Some truth about speaking in tongues, the Holy Ghost, spiritual gifts and 1 Corinthians 14
- Thread starter KelbyofGod
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
BTW, I'm still asking God the question of why it isn't stated more clearly throughout the bible. And I'm willing to seek and wait on God until he reveals it clearly.
However, if you remember that "the bible" only contains writings that were agreeable to the entire group(s) of men that were doing the selecting, it's not hard to fathom that writings addressing 'disagreeable' topics would have been excluded. I'm actually amazed in some ways that 1 Corinthians 14 was even allowed to be included. I'm guessing it's because it's written in a way that can be viewed as being sufficiently non-supportive of tongues by way of the contrast with the purpose of prophesying.
Further, it is also spoken in Romans 8 which clearly states that "the spirit ITSELF beareth witness" (meaning it provides observable evidence) Romans 8: 16. And that the Spirit prays things that we know not (therefore cannot be spoken in our understanding) Rom 8:26. And that only God (He that searches the hearts) knows what is being said (Rom. 8: 27). And that what is being prayed edifies us (helpeth our infirmities- Rom 8:26. And that you are always praying well when praying in the spirit(tongues) Rom 8:27 And that if you don't have it, you are none of his Romans 8: 9.
That (of course) is in perfect agreement with the 1 Corinthians statements about speaking in tongues. But again, it was spread out enough throughout the chapter that the selectors probably assumed people wouldn't be able to see it or realize it.
THAT is a second accounting, in the epistles, of the NEED for the same Holy Ghost that was being poured out in all the accounts in the book of Acts (and 1 Cor. 14) for those willing to receive it.
Love in Jesus,
Kelby
However, if you remember that "the bible" only contains writings that were agreeable to the entire group(s) of men that were doing the selecting, it's not hard to fathom that writings addressing 'disagreeable' topics would have been excluded. I'm actually amazed in some ways that 1 Corinthians 14 was even allowed to be included. I'm guessing it's because it's written in a way that can be viewed as being sufficiently non-supportive of tongues by way of the contrast with the purpose of prophesying.
Further, it is also spoken in Romans 8 which clearly states that "the spirit ITSELF beareth witness" (meaning it provides observable evidence) Romans 8: 16. And that the Spirit prays things that we know not (therefore cannot be spoken in our understanding) Rom 8:26. And that only God (He that searches the hearts) knows what is being said (Rom. 8: 27). And that what is being prayed edifies us (helpeth our infirmities- Rom 8:26. And that you are always praying well when praying in the spirit(tongues) Rom 8:27 And that if you don't have it, you are none of his Romans 8: 9.
That (of course) is in perfect agreement with the 1 Corinthians statements about speaking in tongues. But again, it was spread out enough throughout the chapter that the selectors probably assumed people wouldn't be able to see it or realize it.
THAT is a second accounting, in the epistles, of the NEED for the same Holy Ghost that was being poured out in all the accounts in the book of Acts (and 1 Cor. 14) for those willing to receive it.
Love in Jesus,
Kelby
again why was not the term Trinity taught? The Trinity is not even taught in the Bible is seen in the context of scriptures. This very important truth was taught formalized in the fourth century. Does that make it not true? you said you believe the founding fathers and Reformers are authoritative just as the word of God is. I do not.
Why not say it this way: "Because we have the proof of the spirit, according to what the word of God says." ?
In all biblically recorded outpourings of the Holy Ghost, God provided PROOF that the people actually received the Holy Ghost. You made a mistake when you settled for something other than what is described in all the biblical outpourings. Those recorded outpourings are EXAMPLES, not exceptions.
Love in Jesus,
Kelby
In all biblically recorded outpourings of the Holy Ghost, God provided PROOF that the people actually received the Holy Ghost. You made a mistake when you settled for something other than what is described in all the biblical outpourings. Those recorded outpourings are EXAMPLES, not exceptions.
Love in Jesus,
Kelby
-
1
- Show all
I did not say that I see anyone ore anything equal as the scripture.
The scripture is alone autorative and the measure!
Trinity you find through the whole scripture, right.
The teaching, that speaking in tongues is the proof that someone is fiĺled ore baptised with the Holy Spirit you cant find. Even not as theme discussed in the early churchhistory.
The scripture is alone autorative and the measure!
Trinity you find through the whole scripture, right.
The teaching, that speaking in tongues is the proof that someone is fiĺled ore baptised with the Holy Spirit you cant find. Even not as theme discussed in the early churchhistory.
I said we have to proof/test the spirit, as the scripture said. Not everybody who claimes to has the spirit of God has him realy. It is possible to follow a spirit of lie.
And we know from our Lord that not all who doing miracles in his name and call him Lord, are his children.
And we also know that the deceiving from Satan is in this way, that he comes as angel of the light.
What means it seems right what he is telling.
And again, this teaching I find startet in 1900. So it is not biblical. Even it sounds so.
And we know from our Lord that not all who doing miracles in his name and call him Lord, are his children.
And we also know that the deceiving from Satan is in this way, that he comes as angel of the light.
What means it seems right what he is telling.
And again, this teaching I find startet in 1900. So it is not biblical. Even it sounds so.
How wrong can you continue to be ?
11 And what father is there among you, who, if his son asks for a slice of bread, will offer him a stone? or if he asks for a fish, will instead of a fish offer him a snake?
12 or if he asks for an egg, will offer him a scorpion?
13 If you then, with all your human frailty, know how to give your children gifts that are good for them, how much more certainly will your Father who is in Heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!"
Luke 11:
11 And what father is there among you, who, if his son asks for a slice of bread, will offer him a stone? or if he asks for a fish, will instead of a fish offer him a snake?
12 or if he asks for an egg, will offer him a scorpion?
13 If you then, with all your human frailty, know how to give your children gifts that are good for them, how much more certainly will your Father who is in Heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!"
Luke 11:
stay tuned
bound to find out
bound to find out
God is sovereign and it is not by the will of man that we are saved but by the determinate will of God.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
-
1
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Yes, i correcet it in my post 857. And there i statet clear that the only authority I see in the word of God and that no man on the history had 100 % the right teaching.
But this is finaly not the point.
We are moving in a circle. Solong you cant show me from the scripture that your teaching was taught to other believers. Ore do you expect that i should follow man made doctrine?
But this is finaly not the point.
We are moving in a circle. Solong you cant show me from the scripture that your teaching was taught to other believers. Ore do you expect that i should follow man made doctrine?
you first did then you corrected it so you can't use that they did not teach the doctrine of initial evidence because they are not authoritative. The Context of Initial evidence is in the Book of Acts you agree or don't. Interjecting the church fathers and reformers in moot. If you did not hold them as authoritative you should have not used them LOL.