TONGUES false teaching.

[Scribe]

That is the case because slavery is illegal. In modern times, for the most part, slavery shows up in illegal prostitution rings, which is not the same thing that we see in the OT or the Grecco-Roman world. Neither the Old Testament or New Testament said that slavery was a sin. Philemon had a slave, but loved the brethren.

In the Old Testament, they weren't supposed to force a run-away slave to go back. Onesimus apparently went away willingly. He should not have run away.

Cultural context. We know what that means. It is not hard. I think there are some things about women we must consider in a cultural context when reading about how women have been excluded when this is not God's doing but the hard hearted nature of men.

You said..........
"If he says that a bishop or elder should be blameless married to one wife it is because it was assumed he would be a male since it would have been unheard of to allow a woman to be a bishop. It is not a specific ban on women. It is assumed due to the culture of that day. Yes I do see a cultural context. The treatment of women and slaves are two examples that should be considered in a cultural context."

Again, you are saying that "Culture" dictates the meaning of God's Word.

So by that "Philosophic" position, homosexuality is today OK with God as the culture today has accepted it as normal.

Then by that same thinking.....abortion is now OK with God because society has accepted it as birth control.

I say NO!

God said...........
"This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach".

A Pastor must be a "Married MAN" according to God.....not culture or society.

I allow others to have their interpretations even if they vilify me for mine. I believe the authorial intent is on being blameless. That if he is married he should be married to only one wife, as that was something they were still asking about at that time. Many thought is was ok to have more than one wife becuase of the OT and Jesus had addressed this and said one. Therefore an elder who was married should be married to one wife to be "BLAMELESS" in this matter. If he had children they should be in control, otherwise he would not be considered blamless, not because he had not children but because they were out of control.
Many other things he lists that are examples of what it means to be blameless as a bishop.
Paul is on record of being very verbose about the beneifits of being single so that you can attend to undistracted devotion to the Lord therefore how much more would that apply to a minister? 1 Cor 7 It is not a command to be single. Neither is this verse a command to be married. Paul would have said that if you have the gift remain single UNLESS YOU WANT TO BE A BISHOP but that would not make sense if being single allows you to be undistracted from the world.
It is obvious that he means IF you are married, one wife.
If you have children they should be in control.


Fortunately we have moved on from these erroneous interpretations and are not demanding pastors to be married and have children.
Neither are we banning women from ministry.

I have no problem with a woman pastor. I don't believe this verse banns women from being pastors. I don't think that was his point.
His point was what it meant to be blameless. It is not immoral to be a woman. So we can rule that out as what he was meaning by blameless.

 

[SophieT]

That's not true. A person can speak in tongues in their head just you can speak English to yourself in your head.

I cannot pray 'in my head' and my tongue does not move. You have some strange understandings even if you are not a cessationist.

 

[Scribe]

Cultural context. We know what that means. It is not hard. I think there are some things about women we must consider in a cultural context when reading about how women have been excluded when this is not God's doing but the hard hearted nature of men.


I allow others to have their interpretations even if they vilify me for mine. I believe the authorial intent is on being blameless. That if he is married he should be married to only one wife, as that was something they were still asking about at that time. Many thought is was ok to have more than one wife becuase of the OT and Jesus had addressed this and said one. Therefore an elder who was married should be married to one wife to be "BLAMELESS" in this matter. If he had children they should be in control, otherwise he would not be considered blamless, not because he had not children but because they were out of control.
Many other things he lists that are examples of what it means to be blameless as a bishop.
Paul is on record of being very verbose about the beneifits of being single so that you can attend to undistracted devotion to the Lord therefore how much more would that apply to a minister? 1 Cor 7 It is not a command to be single. Neither is this verse a command to be married. Paul would have said that if you have the gift remain single UNLESS YOU WANT TO BE A BISHOP but that would not make sense if being single allows you to be undistracted from the world.
It is obvious that he means IF you are married, one wife.
If you have children they should be in control.


Fortunately we have moved on from these erroneous interpretations and are not demanding pastors to be married and have children.
Neither are we banning women from ministry.

I have no problem with a woman pastor. I don't believe this verse banns women from being pastors. I don't think that was his point.
His point was what it meant to be blameless. It is not immoral to be a woman. So we can rule that out as what he was meaning by blameless.

To say... In order to be blameless he must be a man.. that would be really bad interpretation of what Paul intended. It is fracturing his complete sentence to make him say something he did not intend.
In order to be blameless he must not be married to more than one wife. That is what I believe his intention was.

I will ask him when that which is perfect is come. Meanwhile I will work with men and women to fulfill the great Commission in any capacity God calls and equips us to fulfill.

 

[VARob]

I cannot pray 'in my head' and my tongue does not move.

You cannot think prayers in your head without moving your tongue? I can. I think most people can.

You have some strange understandings even if you are not a cessationist.

...............

 

[SophieT]

You cannot think prayers in your head without moving your tongue? I can. I think most people can.


...............

In English you can think the words. I never said a thing about not being able to pray in English. Arent' you clever.

You must be very accomplished in saying the glass is half empty rather than half full.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Fortunately we have moved on from these erroneous interpretations and are not demanding pastors to be married and have children. Neither are we banning women from ministry.

The real issue is whether God and Christ agree with you rather than whether the politically correct agree with you.

Did God give us a reason why the elders MUST BE married men with families? I will let you check it out from Scripture for yourself.

Did God give us a reason why women MUST NOT be preachers, teachers, pastors, elders, or have any authority with the churches? Again I will let you check it out for yourself.

Since you obviously disagree with God's reasons, you have adopted man-made ideas which are rather popular. But you will need to explain to Him why you disregarded His Word.

 

[VARob]

In English you can think the words. I never said a thing about not being able to pray in English. Arent' you clever.

Not particularly. Apologies if I misunderstood you.

But a person can speak in tongues to themselves without making a sound or moving their lips/tongue.

You must be very accomplished in saying the glass is half empty rather than half full.

Generally I'm pretty positive. What did I say to make you think I'm not?

 

[Scribe]

The real issue is whether God and Christ agree with you rather than whether the politically correct agree with you.

Did God give us a reason why the elders MUST BE married men with families? I will let you check it out from Scripture for yourself.

No. Paul did not say that elders MUST be married men with families. (Therefore God did not say that either) Nor did Paul give a reason why an elder MUST be married.

Did God give us a reason why women MUST NOT be preachers, teachers, pastors, elders, or have any authority with the churches? Again I will let you check it out for yourself.

No, Paul, not God did not say women MUST not be preachers, teachers, pastors, elders or have any authority with the churches.

Since you obviously disagree with God's reasons, you have adopted man-made ideas which are rather popular. But you will need to explain to Him why you disregarded His Word.

It is obvious that you made that up and it is not in the scripture therefore I think you might be following a man-made idea which has been popular among those that are not well read in the scriptures for all these centuries. But I will point you to the scriptures and let you read them yourself. What you said is not in the text.
Telling people that if they don't agree with your spin and commentaries on the scripture that they are not agreeing with God is an immature way to debate. Prove that your interpretation was Pauls intent, because it is not what he said. He said he must be the husband of ONE wife and that was his point. Not two, if he has two he would not be blameless. If he had none he would not be blameless. It is not immoral to be single. It is not immoral to be a woman either.

 

[Major]

Cultural context. We know what that means. It is not hard. I think there are some things about women we must consider in a cultural context when reading about how women have been excluded when this is not God's doing but the hard hearted nature of men.


I allow others to have their interpretations even if they vilify me for mine. I believe the authorial intent is on being blameless. That if he is married he should be married to only one wife, as that was something they were still asking about at that time. Many thought is was ok to have more than one wife becuase of the OT and Jesus had addressed this and said one. Therefore an elder who was married should be married to one wife to be "BLAMELESS" in this matter. If he had children they should be in control, otherwise he would not be considered blamless, not because he had not children but because they were out of control.
Many other things he lists that are examples of what it means to be blameless as a bishop.
Paul is on record of being very verbose about the beneifits of being single so that you can attend to undistracted devotion to the Lord therefore how much more would that apply to a minister? 1 Cor 7 It is not a command to be single. Neither is this verse a command to be married. Paul would have said that if you have the gift remain single UNLESS YOU WANT TO BE A BISHOP but that would not make sense if being single allows you to be undistracted from the world.
It is obvious that he means IF you are married, one wife.
If you have children they should be in control.


Fortunately we have moved on from these erroneous interpretations and are not demanding pastors to be married and have children.
Neither are we banning women from ministry.

I have no problem with a woman pastor. I don't believe this verse banns women from being pastors. I don't think that was his point.
His point was what it meant to be blameless. It is not immoral to be a woman. So we can rule that out as what he was meaning by blameless.

Since you support and practice speaking in tongues then it is no problem at all for you to then reject the Word of God where GOD says that only married MEN can be ordained Bishops.

 

[Dino246]

Since you support and practice speaking in tongues then it is no problem at all for you to then reject the Word of God where GOD says that only married MEN can be ordained Bishops.

That's a genetic fallacy. It's also rude.

 

[TheSunWillShineAgain]

I recommend this teaching by Derek Prince about the baptism of the Holy Spirit (called "Receive the Holy Spirit") -- he explains that tongues are the outward manifestation of the baptism of the Holy Spirit and backs it all up with verses from the Bible (especially from Acts). He also explains the difference between getting saved and getting baptized in the Holy Spirit. It's really well done and informative. The best teaching on the subject I've personally come across:

The people who say tongues aren't biblical or have ceased are simply deceived. It's all over the Scriptures (especially in Acts and in 1 Cor. 14) but their understanding needs to be opened. It's in the devil's interest to lead people of God away from the truth of the baptism of the Holy Spirit so the Church would lack power and be less effective in Kingdom work.

May the Holy Spirit reveal all truth to God's people. I pray especially that those who are convinced that they're right and yet deny the work of the Holy Spirit would humble themselves before the Lord and ask Him directly in prayer to reveal the truth to them. In Jesus' name.

 

[notuptome]

I recommend this teaching by Derek Prince about the baptism of the Holy Spirit (called "Receive the Holy Spirit") -- he explains that tongues are the outward manifestation of the baptism of the Holy Spirit and backs it all up with verses from the Bible (especially from Acts). He also explains the difference between getting saved and getting baptized in the Holy Spirit. It's really well done and informative. The best teaching on the subject I've personally come across:

The people who say tongues aren't biblical or have ceased are simply deceived. It's all over the Scriptures (especially in Acts and in 1 Cor. 14) but their understanding needs to be opened. It's in the devil's interest to lead people of God away from the truth of the baptism of the Holy Spirit so the Church would lack power and be less effective in Kingdom work.

May the Holy Spirit reveal all truth to God's people. I pray especially that those who are convinced that they're right and yet deny the work of the Holy Spirit would humble themselves before the Lord and ask Him directly in prayer to reveal the truth to them. In Jesus' name.

There is only one baptism of the Holy Spirit and that is at the moment we are saved. There are many fillings of the Holy Spirit after we are saved but do not trust anyone who does not possess this very basic knowledge from scripture.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Major]

I recommend this teaching by Derek Prince about the baptism of the Holy Spirit (called "Receive the Holy Spirit") -- he explains that tongues are the outward manifestation of the baptism of the Holy Spirit and backs it all up with verses from the Bible (especially from Acts). He also explains the difference between getting saved and getting baptized in the Holy Spirit. It's really well done and informative. The best teaching on the subject I've personally come across:

The people who say tongues aren't biblical or have ceased are simply deceived. It's all over the Scriptures (especially in Acts and in 1 Cor. 14) but their understanding needs to be opened. It's in the devil's interest to lead people of God away from the truth of the baptism of the Holy Spirit so the Church would lack power and be less effective in Kingdom work.

May the Holy Spirit reveal all truth to God's people. I pray especially that those who are convinced that they're right and yet deny the work of the Holy Spirit would humble themselves before the Lord and ask Him directly in prayer to reveal the truth to them. In Jesus' name.

That is a FALSE teaching.

Nowhere in the New Testament is it taught that speaking in tongues is the only evidence a person has received the Holy Spirit. In fact, the New Testament teaches the opposite. We are told that every believer in Christ has the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:9; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Ephesians 1:13-14), but not every believer speaks in tongues (1 Corinthians 12:29-31).

 

[Major]

I recommend this teaching by Derek Prince about the baptism of the Holy Spirit (called "Receive the Holy Spirit") -- he explains that tongues are the outward manifestation of the baptism of the Holy Spirit and backs it all up with verses from the Bible (especially from Acts). He also explains the difference between getting saved and getting baptized in the Holy Spirit. It's really well done and informative. The best teaching on the subject I've personally come across:

The people who say tongues aren't biblical or have ceased are simply deceived. It's all over the Scriptures (especially in Acts and in 1 Cor. 14) but their understanding needs to be opened. It's in the devil's interest to lead people of God away from the truth of the baptism of the Holy Spirit so the Church would lack power and be less effective in Kingdom work.

May the Holy Spirit reveal all truth to God's people. I pray especially that those who are convinced that they're right and yet deny the work of the Holy Spirit would humble themselves before the Lord and ask Him directly in prayer to reveal the truth to them. In Jesus' name.

Mark 16:17-18
" And these signs shall follow THEM that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18 They shall take up serpents; and if THEY drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

I want you to take note of something. Many people claim this passage proves that the sign of tongues MUST follow EVERYONE who believes. But look at the passage again. It also includes casting out devils, taking up serpents, not being hurt by deadly drink and the healing of the sick.

The question I would like to ask is why do MOST ALL people focus on tongues as the single evidence of the Holy Ghost when the rest of these things are not mentioned as such?

It should not be too hard to understand that when Jesus said “them that believe” He was speaking of a group.

Mark 16"14......
"Jesus thus SAID UNTO TH ELEVEN........".

Thus, the GROUP of APOSTLES would do all of these things. So this idea that we speak in tongues as the evidence of Salvation can not be used for the claim that speaking in tongues is evidence of receiving the Holy Spirit.

That is a patently FALSE un-Biblical teaching.

 

[Major]

The real issue is whether God and Christ agree with you rather than whether the politically correct agree with you.

Did God give us a reason why the elders MUST BE married men with families? I will let you check it out from Scripture for yourself.

Did God give us a reason why women MUST NOT be preachers, teachers, pastors, elders, or have any authority with the churches? Again I will let you check it out for yourself.

Since you obviously disagree with God's reasons, you have adopted man-made ideas which are rather popular. But you will need to explain to Him why you disregarded His Word.

May I say to you that I agree with you. Then may I say that I really hate to say this but......my experience over the last 20 years of internet interaction is that if you want to see what Christianity is........Do not expect to see it Christian Bible doctrine from the majority "Christian" forums.

Most and I would include this one right here, are nothing but people seeking to promote a "Persona Agenda"
which they have formulated out out of their own imaginations instead of the Word of God.

If anyone disagrees with that, simply read through the posts that have NO BIBLE support whatsoever and are nothing but personal opinions. Anyone is free to change my mind!!!!!!

 

[Major]

I cannot pray 'in my head' and my tongue does not move. You have some strange understandings even if you are not a cessationist.

Funny.......everyone else does!

 

[VARob]

That is a FALSE teaching.

Nowhere in the New Testament is it taught that speaking in tongues is the only evidence a person has received the Holy Spirit.

That's right. People who are born again can operate the other manifestations of the gift of the Holy Spirit as well. But speaking in tongues is one of the few manifestations that every Christian can do at will.

In fact, the New Testament teaches the opposite. We are told that every believer in Christ has the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:9; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Ephesians 1:13-14), but not every believer speaks in tongues (1 Corinthians 12:29-31).

But every Christian has the ability to speak in tongues (1 Cor 12:7), and God wants all Christians to do so (1 Cor 14:5).

 

[VARob]

Mark 16:17-18
" And these signs shall follow THEM that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18 They shall take up serpents; and if THEY drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

I want you to take note of something. Many people claim this passage proves that the sign of tongues MUST follow EVERYONE who believes. But look at the passage again. It also includes casting out devils, taking up serpents, not being hurt by deadly drink and the healing of the sick.

The question I would like to ask is why do MOST ALL people focus on tongues as the single evidence of the Holy Ghost when the rest of these things are not mentioned as such?

It should not be too hard to understand that when Jesus said “them that believe” He was speaking of a group.

Mark 16"14......
"Jesus thus SAID UNTO TH ELEVEN........".

Thus, the GROUP of APOSTLES would do all of these things. So this idea that we speak in tongues as the evidence of Salvation can not be used for the claim that speaking in tongues is evidence of receiving the Holy Spirit.

That is a patently FALSE un-Biblical teaching.

Your belief that "those who believe" is referring only to the 11 is bogus.

 

[VARob]

May I say to you that I agree with you. Then may I say that I really hate to say this but......my experience over the last 20 years of internet interaction is that if you want to see what Christianity is........Do not expect to see it Christian Bible doctrine from the majority "Christian" forums.

Some of the things you promote are examples of this. Cessationism is a lie.

Most and I would include this one right here, are nothing but people seeking to promote a "Persona Agenda"
which they have formulated out out of their own imaginations instead of the Word of God.

If anyone disagrees with that, simply read through the posts that have NO BIBLE support whatsoever and are nothing but personal opinions. Anyone is free to change my mind!!!!!!

You have to be the one to change your mind. Nobody can do it for you.

 

[notuptome]

That's right. People who are born again can operate the other manifestations of the gift of the Holy Spirit as well. But speaking in tongues is one of the few manifestations that every Christian can do at will.


But every Christian has the ability to speak in tongues (1 Cor 12:7), and God wants all Christians to do so (1 Cor 14:5).

Even most of the Pentecostal and charismatic folks won't agree with you on those statements.

For the cause of Christ
Roger