that God builds His church through souls that have been born again in Christ. God builds His church not men. God has chosen the foolishness of preaching not drama or other means that seem right to men.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[inge]

Hi Inge. A few questions to consider.

Question #1 : Were the miraculous tongues spoken at pentecost earthly languages ?

Question #2 : What language did God's messengers (angels) ever speak but the language of the people/person to whom God's message was given ?

Question #3 : If there are in fact "tongues of angels", is it a different language/dialect than God's ?

Are you serious? Because I personally think you ask these questions not to ponder, wander and think honestly about the answers. To ask questions that you think you won't/ cannot get a clear answer on is a tactic often used in certain debates. But because I hope and pray you really consider it, I answer.

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. Gen 1:2
Did God speak?
What language? We do not know that because God does not mention that.

I do not ad, nor take from the bible.
​

I do not ad Spirit gifts, nor take.
​

I do not ad languages, nor take.
​

God spoke before He created the first human language with Adam and Eve
And before He created the human languages -tower of Babel

When you can tell me what God's language is in Genesis 1 before He created Adam and Eve, I can tell you if the angels speak exactly the same. (Nice tactic isn't it?)

God did create tongues, human and angel tongues. And satan can only copy stuff like acting as an angel of light.

I know what can be said. That in the old testament He speaks with human in a human language. He speaks to human in a language they know. Or they hear it as language they know. Was that the same language with Abraham as it was in the period of Jesus? Or a dialect of it?

And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Math 3:17
​

But even a better example that God has (is able to speak) a mysterious language (no matter if He uses it or not) is this:

In the same hour came forth fingers of a man's hand, and wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaister of the wall of the king's palace: and the king saw the part of the hand that wrote. Then the king's countenance was changed, and his thoughts troubled him, so that the joints of his loins were loosed, and his knees smote one against another. The king cried aloud to bring in the astrologers, the Chaldeans, and the soothsayers. And the king spake, and said to the wise men of Babylon, Whosoever shall read this writing, and shew me the interpretation thereof, shall be clothed with scarlet, and have a chain of gold about his neck, and shall be the third ruler in the kingdom Then came in all the king's wise men: but they could not read the writing, nor make known to the king the interpretation thereof. Then was king Belshazzar greatly troubled, and his countenance was changed in him, and his lords were astonied. Now the queen, by reason of the words of the king and his lords, came into the banquet house: and the queen spake and said, O king, live for ever: let not thy thoughts trouble thee, nor let thy countenance be changed: There is a man in thy kingdom, in whom is the spirit of the holy gods; and in the days of thy father light and understanding and wisdom, like the wisdom of the gods, was found in him; whom the king Nebuchadnezzar thy father, the king, I say, thy father, made master of the magicians, astrologers, Chaldeans, and soothsayers. Forasmuch as an excellent spirit, and knowledge, and understanding, interpreting of dreams, and shewing of hard sentences, and dissolving of doubts, were found in the same Daniel, whom the king named Belteshazzar: now let Daniel be called, and he will shew the interpretation.
​

Then was Daniel brought in before the king......... ​

Then was the part of the hand sent from him; and this writing was written. And this is the writing that was written, MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN. This is the interpretation of the thing: MENE; God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it. TEKEL; Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting. PERES; Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians.
​

So tell me was this Gods language/writing? Are you sure you know all details of God's language and what He can or cannot do and does? Does God need to prove to you that He still can do what He can do? Than ask God for gifts/ tongues privately in your bedroom, while you pray honestly and without presumptions.

This is what Jesus says in Marc 16:17 (and I believe Him)

And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues
​

What do you think did Jesus mean with NEW tongues?

Now the tongues as mentioned by Paul, Peter and the whole congregation in Acts. All descent sober people.

And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. Acts 2:4
​

HOW can one be so sure.....that this is al about human language? As far as I know God speaks in whatever language He desires, even His own.

Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
​

See the word multitude....you think they all heard all kinds of languages through one another? Hhmmm is possible, nothing mentioned here. But they clealy hear - every man in their own languages. How many? Well at least I count 17 names of cities and nations. When all would speak in 17 languages at one time....not sure if you hear something than. What do you think?

Lets go further...

For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Acts 10:16
​

And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. Act 19:6
​

No language mentioned here...tongues seems to be a new "label" to explain the phenomenon that Jesus already mentions in Mark 16:17 Why? When it would be a language they could mention: they spoke Persian, or Egyptian....nothing of it all...only "spake with tongues". Why?

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: 1 Cor 12:10
And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. 1Cor 12:28
Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret? 1 Cor12:30
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become [as] sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 1C 13:1

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. 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? 1 Cor 14:5,6

I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all: 1 Cor 14:8

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. 1 Cor 14:22
If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. 1 Kor 14:27
Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues. 1 Kor 14:39
​

Can you tell me how you can derive from these (most of the) verses with "speaking with tongues" that it are only native languages? Or known languages? Human languages?
I cannot.

I see

1. Speak with tongues. "Tongues" mentioned in Strongs = the tongue; by implication, a language (specially, one naturally unacquired).
2. New tongue and unknown tongue What should that have been you think? A unknown human language...or unknown angel language?
3. Interpreter as gift next to tongues You think they use interpreter just as translator? Why on earth would God give the translating as gift when they can just learn the language? Why would God do that? And how do you think they translate new and unknown tongues than?
4. Tongues as gift of the Spirit. Think about it...why is this language so special? Because it is the Spirit in a human speaking. That is why with interpretor it is prophecy..... You think that would be also when it is always a human language and someone just translates that?
5. Paul wishes all should speak in tongues. When it would be a human language Persian, or Egyptian you think he would make this statement? "I wish all could speak a native human language"

The bible tells me that this tongues is something that can be given by God when someone is filled with the Holy Spirit. And not all Spirit filled christians do have this gift. And the bible does not tell me if the name of this language is specific "angelic", "mysterical", "humanly", or just "konabilibali" . It is simply named "speaking with tongues". No more, no less.

He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.John 7:38,39
​

 

[zone]

Tell me when does God view anyone better than another? please scripture as God seeing anyone better than another.

i'm really not even going to discuss this with you much more home.
you don't seem to know the issue.
thx anyways.

 

[unclefester]

Are you serious? Because I personally think you ask these questions not to ponder, wander and think honestly about the answers. To ask questions that you think you won't/ cannot get a clear answer on is a tactic often used in certain debates. But because I hope and pray you really consider it, I answer.

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. Gen 1:2
Did God speak?
What language? We do not know that because God does not mention that.

I do not ad, nor take from the bible.
​

I do not ad Spirit gifts, nor take.
​

I do not ad languages, nor take.
​

God spoke before He created the first human language with Adam and Eve
And before He created the human languages -tower of Babel

When you can tell me what God's language is in Genesis 1 before He created Adam and Eve, I can tell you if the angels speak exactly the same. (Nice tactic isn't it?)

This isn't about tactics Inge. Does Acts 2 refer to known earthly human languages ? Below is the KJV. Feel free to use any version that suits you. ALL say the same. Tongues or native tongues are languages. The miracle of Pentecost was those speaking in earthly/human tongues/languages that were unknown/unlearned to them. Don't worry about replying to me. I tire hearing the "angelic tongue" argument as adequate explanation for todays gibberish. It's complete nonsense and a mockery of what was God's true sign gift to the unbelieving Jews 2,000 yrs. ago.

Acts 2
1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
[SUP]2 [/SUP]And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
[SUP]3 [/SUP]And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
[SUP]4 [/SUP]And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
[SUP]5 [/SUP]And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
[SUP]6 [/SUP]Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

 

[zone]

Just an example of modern day prophecy. Is this what we are to allow today? Words of knowledge?

[video=youtube;E357PL-TJK4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E357PL-TJK4[/video]

oh for....arga-warga.

hey - i wonder if that means anything?
i think i feel closer to God.
arga-warga
arga-warga

 

[BradC]

oh for....arga-warga.

hey - i wonder if that means anything?
i think i feel closer to God.
arga-warga
arga-warga

Are these the kind of things that you continually focus upon and compare your spirituality with others? If you do, what a waste of time when the scriptures have instructed us to redeem the time for the days are evil. I see no redemption in your focus on these groups nor in your sarcasm as it may. The time is short and we should be focused on that which is eternal and in bringing souls into the kingdom. Never thought I would say something like that did you?

 

[zone]

Are these the kind of things that you continually focus upon and compare your spirituality with others? If you do, what a waste of time when the scriptures have instructed us to redeem the time for the days are evil. I see no redemption in your focus on these groups nor in your sarcasm as it may. The time is short and we should be focused on that which is eternal and in bringing souls into the kingdom. Never thought I would say something like that did you?

Red33 - you always say those things to me
what's new?

those "groups" continue post false doctrine; carnal experience over biblical truth; and even heresies.
if some of us counter them - what is that to you?

go redeem the days...wait...you're not teaching pretrib dispensationalism are you?
n.m.

goodbye Redster.
zoney

 

[presidente]

There is no doubt that many of the cities that Paul traveled to were port cities and there were represented there all kinds of folks many of whom spoke different languages. Paul's ministry in the gospel was very fruitful in that he established many churches in the cites where he traveled. Your endeavor to limit Paul's language ability to Greek is only due to your bias.

I never said Paul only knew Greek. He must have known Hebrew, and probably Aramaic. It's possible he knew Latin, though it may be Roman citizens in the east did not have to. The issue is whether he preached 'in tongues' using a spiritual gift, as opposed to his understanding, and there is no evidence of that. The Bible does not teach that the gift of tongues is for preaching the gospel in foreign languages.

If only the Pentecostals had a passion for souls like their passion for tongues that ended centuries ago. They lack faith to believe that God builds His church through souls that have been born again in Christ. God builds His church not men. God has chosen the foolishness of preaching not drama or other means that seem right to men.

Obviously you haven't studied missiology or missions in different religious movements. After the Azusa Street, there was an explosion of missions activity and one of the reasons Pentecostalism is so widespread in the world is because of the evangelistic fervor of the movement.

 

[notuptome]

I never said Paul only knew Greek. He must have known Hebrew, and probably Aramaic. It's possible he knew Latin, though it may be Roman citizens in the east did not have to. The issue is whether he preached 'in tongues' using a spiritual gift, as opposed to his understanding, and there is no evidence of that. The Bible does not teach that the gift of tongues is for preaching the gospel in foreign languages.

I know you didn't say it you prefer to dance around it. The fact remains that the whole purpose for the bible is to teach men that they must be saved. Paul and all the apostles were preaching and teaching the message of salvation by grace through faith. They taught through the OT while the NT was being given and we now have both. Until there were converts in every language it was necessary for the apostles to have the ability to teach in many foreign languages. God is not going to allow something like differing languages to make His will to save souls ineffective.

Obviously you haven't studied missiology or missions in different religious movements. After the Azusa Street, there was an explosion of missions activity and one of the reasons Pentecostalism is so widespread in the world is because of the evangelistic fervor of the movement.

Yet what were they evangelizing? Tongues or men's need to be saved? There are many cults that are very evangelistic but they do not take the gospel to the lost. I have yet to see where Pentecostalism puts forth a Christ centered salvation message. I see lots of zeal for tongues but not for souls. More than a little concerned I am.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[presidente]

I know you didn't say it you prefer to dance around it. The fact remains that the whole purpose for the bible is to teach men that they must be saved. Paul and all the apostles were preaching and teaching the message of salvation by grace through faith. They taught through the OT while the NT was being given and we now have both. Until there were converts in every language it was necessary for the apostles to have the ability to teach in many foreign languages. God is not going to allow something like differing languages to make His will to save souls ineffective.

The apostles may have learned many languages, or they may have taught people who knew other languages and those people spread the Gospel further. But there is no evidence that they received a gift that was used to supernaturally preach the Gospel in languages they did not know. They spoke of the marvelous works of God in tongues, but people were saved after Peter preached, using his mind and understanding of the scriptures.

Yet what were they evangelizing? Tongues or men's need to be saved? There are many cults that are very evangelistic but they do not take the gospel to the lost. I have yet to see where Pentecostalism puts forth a Christ centered salvation message. I see lots of zeal for tongues but not for souls. More than a little concerned I am.

You have already established that you are somewhat limited in your knowledge and experience of such things, but very readily generalize and make accusations.

 

[notuptome]

The apostles may have learned many languages, or they may have taught people who knew other languages and those people spread the Gospel further. But there is no evidence that they received a gift that was used to supernaturally preach the Gospel in languages they did not know. They spoke of the marvelous works of God in tongues, but people were saved after Peter preached, using his mind and understanding of the scriptures.

My oh my you is something. You are going to keep dancing.

You have already established that you are somewhat limited in your knowledge and experience of such things, but very readily generalize and make accusations.

Now you are down to attempting to marginalize me. I'm beginning to detect the possibility that you value tongues above salvation. Tongues are no substitute for true born again salvation. Nor can one depend upon the so called evidence of tongues as an indicator of salvation.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[presidente]

My oh my you is something. You are going to keep dancing.

Dancing? You are the one with the made up theory. The disciples spoke of the wonderful works of God. If they were proclaiming the Gospel and telling what Christ did on the cross, why weren't the people listening 'cut to the heart.' They were cut to the heart after Peter PREACHED the gospel.

This idea of yours really doesn't make sense if you try to read it into I Corinthians 14. In that passage, when one speaks in tongues 'no one understandeth him', so Paul encourages the one who speaks in tongues to pray that he may interpret so that he can edify the church. The idea of there having to be people present who actually understand the language does not fit with the passage at all.

Now you are down to attempting to marginalize me. I'm beginning to detect the possibility that you value tongues above salvation. Tongues are no substitute for true born again salvation.

If you draw unsupported conclusion and make accusations like, you can't expect people to take you seriously. You make doctrinal statements that show you haven't studied out the issue, at the same time insulting other people who disagree with you. You make assumptions about other people's beliefs, and other people's salvation. You are marginalizing yourself with the kinds of things you post. If you want to know what someone believes, why don't you ask or dialogue instead of making junk up and attributing it to the other person. What if I read your post and assumed you believe you had to preach the gospel supernaturally in a foreign language to be a real Christian? I'd have no more support for that idea than you have for your assumption about me.

What I was actually thinking when reading your comment about Pentecostals focusing so much on tongues and not on evangelism is how little attention speaking in tongues gets in Pentecostal churches these days, but Pentecostal denominations tend to be very evangelistic.

Nor can one depend upon the so called evidence of tongues as an indicator of salvation.

I don't believe in speaking in tongues as an evidence of salvation. Most Pentecostals and Charismatics don't teach that either. Part of the Oneness movement, a group of Pentecostals that reject the idea of the trinity which split off of one of the major Pentecostal denominations believe that, but not all of them think that way either. And that's a small sliver of Pentecostalism.

 

[notuptome]

Dancing? You are the one with the made up theory. The disciples spoke of the wonderful works of God. If they were proclaiming the Gospel and telling what Christ did on the cross, why weren't the people listening 'cut to the heart.' They were cut to the heart after Peter PREACHED the gospel.

This idea of yours really doesn't make sense if you try to read it into I Corinthians 14. In that passage, when one speaks in tongues 'no one understandeth him', so Paul encourages the one who speaks in tongues to pray that he may interpret so that he can edify the church. The idea of there having to be people present who actually understand the language does not fit with the passage at all.

See now that's the point. I'm not trying to make the scripture fit the doctrine. The doctrine comes from the scripture unlike Pentecostalism which forces tongues to be something they are not and never were.

If you draw unsupported conclusion and make accusations like, you can't expect people to take you seriously. You make doctrinal statements that show you haven't studied out the issue, at the same time insulting other people who disagree with you. You make assumptions about other people's beliefs, and other people's salvation. You are marginalizing yourself with the kinds of things you post. If you want to know what someone believes, why don't you ask or dialogue instead of making junk up and attributing it to the other person. What if I read your post and assumed you believe you had to preach the gospel supernaturally in a foreign language to be a real Christian? I'd have no more support for that idea than you have for your assumption about me.

If you preach the gospel and then say so. All you ever talk about is tongues which scripture says ended. You go on about healing which God does all the time but it seems you need to corrupt it into a sign of worship. Scripture does say that faith is unseen.

What I was actually thinking when reading your comment about Pentecostals focusing so much on tongues and not on evangelism is how little attention speaking in tongues gets in Pentecostal churches these days, but Pentecostal denominations tend to be very evangelistic.

Evidence seems hard to come by here on CC.

I don't believe in speaking in tongues as an evidence of salvation. Most Pentecostals and Charismatics don't teach that either. Part of the Oneness movement, a group of Pentecostals that reject the idea of the trinity which split off of one of the major Pentecostal denominations believe that, but not all of them think that way either. And that's a small sliver of Pentecostalism.

What can I say it's always the other guy and not me. You are the guy that started all this, maligning all the non-Pentecostal churches and now you won't take ownership of the flaws. My apologies I must be hearing the goats over in the other field.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[BradC]

Red33 - you always say those things to me
what's new?

those "groups" continue post false doctrine; carnal experience over biblical truth; and even heresies.
if some of us counter them - what is that to you?

go redeem the days...wait...you're not teaching pretrib dispensationalism are you?
n.m.

goodbye Redster.
zoney

I am not surprised that there are others that think the same way as I do. There should be more. Don't underestimate like minded people that have the same faith, the same Spirit, the same love one of another and speak the same things. That is more common in the body of Christ then you might realize. That is the greatest threat to the kingdom of darkness in this present evil world. Unity and oneness through the word and Spirit who agree as the one new man. A oneness that can't be broken because there is no air between them.

 

[Cee]

Just so this isn't missed.

You ignored presidente showing that Scripture says no one understands tongues, which goes straight in the face of thinking that tongues is so others can understand the gospel.

And you also say Scripture says tongues has ended, but this is not true at all. Scripture says that when the perfect comes, tongues and knowledge will cease. The perfect is LOVE. Hence Paul going on for many verses about love in 1 Co 13 and in 1 Co 14 he goes on to say don't fobid tongues or prophesy. Which also flies in the face of saying 1 co 12 si saying tongues has ended considering he said that 2 chapters prior.

Address these 2 things using Scripture as I have done and presidente has shown.

C.

See now that's the point. I'm not trying to make the scripture fit the doctrine. The doctrine comes from the scripture unlike Pentecostalism which forces tongues to be something they are not and never were.

If you preach the gospel and then say so. All you ever talk about is tongues which scripture says ended. You go on about healing which God does all the time but it seems you need to corrupt it into a sign of worship. Scripture does say that faith is unseen.

Evidence seems hard to come by here on CC.

What can I say it's always the other guy and not me. You are the guy that started all this, maligning all the non-Pentecostal churches and now you won't take ownership of the flaws. My apologies I must be hearing the goats over in the other field.

For the cause of Christ
Roger