TONGUES false teaching.
- Thread starter Major
- 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.
If you think I'm an unbeliever, then why not reply to me directly, instead of gossiping? But you don't know me at all if you haven't read my original post here:
https://christianchat.com/threads/tongues-false-teaching.196454/post-4737227
My point is, please ask questions before judging.
https://christianchat.com/threads/tongues-false-teaching.196454/post-4737227
My point is, please ask questions before judging.
-
1
- Show all
the sad thing is the word Charismatic comes from 1cor chapter 12:4 "gifts known as charisma From the Greek. in the Bible.
The word Charmatic out of that Greek word which in context to people from a secular definition :
exercising a compelling charm that inspires devotion in others.
IN context to the word of God seen in 1corthians chapters 12 through 14 speaks of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit which have many operations known as diakonia. 1cor chapter 12:6.
In 1corthians chapter 12, there are many gifts listed not just nine.
The gifts of the charisma but there are also administrations called the "diakonia"
in addition, there are the Gifts of Christ to the Church found in Eph 4:9-11
didōmi
God has set these gifts in the church. God's gifts are without repentance yet man has abused everyone God entrusted man with(and women). No more than the pulpit. Yet charismatics /Pentecostals are not all out of order, nor are they supporting the abuses of some most see on TV. IF that was the case our baptist brothers are right up there with the abuses too.
The historical context of Pentecostals is found in the book of Acts which is the foundational text along with Mark 16 and 1cor chapters 12through 14. They are known as unit Chapters. Also the Old Testament.
"Kundalini Spirit" is what was created by those who want to equate the working of the Holy Spirit to that of a devil.
The foolishness they use to support this new devil they created, was propped up by those who are abusing the gifts.
There are many reasons why yet a "Kundalini Spirit" is not the main one. Paul never said those in 1Corthians had this "Kundalini Spirit" ' He did say they were abusing the Gifts and operating incorrectly.
There are four Biblical reasons for this wrong use of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Paul said 1cor 12:1 in the context, in the text.
Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I do not want you to be ignorant:
He says this is how you authenticate them.
Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed, and no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.
Paul then goes on to say :
:4 There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
THe for ways of abusing the gifts of the Holy Spirit are :
The proper way of the use of the gifts of the Holy Spirit are also shown:
The very simple and biblical way to know. IF that is not happening The Pastor is to correct them AS PAUL IS DOING HERE in 1Corthinains chapter 11 through 14, and Eph chapter 4.
Paul did not have to seek false pagan beliefs or practices as some here use to discredit the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Paul did not call everything an evil spirit, but what Paul did say is :
Gal 6:1-5
1 Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual(mature) restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted. 2 Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. 3 For if anyone thinks himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself. 4 But let each one examine his own work, and then he will have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another. 5 For each one shall bear his own load.
You see the issue fix it. Don't cry, the devil.
The word Charmatic out of that Greek word which in context to people from a secular definition :
exercising a compelling charm that inspires devotion in others.
IN context to the word of God seen in 1corthians chapters 12 through 14 speaks of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit which have many operations known as diakonia. 1cor chapter 12:6.
In 1corthians chapter 12, there are many gifts listed not just nine.
The gifts of the charisma but there are also administrations called the "diakonia"
in addition, there are the Gifts of Christ to the Church found in Eph 4:9-11
didōmi
God has set these gifts in the church. God's gifts are without repentance yet man has abused everyone God entrusted man with(and women). No more than the pulpit. Yet charismatics /Pentecostals are not all out of order, nor are they supporting the abuses of some most see on TV. IF that was the case our baptist brothers are right up there with the abuses too.
The historical context of Pentecostals is found in the book of Acts which is the foundational text along with Mark 16 and 1cor chapters 12through 14. They are known as unit Chapters. Also the Old Testament.
"Kundalini Spirit" is what was created by those who want to equate the working of the Holy Spirit to that of a devil.
The foolishness they use to support this new devil they created, was propped up by those who are abusing the gifts.
There are many reasons why yet a "Kundalini Spirit" is not the main one. Paul never said those in 1Corthians had this "Kundalini Spirit" ' He did say they were abusing the Gifts and operating incorrectly.
There are four Biblical reasons for this wrong use of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Paul said 1cor 12:1 in the context, in the text.
Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I do not want you to be ignorant:
He says this is how you authenticate them.
Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed, and no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.
Paul then goes on to say :
:4 There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
THe for ways of abusing the gifts of the Holy Spirit are :
- operating in ignorance/ or unlearned
- in error
- falsely
- without love 1cor chapter 13
The proper way of the use of the gifts of the Holy Spirit are also shown:
- operation in love
- they must edify and comfort, and build-up
- they must bring glory to God and not man
- they must line up with the word of God
- they are confirmed by the word of God.
The very simple and biblical way to know. IF that is not happening The Pastor is to correct them AS PAUL IS DOING HERE in 1Corthinains chapter 11 through 14, and Eph chapter 4.
Paul did not have to seek false pagan beliefs or practices as some here use to discredit the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Paul did not call everything an evil spirit, but what Paul did say is :
Gal 6:1-5
1 Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual(mature) restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted. 2 Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. 3 For if anyone thinks himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself. 4 But let each one examine his own work, and then he will have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another. 5 For each one shall bear his own load.
You see the issue fix it. Don't cry, the devil.
-
1
- Show all
How am I causing division? I merely disagree with the Pentecostal interpretation of tongues, which the OP of this thread addresses. I'm saying that modern tongues is not the same thing as what is described in the NT. I invited anyone to prove me wrong in this matter. How is this causing division?
But if you want to abandon this subject, then why are you still posting in this thread? Do you think that if you wear me out with many words saying nothing, that I would abandon it first, and you would get the last word? (this is a rhetorical question)
I read the link that you provided carefully, and it says absolutely nothing about your personal practice. It's a story about somebody else. So how is this answering my question about your personal practice? You are obviously evading, and by doing so, you prove my words true, that you have a vested interest in keeping people in the dark. I get the idea that you don't want your practice evaluated, because you don't want to know if it's a language or not, or if it actually conveys any meaning. It is suggestive of self-deception.
So what if people become Christians because of modern tongues? What does that show, except that people are gullible, superstitious, and ignorant by nature. Just because it happens doesn't validate or authenticate modern glossolalia. Tongues is not what is maturing people and making them followers of Christ. What's doing that is the word of God. Tongues is a side issue, and very possibly a ruse that is getting some people to pay attention to Christ.
But if a person's Christian faith is based on tongues, then their faith is misplaced. If the faith of a person is destroyed because modern tongues is proven to be counterfeit, then that person was not really a Christian, because their faith was not based on Christ alone. If tongues cannot be examined for fear that people will abandon the faith if they find out that modern tongues is counterfeit, then it's a sacred cow. If people are kept in the dark about it because they want it to be mysterious, this then it's fear of exposure concerning a sacred cow. Just because people sincerely believe it's sacred doesn't make it so. Just because people sincerely believe it's miraculous doesn't make it so.
So if the story is about someone else and not you, then it doesn't answer the question. Therefore, it's really a matter of what you don't see, isn't it?
But if you want to abandon this subject, then why are you still posting in this thread? Do you think that if you wear me out with many words saying nothing, that I would abandon it first, and you would get the last word? (this is a rhetorical question)
I read the link that you provided carefully, and it says absolutely nothing about your personal practice. It's a story about somebody else. So how is this answering my question about your personal practice? You are obviously evading, and by doing so, you prove my words true, that you have a vested interest in keeping people in the dark. I get the idea that you don't want your practice evaluated, because you don't want to know if it's a language or not, or if it actually conveys any meaning. It is suggestive of self-deception.
So what if people become Christians because of modern tongues? What does that show, except that people are gullible, superstitious, and ignorant by nature. Just because it happens doesn't validate or authenticate modern glossolalia. Tongues is not what is maturing people and making them followers of Christ. What's doing that is the word of God. Tongues is a side issue, and very possibly a ruse that is getting some people to pay attention to Christ.
But if a person's Christian faith is based on tongues, then their faith is misplaced. If the faith of a person is destroyed because modern tongues is proven to be counterfeit, then that person was not really a Christian, because their faith was not based on Christ alone. If tongues cannot be examined for fear that people will abandon the faith if they find out that modern tongues is counterfeit, then it's a sacred cow. If people are kept in the dark about it because they want it to be mysterious, this then it's fear of exposure concerning a sacred cow. Just because people sincerely believe it's sacred doesn't make it so. Just because people sincerely believe it's miraculous doesn't make it so.
So if the story is about someone else and not you, then it doesn't answer the question. Therefore, it's really a matter of what you don't see, isn't it?
K
You're a lot of talk, very little listening. I don't think it would be hard for anyone to get the answer based on the link I gave you. I post because I wish to post, that's none of your business. It's not a rubix cube. The answer is simple. Suffice to say we do not believe the same thing. It's done.
Brother, I agree with much of what you say here. If some people in this thread are attributing modern Pentecostal tongues to the devil, then I think they are wrong. I also agree that the abuses need to stop. I do understand that most Pentecostals are trying to obey Paul's instructions, and for that I commend them.
The point I am trying to make has a different angle on it, though. I'm trying to say that modern glossolalia should be evaluated, and that's going to require recording, transliterating, and translating it. If this is done, then it will accomplish two things:
1. Show cessationists that the true gift of tongues (as they received in Acts 2) is practiced today, and
2. Show that the counterfeits are really counterfeits, which will put the fear of God in many people to stop the nonsense.
Would you agree?
The point I am trying to make has a different angle on it, though. I'm trying to say that modern glossolalia should be evaluated, and that's going to require recording, transliterating, and translating it. If this is done, then it will accomplish two things:
1. Show cessationists that the true gift of tongues (as they received in Acts 2) is practiced today, and
2. Show that the counterfeits are really counterfeits, which will put the fear of God in many people to stop the nonsense.
Would you agree?
1. modern glossolalia, can't be evaluated by a linguist because tongues interpretation is not a translation
2. the gift of tongues is a supernatural gift that the mind is NOT Fruitful 1cor 14 says which is not validated by human understanding but given through the Holy Spirit as it is in alignment with the word of God.
Those who think they need a translation of tongues for today don't understand the gift. IF it could be translated we don't need Christian Spirit-filled believers, we could hire linguists who could be non-believers to translate WHAT WAS JUST SAID. Or send it to a lab and wait for the edification?
That is not how the gift works.
-
1
- Show all
S
“But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, let the first keep silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted; and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets; for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.” 1 Corinthians 14:30–33.
I agree not a word for word. the above verses are interesting regarding that the spirit of prophets are subject to other prophets
wouldn't that mean a person can supposedly give their impression of what was said in tongues and another disagree? for sure not all who think they offer an interpretation do so rightly
I remember one church I attended and every single Sunday morning, like clockwork, one old man would stand up and suposedly give a message in tongues and then when he finished another old man, his friend I found out later, would stand up and give an interpretation
it was close to the exact same message every time and went along the lines of 'my people I am pleased with you and a bunch of stuff along those lines. meantime, the church had been turned upside down by the previous pastor having an adulterous affair and leaving (before I went there) and the current pastors sons (3) creating chaos in the local high school
maybe I am not expressing things right...but how would you see those verses above?
-
1
- Show all
I see you admitting that modern glossolalia is not language (by implication), and so it can't be evaluated by a linguist. I agree that glossolalic interpretation is not a translation, because the interpreter is getting the message out of his imagination, not from the actual glossolalia. I understand how it is done, because I observed it for 25 years, and participated in it.
Yet, the term "interpretation" really does mean "translation" with a qualification: translation is an attempt to say the same thing word for word, but interpretation is saying the same thing in one's own words. So, every translation of scripture has interpretation in it to some degree. Some "translations" like the "New Living" has very close meaning to the original text, but is loose in verbiage for the purpose of easy reading. In 1 Cor. 14, Paul uses the term "hermeneia" which is translated "interpretation," but in the lexicon it means "translation," so it's equating the two terms.
I agree that the mind is not fruitful for speaking glossolalia, but for a different reason than you think. Modern tongues is not the same thing as NT tongues, because it is a human ability which anyone can do if they try hard enough. Therefore it is not a supernatural gift. 1 Cor. 14 is talking about the supernatural gift, the same thing that the apostles spoke in Acts 2. Modern tongues is not that. If it was, then it would be a language conveying a message, and it could then be translated.
I know that it is not how modern tongues works, because it's not language. In Acts 2, non-believers heard tongues and understood it because it was language. In the same way, the tongues described in 1 Cor. 14 was also language. The reason why Paul referred to it as unknown is because the languages they were speaking weren't known to anyone in that congregation, and that was the misuse he was talking about. He mandated that there be an interpreter, that is, a translator. If there was not a translator, the person speaking was to pray for confirmation that God would give them the translation of the message spoken.
The bottom line is, if modern tongues is not a language, it has no message in it, and so if someone gives an interpretation, it's out of their imagination. Then, there is no miracle, and the people doing it are play-acting (regardless how sincere they are).
Yet, the term "interpretation" really does mean "translation" with a qualification: translation is an attempt to say the same thing word for word, but interpretation is saying the same thing in one's own words. So, every translation of scripture has interpretation in it to some degree. Some "translations" like the "New Living" has very close meaning to the original text, but is loose in verbiage for the purpose of easy reading. In 1 Cor. 14, Paul uses the term "hermeneia" which is translated "interpretation," but in the lexicon it means "translation," so it's equating the two terms.
I agree that the mind is not fruitful for speaking glossolalia, but for a different reason than you think. Modern tongues is not the same thing as NT tongues, because it is a human ability which anyone can do if they try hard enough. Therefore it is not a supernatural gift. 1 Cor. 14 is talking about the supernatural gift, the same thing that the apostles spoke in Acts 2. Modern tongues is not that. If it was, then it would be a language conveying a message, and it could then be translated.
I know that it is not how modern tongues works, because it's not language. In Acts 2, non-believers heard tongues and understood it because it was language. In the same way, the tongues described in 1 Cor. 14 was also language. The reason why Paul referred to it as unknown is because the languages they were speaking weren't known to anyone in that congregation, and that was the misuse he was talking about. He mandated that there be an interpreter, that is, a translator. If there was not a translator, the person speaking was to pray for confirmation that God would give them the translation of the message spoken.
The bottom line is, if modern tongues is not a language, it has no message in it, and so if someone gives an interpretation, it's out of their imagination. Then, there is no miracle, and the people doing it are play-acting (regardless how sincere they are).
The way I read you is: someone claims that someone spoke in tongues, which was a language that someone else understood, and so you assume that what you're doing is the same thing, and therefore it is language. What a bunch of baloney. Too many assumptions which ultimately leads to urban legend.
Firstly, the story is suspect, because it's someone's interpretation of actually happened. When something happens that people are hyped up to believe a certain thing about it, that's the way it appears to them. It's typical of the movement in which everyone claims miracles when miracles didn't happen. I know what I'm talking about because I was in it for 25 years.
Secondly, to assume that your personal practice is the same thing as what the story says (even if it's true) is an unreasonable leap. You yourself acknowledged that there are fake tongues that people do. How do you know that yours isn't fake? "Oh, I know that I know" - baloney. You only know what you want to know in this case. That doesn't make it true, nor does sincere ignorance.
Firstly, the story is suspect, because it's someone's interpretation of actually happened. When something happens that people are hyped up to believe a certain thing about it, that's the way it appears to them. It's typical of the movement in which everyone claims miracles when miracles didn't happen. I know what I'm talking about because I was in it for 25 years.
Secondly, to assume that your personal practice is the same thing as what the story says (even if it's true) is an unreasonable leap. You yourself acknowledged that there are fake tongues that people do. How do you know that yours isn't fake? "Oh, I know that I know" - baloney. You only know what you want to know in this case. That doesn't make it true, nor does sincere ignorance.
I assume you mean "Cessationism and Continuationism." Ok, I went ahead and posted there, although I don't expect any solutions, because I think that debate doesn't go anywhere. I read MacArthur's "Strange Fire" and Brown's "Authentic Fire," and neither of them get to the heart of the problem. I agree with Brown that there is no clear support in the Bible for cessationism, and I find myself disappointed in both men's exaggerative and stereotypical language. However, both books do make valid points.
-
1
- Show all