Pentecostalism's sketchy origins

[CS1]

Receiving the indwelling of the Holy Ghost is part of the spiritual rebirth. The work of the Holy Ghost is what takes place after a person's spirit has been reborn.

The Holy Ghost can and does influence people from the outside. But one who has received the spiritual rebirth has the Holy Ghost dwelling inside of them. They are two entirely different things.

The Holy Spirit also empowers one too. And still does today. have you ever preached and had hundreds respond to the message and God confirm HIS word? All Glory to God I have.

 

[ResidentAlien]

Paul's comment you mention is in the context of Spiritual gifts; specifically tongues. (1 Cor. 12) The Spiritual gift of tongues is used in the church setting and requires the Spiritual gift of interpretation. This is entirely different than the ability to speak in tongues that is in fact a personal prayer language.

Paul makes the distinction between diversities of tongues. He states the person who speaks in an unknown tongue speaks to God. (1 Cor. 14) This is the prayer language of the reborn spirit to God's Spirit after receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. Remember Paul states he wished all spoke in tongues as often as he did. 1 Cor 14:18

I can attest to what is found in scripture. God used me one time to speak in tongues in a church setting. The initiation of this was totally different than when I speak in tongues in my private prayer language.

Okay. I agree his comment was in the context of spiritual gifts, but I'm not sure I follow how this has any bearing on his clear instructions that not all speak in tongues. I'm not following your reasoning.

Do you believe everyone potentially has the ability to receive the gift of tongues?

 

[SophieT]

It's the theology that's wrong, there are a few crooks I don't doubt.

How is it their theology that's wrong?

It is the theology that puts faith before grace, the cart before the horse, that insists that we must do something in order to receive God's free grace.

God wants to heal us, God wants us to prosper just like He wants us to be saved ...

We know that we can do nothing to receive salvation only repent and believe, change our mind, change direction, at first we didn't believe now we do.

But the Holy Spirit must work these things into us.

But when it comes to healing and prosperity they start teaching the reverse, we must take the initiative, we must produce the faith and actions that will correspond to God' word. No waiting for God to do the work first.

If a preacher calls 100 sinners to the front and leads them in prayer they will say 100 sinners got saved. Mebbe some did but in reality it may only be a few. I have always been opposed to altar calls. But who knows? they say a hundred got saved, who can look into the heart to say whether the work was done?

But when a preacher asks 100 sick folks to the front you are going to know very quickly whether 100 sick folks got healed.

That's when all the nonsense begins. All the jumping up and down and anointed screamings, drop kicking old ladies to instil faith in them.

But don't doubt God's will to heal and prosper.

well you are kinda conflating a couple of things here, but basically, I don't disagree

I think some have replaced faith with presumption

I have a quite of lineup of answered prayers but it seems equally impressive unanswered questions for certain things in my life

I think the missing pieces are the interaction of other people and the fact I cannot say for certain what they act of...waxing philosophical now I guess

 

[ResidentAlien]

Of course you have a good Scriptural foundation for proving your assertion that the millions of Pentecostals who are speaking in tongues are speaking mere gibberish. Ensure that the verses you quote are in context. Don't use 1 Corinthians 13:8-10, because every intelligent person knows that these verses are not about the canon of Scripture.

Quoting a good Scriptural foundation ensures that you are not giving us a load of codswallop.

I agree, 1 Corinthians 13:8-10 isn't a very good reference for making a case for cessation so I won't use it; I don't need to use it.

1 & 2 Corinthians were written relatively early, c.54 & 55 a.d. respectively. None of the epistles which were written later have any mention of tongues at all. Why is that? It indicates that tongues was already passing away by this time. Of course Acts was written c.61 a.d., but it's an account of things that happened much earlier, not things happening in real time, as in the epistles.

History also confirms that tongues and other signs and wonders soon vanished after the apostolic age. If everyone continued to perform signs and wonders, one would think there would be plenty of evidence for it in the historical record. I'm not talking about isolated cases decades or centuries apart, which can never be confirmed anyway. I mean if Christians continued performing signs and wonders on a grand scale we'd know about it. There's nothing ongoing until Parham came along in the early 20th century. And as I've already shown, this whole scenario was manufactured by Parham, not God.

One of the main reasons Jesus performed miracles was so people would believe in Him and His message. This is also the case with signs and wonders after His resurrection—so people would believe. Believing the message has always been of primary importance.

I'm not going to dig up scriptures to satisfy you. Everything I say is easily supported by scripture and history and you can investigate for yourself if you're really serious. Here's one for you though:

"Jesus said to him, 'Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.' "—John 20:29

I might ask you, where is the verification that what passes for tongues these days is the same gift as what we have in the New Testament, that is, speaking an unknown human language previously unknown to the speaker. When Parham's missionaries put it to the test it was an embarrassing failure. Others more recently have tried to document this but nothing has ever materialized. If it's a real phenomenon, where's the evidence? You would think people would be falling over each other to document it. I'm not talking about someone said this, or someone reported that. I mean serious research with hard evidence. Every time I've posed this question to someone they immediately retreat behind: Well, tongues is a spiritual gift it doesn't respond to science. Or, tongues isn't speaking in a known language but an "angelic" language. Surely we'd have a recording or something that could be verified.

Finally, one of the main ways I know modern-day tongues aren't genuine is because anyone can do it. The gift of tongues in the New Testament was truly miraculous. They spoke an unknown human language which they had not learned. There's nothing miraculous about modern-day tongues. I could do it if I really wanted to.

 

[AandW]

I agree, 1 Corinthians 13:8-10 isn't a very good reference for making a case for cessation so I won't use it; I don't need to use it.

1 & 2 Corinthians were written relatively early, c.54 & 55 a.d. respectively. None of the epistles which were written later have any mention of tongues at all. Why is that? It indicates that tongues was already passing away by this time. Of course Acts was written c.61 a.d., but it's an account of things that happened much earlier, not things happening in real time, as in the epistles.

History also confirms that tongues and other signs and wonders soon vanished after the apostolic age. If everyone continued to perform signs and wonders, one would think there would be plenty of evidence for it in the historical record. I'm not talking about isolated cases decades or centuries apart, which can never be confirmed anyway. I mean if Christians continued performing signs and wonders on a grand scale we'd know about it. There's nothing ongoing until Parham came along in the early 20th century. And as I've already shown, this whole scenario was manufactured by Parham, not God.

One of the main reasons Jesus performed miracles was so people would believe in Him and His message. This is also the case with signs and wonders after His resurrection—so people would believe. Believing the message has always been of primary importance.

I'm not going to dig up scriptures to satisfy you. Everything I say is easily supported by scripture and history and you can investigate for yourself if you're really serious. Here's one for you though:

"Jesus said to him, 'Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.' "—John 20:29

I might ask you, where is the verification that what passes for tongues these days is the same gift as what we have in the New Testament, that is, speaking an unknown human language previously unknown to the speaker. When Parham's missionaries put it to the test it was an embarrassing failure. Others more recently have tried to document this but nothing has ever materialized. If it's a real phenomenon, where's the evidence? You would think people would be falling over each other to document it. I'm not talking about someone said this, or someone reported that. I mean serious research with hard evidence. Every time I've posed this question to someone they immediately retreat behind: Well, tongues is a spiritual gift it doesn't respond to science. Or, tongues isn't speaking in a known language but an "angelic" language.

Finally, one of the main ways I know modern-day tongues aren't genuine is because anyone can do it. The gift of tongues in the New Testament was truly miraculous. They spoke an unknown human language which they had not learned. There's nothing miraculous about modern-day tongues. I could do it if I really wanted to.

There's actually a graph showing how the Church Fathers Spoke in Tongues and even Disciples like Polycarp, Ireneaus, Ignatius of The Beloved John. Then we see the "Father of Modern Trinity, Tertullian" joining Montaneus and wrote about Speaking in Tongues. There's even Ancient Greek writers several hundred years past the Ascension writing of followers of Christ Speaking in Tongues. And we clearly see when the Roman Catholic Church took over controlled by Constantine and the spread of Catholicism to all known parts of the world they refused several Teachings of Christ and the Apostles like Speaking in Tongues so it became dormant. But nowhere did it ever stop or cease. And much of why the RCC is called the Church of Satan, because only SATAN wants Speaking in Tongues to stop!

The RCC not only tried to stop Speaking in Tongues, but promoted Mary above God, called Peter the first Pope.

So, why are you following the teachings of the RCC when pertaining to Speaking in Tongues is my question when it's a DEMONIC teaching?

 

[Wansvic]

Okay. I agree his comment was in the context of spiritual gifts, but I'm not sure I follow how this has any bearing on his clear instructions that not all speak in tongues. I'm not following your reasoning.

Do you believe everyone potentially has the ability to receive the gift of tongues?

Paul was specifically commenting on Spiritual Gifts. He stated a person can be used in one or more of the Spiritual Gifts at the direction of the Spirit. But not all will manifest the Spiritual Gift of speaking in tongues for interpretation in the church setting.

However, all can expect to speak in tongues when they initially receive the actual gift of Holy Ghost. Every instance in the biblical record of those receiving the Holy Ghost speaks to this truth: See Acts 2:1-4, 10:44-48, 19:1-6. In addition to these scriptures, take notice how the Samaritan's experience implies the same. (Acts 8) How did Philip and others know that the group had not received the Holy Ghost? What evidence was missing?

The Holy Ghost/Spirit is the promised gift of God.
Spiritual Gifts are operational gifts produced by the Spirit through human beings.

 

[ResidentAlien]

There's actually a graph showing how the Church Fathers Spoke in Tongues and even Disciples like Polycarp, Ireneaus, Ignatius of The Beloved John. Then we see the "Father of Modern Trinity, Tertullian" joining Montaneus and wrote about Speaking in Tongues. There's even Ancient Greek writers several hundred years past the Ascension writing of followers of Christ Speaking in Tongues. And we clearly see when the Roman Catholic Church took over controlled by Constantine and the spread of Catholicism to all known parts of the world they refused several Teachings of Christ and the Apostles like Speaking in Tongues so it became dormant. But nowhere did it ever stop or cease. And much of why the RCC is called the Church of Satan, because only SATAN wants Speaking in Tongues to stop!

The RCC not only tried to stop Speaking in Tongues, but promoted Mary above God, called Peter the first Pope.

So, why are you following the teachings of the RCC when pertaining to Speaking in Tongues is my question when it's a DEMONIC teaching?

I'm sorry but you'll have to forgive me if I don't put any stock in the so-called church "fathers." I've tried reading their writings and it's pure nonsense.

When you say these "fathers" spoke in tongues, what exactly are you talking about? Is it their own accounts of their experiences? What happened? Was it in a church context? Did others hear them? Did someone interpret?

 

[Wansvic]

I agree, 1 Corinthians 13:8-10 isn't a very good reference for making a case for cessation so I won't use it; I don't need to use it.

1 & 2 Corinthians were written relatively early, c.54 & 55 a.d. respectively. None of the epistles which were written later have any mention of tongues at all. Why is that? It indicates that tongues was already passing away by this time. Of course Acts was written c.61 a.d., but it's an account of things that happened much earlier, not things happening in real time, as in the epistles.

History also confirms that tongues and other signs and wonders soon vanished after the apostolic age. If everyone continued to perform signs and wonders, one would think there would be plenty of evidence for it in the historical record. I'm not talking about isolated cases decades or centuries apart, which can never be confirmed anyway. I mean if Christians continued performing signs and wonders on a grand scale we'd know about it. There's nothing ongoing until Parham came along in the early 20th century. And as I've already shown, this whole scenario was manufactured by Parham, not God.

One of the main reasons Jesus performed miracles was so people would believe in Him and His message. This is also the case with signs and wonders after His resurrection—so people would believe. Believing the message has always been of primary importance.

I'm not going to dig up scriptures to satisfy you. Everything I say is easily supported by scripture and history and you can investigate for yourself if you're really serious. Here's one for you though:

"Jesus said to him, 'Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.' "—John 20:29

I might ask you, where is the verification that what passes for tongues these days is the same gift as what we have in the New Testament, that is, speaking an unknown human language previously unknown to the speaker. When Parham's missionaries put it to the test it was an embarrassing failure. Others more recently have tried to document this but nothing has ever materialized. If it's a real phenomenon, where's the evidence? You would think people would be falling over each other to document it. I'm not talking about someone said this, or someone reported that. I mean serious research with hard evidence. Every time I've posed this question to someone they immediately retreat behind: Well, tongues is a spiritual gift it doesn't respond to science. Or, tongues isn't speaking in a known language but an "angelic" language. Surely we'd have a recording or something that could be verified.

Finally, one of the main ways I know modern-day tongues aren't genuine is because anyone can do it. The gift of tongues in the New Testament was truly miraculous. They spoke an unknown human language which they had not learned. There's nothing miraculous about modern-day tongues. I could do it if I really wanted to.

A person who lacks the experience is not someone others should look to for understanding.

You can say tongues is not genuine. But scripture says otherwise. The word also expresses there would be mockers; those not having the Spirit. Afterward the scripture goes on to encourage those who speak in tongues to build up themselves praying in the Holy Ghost:


"But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;

How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.

These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.

But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,

Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life." Jude 17-21

 

[Wansvic]

I'm sorry but you'll have to forgive me if I don't put any stock in the so-called church "fathers." I've tried reading their writings and it's pure nonsense.

When you say these "fathers" spoke in tongues, what exactly are you talking about? Is it their own accounts of their experiences? What happened? Was it in a church context? Did others hear them? Did someone interpret?

You may want to take the time and research church history. Speaking in tongues never stopped. It was not as prevalent as in days immediately following the birth of the NT church. Many of the "mainstream churches" of today refuse to accept the teaching. But keep in mind that the religious leaders throughout history have refused to accept many of the teachings of Jesus Christ. Satan is only too happy to shut down the many ways God created to fellowship with His people.

 

[ResidentAlien]

Paul was specifically commenting on Spiritual Gifts. He stated a person can be used in one or more of the Spiritual Gifts at the direction of the Spirit. But not all will manifest the Spiritual Gift of speaking in tongues for interpretation in the church setting.

However, all can expect to speak in tongues when they initially receive the actual gift of Holy Ghost. Every instance in the biblical record of those receiving the Holy Ghost speaks to this truth: See Acts 2:1-4, 10:44-48, 19:1-6. In addition to these scriptures, take notice how the Samaritan's experience implies the same. (Acts 8) How did Philip and others know that the group had not received the Holy Ghost? What evidence was missing?

The Holy Ghost/Spirit is the promised gift of God.
Spiritual Gifts are operational gifts produced by the Spirit through human beings.

Wansvic, are you saying those three cases you sited are the only cases we have a record of in the New Testament where people received the Holy Spirit? I'm still not sure if when you say "received" the Holy Spirit you mean "baptized" in the Holy Spirit. Can you clarify this?

In John 20:22, Jesus said: "And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit.' " they didn't speak in tongues in this case. In Acts 2:38 Peter said: "And Peter said to them, 'Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.' " And in Acts 2:41 we read: "So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls." In neither case are we told they spoke in tongues.

 

[AandW]

I'm sorry but you'll have to forgive me if I don't put any stock in the so-called church "fathers." I've tried reading their writings and it's pure nonsense.

When you say these "fathers" spoke in tongues, what exactly are you talking about? Is it their own accounts of their experiences? What happened? Was it in a church context? Did others hear them? Did someone interpret?

Whoah!

So you refuse the Church Fathers but accept a teaching from the RCC?

I need to log but will provide an extensive list of all who claimed to Speak in Tongues and/or witnessed the Church Body doing so in their time and day.

But the fact you're following an RCC Doctrine already tells me everything about YOU!

 

[ResidentAlien]

A person who lacks the experience is not someone others should look to for understanding.

You can say tongues is not genuine. But scripture says otherwise. The word also expresses there would be mockers; those not having the Spirit. Afterward the scripture goes on to encourage those who speak in tongues to build up themselves praying in the Holy Ghost:


"But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;

How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.

These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.

But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,

Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life." Jude 17-21

Wansvic, let me give you something to investigate when you have time.

1 Corinthians 14:15 says: "What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding." Okay, in this context Paul's clearly talking about praying and singing in tongues. But notice something, the word translated "spirit" is not capitalized, either in English or in Greek (Textus Receptus or any others). You can check this for yourself at Bible Hub.

But notice in Jude 1:20: "But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit." Holy Spirit is capitalized in the Greek showing this is talking about something else than what 1 Corinthians 1:14 is talking about. And it's not entirely clear if praying "in the Holy Spirit" has anything to do with tongues.

Jude was written c.68, long after 1 & 2 Corinthians and we don't have a clear reference here to tongues, but to the Holy Spirit.

 

[ResidentAlien]

But the fact you're following an RCC Doctrine already tells me everything about YOU!

Yup, RC to the core here.

 

[Wansvic]

Wansvic, are you saying those three cases you sited are the only cases we have a record of in the New Testament where people received the Holy Spirit? I'm still not sure if when you say "received" the Holy Spirit you mean "baptized" in the Holy Spirit. Can you clarify this?

In John 20:22, Jesus said: "And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit.' " they didn't speak in tongues in this case. In Acts 2:38 Peter said: "And Peter said to them, 'Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.' " And in Acts 2:41 we read: "So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls." In neither case are we told they spoke in tongues.

The NT spiritual rebirth did not become a reality until after Jesus ascended and the Holy Ghost was poured out on the Day of Pentecost. (Luke 24:47) Rightly dividing the word is crucial to understanding the truth concerning given topics.

The cited cases speak to the truth that those receiving the baptism of the Holy Ghost spoke in tongues. Receiving the Holy Ghost is a part of the spiritual rebirth process according to Jesus. (John 3:3-5) In addition they speak to the fact that the NT rebirth experience was relevant for all peoples (Jew, Gentile, Samaritan) and their descendants.

As far as Acts 2:41 not specifically mentioning the group speaking in tongues does not prove they did not. Many scriptures express points and leave out others. The total picture on any given topic can only be seen when all scriptures relevant to a subject are compiled and studied for clarification. According to the word itself, one's assurance that their understanding lines up with God's truth requires 2-3 scriptures that witness to a given topic.

 

[Wansvic]

Wansvic, let me give you something to investigate when you have time.

1 Corinthians 14:15 says: "What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding." Okay, in this context Paul's clearly talking about praying and singing in tongues. But notice something, the word translated "spirit" is not capitalized, either in English or in Greek (Textus Receptus or any others). You can check this for yourself at Bible Hub.

But notice in Jude 1:20: "But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit." Holy Spirit is capitalized in the Greek showing this is talking about something else than what 1 Corinthians 1:14 is talking about. And it's not entirely clear if praying "in the Holy Spirit" has anything to do with tongues.

Jude was written c.68, long after 1 & 2 Corinthians and we don't have a clear reference here to tongues, but to the Holy Spirit.

You neglected to include Paul's comment in 1 Cor. 14:2 that clarifies what is going on when a person prays in tongues. When one understands that the baptism of the Holy Spirit reconnects man's spirit with God's Spirit it all makes sense. Since God is a Spirit one who has received the spiritual rebirth can fellowship with Him via the reborn spirit. It can not be denied that this miraculous experience was designed by God for a specific purpose:

"For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries." 1 Cor 14:2

Paul then elaborates by stating he can pray and sing with the spirit and not concern himself with what transpires because He gives God full control knowing only good can come of it. And he can also pray and sing making his requests known to God through his regular language:

"For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also." 1 Cor 14:14-15

 

[AandW]

Yup, RC to the core here.

Not exactly what i stated, but it is clear on Speaking in Tongues you do adhere to the RCC Doctrine.

 

[PaulChristensen]

I agree, 1 Corinthians 13:8-10 isn't a very good reference for making a case for cessation so I won't use it; I don't need to use it.

1 & 2 Corinthians were written relatively early, c.54 & 55 a.d. respectively. None of the epistles which were written later have any mention of tongues at all. Why is that? It indicates that tongues was already passing away by this time. Of course Acts was written c.61 a.d., but it's an account of things that happened much earlier, not things happening in real time, as in the epistles.

History also confirms that tongues and other signs and wonders soon vanished after the apostolic age. If everyone continued to perform signs and wonders, one would think there would be plenty of evidence for it in the historical record. I'm not talking about isolated cases decades or centuries apart, which can never be confirmed anyway. I mean if Christians continued performing signs and wonders on a grand scale we'd know about it. There's nothing ongoing until Parham came along in the early 20th century. And as I've already shown, this whole scenario was manufactured by Parham, not God.

One of the main reasons Jesus performed miracles was so people would believe in Him and His message. This is also the case with signs and wonders after His resurrection—so people would believe. Believing the message has always been of primary importance.

I'm not going to dig up scriptures to satisfy you. Everything I say is easily supported by scripture and history and you can investigate for yourself if you're really serious. Here's one for you though:

"Jesus said to him, 'Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.' "—John 20:29

I might ask you, where is the verification that what passes for tongues these days is the same gift as what we have in the New Testament, that is, speaking an unknown human language previously unknown to the speaker. When Parham's missionaries put it to the test it was an embarrassing failure. Others more recently have tried to document this but nothing has ever materialized. If it's a real phenomenon, where's the evidence? You would think people would be falling over each other to document it. I'm not talking about someone said this, or someone reported that. I mean serious research with hard evidence. Every time I've posed this question to someone they immediately retreat behind: Well, tongues is a spiritual gift it doesn't respond to science. Or, tongues isn't speaking in a known language but an "angelic" language. Surely we'd have a recording or something that could be verified.

Finally, one of the main ways I know modern-day tongues aren't genuine is because anyone can do it. The gift of tongues in the New Testament was truly miraculous. They spoke an unknown human language which they had not learned. There's nothing miraculous about modern-day tongues. I could do it if I really wanted to.

Of course another valid reason why Paul didn't write about tongues in his other epistles was that others churches didn't have the same problems with their use of tongues as did the Corinthians. Paul wrote his epistles to deal with specific issues in churches. If something wasn't an issue, Paul never wrote about it.

In fact, if Paul hadn't had to deal with the issue about tongues and prophecy in the Corinthian church, we would never have known that he believed in the gift of tongues at all!

It's not quite true that tongues ceased soon after the last Apostle died. The church fathers were reporting tongues being spoken right through to the 4th Century, and it was still known in the Greek Orthodox church right through to the 12th Century, although in the latter stages it was spoken in smaller groups rather than in public services.

The real reason why the spiritual gifts declined and ceased was that the church underwent a change in structure, tending away from every-member participation in services, to the one-man-band priest-led programme. This edged tongues/interpretation and prophecy out of services because the priest assumed the authority in the meetings, and had the role of the spokesman for the Holy Spirit instead of the general members. Also, with the advent of the bishops' authority in the verbal ministry of the churches, to whom the priests were subject, members were not encouraged to give prophetic words or interpretation of tongues that might have given the impression that the Holy Spirit was speaking other than through the priest or bishop. This meant that tongues and prophecy, along with the other spiritual gifts became redundant in the face of man's hierarchical authority in the churches.

 

[PaulChristensen]

Furthermore, the vast majority of churches still hold to the one-man-band type of service management, and that includes Pentecostal and Charismatic ones. It is interesting to note that the AOG churches are tending away from member participation in tongues and prophecy with the pastor becoming the "priest" for the service, resulting in many AOG churches adopting the "three hymns and sermon" format, giving no room for the ordinary member to be able to give a tongues/interpretation or a prophetic word. As this happens more and more in Pentecostal and Charismatic churches, ordinary members will stop asking the Lord for prophetic words, or any of the other gifts, because there will no longer be a platform in the programme to be able to use them.

This look like history repeating itself. As the gifts started to decline after the first century AD as churches became hierarchal in structure, so many Pentecostal churches are going the same way around 120 years after the start of the Pentecostal revival.

 

[Evmur]

well you are kinda conflating a couple of things here, but basically, I don't disagree

I think some have replaced faith with presumption

I have a quite of lineup of answered prayers but it seems equally impressive unanswered questions for certain things in my life

I think the missing pieces are the interaction of other people and the fact I cannot say for certain what they act of...waxing philosophical now I guess

The missing links are in the church, and I am not anti church, how could I be?

Paul shows us what the church should be, the Body of Christ.

Folks wax lyrical about the Body of Christ [ah the mystic wonder of it all] but Paul's Body is functional with every member having a ministry gift which when they act as a whole make up the fulness of Christ, the assembly should be as though Christ were there ministering among us, as indeed He is. But because ALL the gifts are not functioning, we cannot experience the fulness of Christ's ministry. We can only experience what the pastor or the white suited guest can dob up.

For example sometimes healing in the gospels required a word of knowledge or an out and out miracle, the solution to problems like when the folks were hungry, or when the disciples faced ruin not catching any fish.

"that through the church the MANIFOLD wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places."

When you think of what the church was like in the 13th century you can see what great progress we have made but we are still a long, long way off ...probably the opportunity is/has passed by us in the west and we must look to what God is doing on other continents especially China.

 

[Angela53510]

you assume that Pentecostals don't preach the need for Christ? LOL, I guess churches in Germany that were controlled by the Government and can't even speak out against sexual perversion like homosexuality but you have an issue with those who speak in tongues?

You sit in a church that is afraid, to tell the truth, and call homosexuality sin. I live in California no other State has done more to support this sinful sexual preference and even attacked the church YET we Pentecostals have stood against it. How about you?

you complain about the foolishness of those who roll around on the floor which we have said was wrong BUT your own church bow down to a sin God said was an abomination. Your church can't even use what is called conversion therapy.

I think you're trolling all Gifts of the Holy Spirit threads is because you are trying to get the satisfaction of attacking those you disagree with because you live and are in a compromised church. I will pray for you.

I know Aidan a bit. What you have just accused him of, is totally wrong. He is a Reformed believer in Christ, loves God and knows his Bible. He is far from compromised. I don't know his church, but I've seen a lot of compromised churches from so many denominations. From Catholic to Protestant to Pentecostal. And other churches in those denominations also can be very much working in the Spirit as the body of Christ.

I've seen too many churches who fight about power and authority, nepotism and sound doctrine. The only one I haven't seen it in is the Orthodox Church, because I have only been in one, and they were not speaking in English.

As for trolling gifts, I have no idea what you are talking about! Romans 12 is clear that all are given gifts.

"Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith; 7 if service, in our serving; the one who teaches, in his teaching; 8 the one who exhorts, in his exhortation; the one who contributes, in generosity; the one who leads, with zeal; the one who does acts of mercy, with cheerfulness." Romans 12:6-8

There are a couple of other lists of the gifts. Speaking in tongues is never said to be universal.

Some of my gifts are teaching and encouragement. I've also been told I have the gift of pastoring. That doesn't mean leading a church, but it does mean leading the people of God, and caring for them.

I think until you know someone, it is ridiculous to make these terrible sweeping generalizations about people you know nothing about. God has never commanded anyone in the NT to rail and push people to speak in tongues. If it is truly a gift of the Spirit, then allow God to change hearts in a nano-second - whether we are talking about salvation as in justification, or sanctification. I don't see any verses telling people they will be sanctified and be transformed by speaking in tongues. Interestingly, though, Romans 12:2, just above the passage I posted, does give the way to be sanctified.

"Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect." Romans 12:2

I think I prefer to be transformed by the Word of God, with the Holy Spirit, than babbling in tongues. And as I have said, I spent 15 years in the Pentecostal mov't and didn't grow a bit in my spiritual walk with Christ. My Christian walk was thwarted by the teaching which exalted tongues, rather the Jesus Christ.

So berating and insulting fellow Christians. Let's face it, tongues was already fading before the Bible -New Testament was completed! There is no proof that it was a gift meant to last for years, let alone millennium.