Modern Chaos: The Charismatic and Pentecostal Movements (5:35)

[presidente]

I'm glad you mentioned the interpretation coming along with the tongues. I've been puzzled by that. I don't have the gift of tongues or interpretation. I have a friend who told me a story about visiting someone in a remote area of Colombia from an old indigenous tribe, and she was able to speak to him in his language, even though she had no prior knowledge of this language, and they were all amazed. That sounds like tongues to me. Then she's also told me about when she's just praying by herself and speaks in a language of God that she doesn't understand, but she knows God does. I don't get that. Where's the interpretation? I don't see what the purpose of that would be, to speak in a language only God understands to God Himself. I don't judge her. She's a very faithful woman and has been encouraging to me in so many ways. I don't get it, though. Anyhow, i did want to say that i appreciate your posts. You seem very well spoken. God bless.

I Corinthians 14 explains this. Speaking in tongues edifies the speaker. Paul wished all his readers would do that, but he would prefer they prophesied and edified the congregation. For greater is he who prophesies than he who speaks in tongues--- unless he interprets-- that the church may be edified.

The chapter goes on to explain that uninterpreted tongues do not edify other people. But one who gives thanks in tongues gives thanks in tongues well. He goes on to teach that if one speak in tongues let it be by two or three and to let one interpret, but if there be no interpreter, let him keep silent in the church and speak to himself and to God.

So uninterpreted tongues are a way the speaker can pray to God and can edify himself or herself. A lot of personal devotional activity, like prayer in our own language also, is self-edifying. In church, tongues need to be interpreted to edify the congregation.

We also need to keep in mind that the 'commandments of the Lord' in scripture for church meetings may not be about the type of church meetings many Christian are used to. For example, many modern church meetings either have a priest leading liturgy or else on pastor assigned to give one long sermon for 30 to 45 minutes. The congregation sings before and after. Another individual might pray. Some churches have a very small version of the Lord's Supper with a tiny token meal either weekly, monthly, or less frequently.

But in the New Testament, we see they ate a meal together for the Lord's Supper, and for the ministry of the word type activities, in I Corinthians 14:26, we see that the speakers in the meeting (more than one) could be 'every one of you' within the parameters that Paul laid down. Believers could share a psalm, teaching, tongues, revelation or interpretation in the meeting. There are specific instructions for the speaker in tongues and interpreter in the verses that follow. The church is commanded to 'Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.' They are to yield the floor if someone else receives a Revelation. Paul says, "For ye may all prophesy one by one....'

Paul does not specifically mention a specific role for pastor/elder/bishop to speak in the church meeting. Since that role aligns somewhat with teaching, 'every one of you hath....a doctrine' allows for these church leaders to teach in the meetings as well.

Hebrews 10:24-25 tell the readers to consider how to provoke one another to love and to good works and not to forsake assembling. But it also indicates what we should do when we assemble--'but exhort one another.'

Some Pentecostal meetings are a merger of the traditional evangelical meeting and this type of meeting we see in scripture, carving out a little space for tongues and prophecy, but restricting the teaching for the most part to someone in a clergy role. Other Pentecostal churches have done away with the place for tongues an interpretation in the meeting. The Azusa Street Revival, at times, had meetings more similar to what was described in I Corinthians 14:26, and while there might be some niches of Pentecostalism that have elements of that or other vestiges of it with allowing testimonies, most churches restrict some of these activities to whoever is pastoring. I could say the same comparing some early Charismatic meetings to later one.

 

[TDidymas]

My memory is a bit fuzzy, but I seem to remember one post where you thought God could enable someone to speak a language if he so desired. If you do not believe the Spirit enables some members of the body of Christ to speak in 'divers tongues' or presumably to interpret tongues (as I Corinthians 12 teaches) then why would you encourage me to do so. You are not making much sense.

I think I don't make much sense to you because you have a mental block, or you're not even trying to understand what I'm saying. If you're confused still at this point, then I'm at a loss as to how to get through to you. It appears to me that you not only fail to listen to what I'm saying, but you project things into it. Some of your responses are misrepresentations of what I said, so I know for a fact you're projecting ideas.

Whether to subject speaking in tongues to a laboratory is something I would have to mull and pray over a bit. I do not have a problem with tongues for private devotion or tongues for interpretation used in the congregation. I'm not that sure about tongues being used for amusement or to jump through social scientists hoops. If I were to have peace about going in that direction, i have some ideas, but this is out of my area of academic expertise since undergraduate education in Linguistics does not go into much detail into methodology and there is not a lot of overlap between this and my own areas of academic training as far as research methodology is concerned.

Like I said, I'm not holding my breath.

If you believe anyone can speak in tongues and interpret based on their own faith, then believe God and do it. If not, then don't tell other people to do so. I believe gifts are given as the Spirit wills. You are the one being inconsistent.

Yet more misrepresentation...
Do you have the gift of tongues, or not?

 

[presidente]

I think I don't make much sense to you because you have a mental block, or you're not even trying to understand what I'm saying. If you're confused still at this point, then I'm at a loss as to how to get through to you. It appears to me that you not only fail to listen to what I'm saying, but you project things into it. Some of your responses are misrepresentations of what I said, so I know for a fact you're projecting ideas.

No you are being inconsistent. Actually you were probably being sarcastic or ironic and I treated your post as if it were sincere.

Yet more misrepresentation...

No, that was a very appropriate comment, if you are at all sincere in what you are writing.

I speak in tongues at time for private prayer, not for your amusement or to satisfy your curiosity. I have never given a message in tongues in the congregation.

While I am thinking of it, the site you sent me to did not say that Parham sent out any missionaries. Garr had been to Azusa Street, went to India, and eventually planted a church in North Carolina, near Charlotte, I think.

 

[TDidymas]

No you are being inconsistent. Actually you were probably being sarcastic or ironic and I treated your post as if it were sincere.



No, that was a very appropriate comment, if you are at all sincere in what you are writing.

I speak in tongues at time for private prayer, not for your amusement or to satisfy your curiosity. I have never given a message in tongues in the congregation.

While I am thinking of it, the site you sent me to did not say that Parham sent out any missionaries. Garr had been to Azusa Street, went to India, and eventually planted a church in North Carolina, near Charlotte, I think.

Parham is considered the father of the Pentecostal movement. So Azusa is his baby.
And yes, you are misrepresenting me. But it appears you just want to argue, so I guess this is it.

 

[TheLearner]

nothing to say

 

[Angela53510]

(Cont'd from previous page)
I'm a realist, and skeptical of testimonies from individuals involved in the movement. It's a conflict of interest, and whoever wants it to be languages will be biased in their evaluation. What is needed is objectivity and solid (forensic) evidence that can be evaluated by several parties.
Testimonies are not enough. Most of the time, it comes from one person. The Bible says that truth is established by two or three witnesses. But even this assumes that people will be truthful and unbiased, and there has to be more than one witness to make sure someone isn't making a mistake. But in this day and age when urban legends are common, there hasn't been near enough objectivity. But in regard to linguistic analysis, every case evaluated was a pseudo-language. I'm asking for even one documented case of a real language.

I don't agree. Firstly, Paul never suggested anyone spoke a tongue of angels, as that was an exaggerative expression to make a point. Secondly, an angelic language would have structure and vocabulary probably greater than human languages, so it could still be decoded; unlike modern glossolalia which is merely random syllables.
So they should have done more evaluation. This doesn't negate a linguist's ability to decode an unknown language to find structure and vocabulary.

The gospel includes all truth taught in the NT. If many people are putting their faith in the wrong thing, they need correction.

No, not at all. If some cases of tongues-speak are genuine, then it should be made known. Don't you think that could lend support for unifying the churches? But instead, what I've seen from P/Cs is hostility and evasion. It simply makes me think that they have a sacred cow to hide. Can you see my POV?

I have an anecdote with actually doesn't support my views about cessationism. I don't believe in tongues, for the same reason as you. The "babbling" is not a foreign language, needed to be interpreted. That was my experience in attending P/C churches for 15 years, from 1980-1995. (That was the first 15 years of being a Christian, and I read the Bible cover to cover 15 times, NASB!)

However, in the 1990's, a person I knew very well, had an experience where he spoke 4 words in another language at a charismatic banquet. He stopped after 4 words, nothing seem to happen, so he went on with his sermon.

At the end of the banquet, a man ran up to him from the back, with a napkin & 4 words were written on it in another language. Turns out the man was Armenian, and he was shocked that the speaker spoke Armenian. Only he didn't. Just those 4 words! And what did those words say, translated into English?

"Jesus Christ is Lord!

The first man, was an evangelist who spoke the 4 words. He explained the gospel, and the man was saved. The next day, the evangelist with the napkin went to the Armenian's house, and more people from that household were saved, as a result if the 4 words, and the gospel that was preached!

This Armenian man invited the evangelist to meet more of his family, more of his friends, until 27 people were saved, going to church and reading the Bible, mostly in Armenian.

I saw the evangelist a few months later, speaking at a banquet. We talked about it, he was quite perturbed! For one thing, he knew God saved those people, not him and his skills or talents as an evangelist. He had become very much of a braggart. But this made him realize it was God's work, not his ability! He seemed very far from God. All the people who got saved were still following God. But it seemed to have driven him away from God. A few years later, I met him, again, he was divorced from his wife. She left him, got breast cancer and refused treatment because she "claimed" healing, having gotten into Word of Faith nonsense. She died within the year, because the cancer metastasized all over her body. An example of why I don't believe in healing on demand.

Anyway, I saw the napkin, the 4 words, and met the Armenian man who got saved, he and his family and friends. But about 4 years later, the evangelist had gone back to drinking, gambling, wild woman, on Friday and Saturday night, and preaching on a Sunday morning as a guest evangelist in various PAOC (sister denomination to AoG.) churches..

I really do believe those 4 words were Armenian, and God saved those 27 people. But no one was healed. The messsge was salvation. But why did the evangelist back slide and his ex-wife die, although she and her church and supposedly Kenneth Copeland's organization, )that is who she was affiliated) all prayed for her healing. Why was so much sin involved?

I have concluded that God's ways are not my ways! God saved who he wanted, with only a bit of help from the evangelist speaking in a real language but only 4 words. I don't believe most tongues are real, but neither am I going to try and limit God. Maybe God will use tongues this way, to start a revival. Or maybe he won't. I still basically don't believe in tongues, which are mostly fabricated. But yet, this happened, where 4 words in "another language" saved 27 people, by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Until you check every single person and anecdote of speaking in tongues, and conclude that it was all falsehood, you cannot really condemn tongues. To totally condemn tongues is an insult to the Holy Spirit. If my example is the only one in the whole world that can be confirmed, you cannot claim cessationism is the right answer.

My God is much bigger than I will ever be. It is not contradicting the Bible to have actual cases where people get saved from hearing key words exalting Jesus in a real language. I agree the cases are few, but they exist. But, I agree many are speaking in tongues that are driven by the self, and not the Holy Spirit. I have a very intimate relationship with God. I don't need speaking in other tongues to support my faith in God. No Christian should! Tongues should be a sign to non-believers, although in this day and age, perhaps we should just be trusting God to lead us and guide us so we serve him!

 

[TDidymas]

I have an anecdote with actually doesn't support my views about cessationism. I don't believe in tongues, for the same reason as you. The "babbling" is not a foreign language, needed to be interpreted. That was my experience in attending P/C churches for 15 years, from 1980-1995. (That was the first 15 years of being a Christian, and I read the Bible cover to cover 15 times, NASB!)

However, in the 1990's, a person I knew very well, had an experience where he spoke 4 words in another language at a charismatic banquet. He stopped after 4 words, nothing seem to happen, so he went on with his sermon.

At the end of the banquet, a man ran up to him from the back, with a napkin & 4 words were written on it in another language. Turns out the man was Armenian, and he was shocked that the speaker spoke Armenian. Only he didn't. Just those 4 words! And what did those words say, translated into English?

"Jesus Christ is Lord!

The first man, was an evangelist who spoke the 4 words. He explained the gospel, and the man was saved. The next day, the evangelist with the napkin went to the Armenian's house, and more people from that household were saved, as a result if the 4 words, and the gospel that was preached!

This Armenian man invited the evangelist to meet more of his family, more of his friends, until 27 people were saved, going to church and reading the Bible, mostly in Armenian.

I saw the evangelist a few months later, speaking at a banquet. We talked about it, he was quite perturbed! For one thing, he knew God saved those people, not him and his skills or talents as an evangelist. He had become very much of a braggart. But this made him realize it was God's work, not his ability! He seemed very far from God. All the people who got saved were still following God. But it seemed to have driven him away from God. A few years later, I met him, again, he was divorced from his wife. She left him, got breast cancer and refused treatment because she "claimed" healing, having gotten into Word of Faith nonsense. She died within the year, because the cancer metastasized all over her body. An example of why I don't believe in healing on demand.

Anyway, I saw the napkin, the 4 words, and met the Armenian man who got saved, he and his family and friends. But about 4 years later, the evangelist had gone back to drinking, gambling, wild woman, on Friday and Saturday night, and preaching on a Sunday morning as a guest evangelist in various PAOC (sister denomination to AoG.) churches..

I really do believe those 4 words were Armenian, and God saved those 27 people. But no one was healed. The messsge was salvation. But why did the evangelist back slide and his ex-wife die, although she and her church and supposedly Kenneth Copeland's organization, )that is who she was affiliated) all prayed for her healing. Why was so much sin involved?

I have concluded that God's ways are not my ways! God saved who he wanted, with only a bit of help from the evangelist speaking in a real language but only 4 words. I don't believe most tongues are real, but neither am I going to try and limit God. Maybe God will use tongues this way, to start a revival. Or maybe he won't. I still basically don't believe in tongues, which are mostly fabricated. But yet, this happened, where 4 words in "another language" saved 27 people, by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Until you check every single person and anecdote of speaking in tongues, and conclude that it was all falsehood, you cannot really condemn tongues. To totally condemn tongues is an insult to the Holy Spirit. If my example is the only one in the whole world that can be confirmed, you cannot claim cessationism is the right answer.

My God is much bigger than I will ever be. It is not contradicting the Bible to have actual cases where people get saved from hearing key words exalting Jesus in a real language. I agree the cases are few, but they exist. But, I agree many are speaking in tongues that are driven by the self, and not the Holy Spirit. I have a very intimate relationship with God. I don't need speaking in other tongues to support my faith in God. No Christian should! Tongues should be a sign to non-believers, although in this day and age, perhaps we should just be trusting God to lead us and guide us so we serve him!

Thank you for being honest, it's refreshing in a thread like this one. In my original post in this thread, I state that the debate over cessationism and continuationism doesn't get anywhere. (This post: https://christianchat.com/threads/tongues-false-teaching.196454/post-4737227 ). I think there is a lot of confusion over those terms, and there seems to be a dozen different definitions of them. Even scholars like John MacArthur and Michael Brown can't agree what those terms mean.

The story you told seems credible. I like the fact of the honesty of it, telling the bad with the good. It's credible for me because I know God works in mysterious ways. I once got rebuked by an atheist for an unethical excuse I made, and I knew God was speaking to me through him. There are many hypocrites in the churches whom God chooses to work through to edify His sheep.

And since I do believe some testimonies about miraculous healings that have happened (for example, Elizabeth Elliott was instantly healed of cancer), it seems reasonable that God could speak a miraculous language to someone. It is unfortunate that in the past 100 years that there has been so much counterfeit religion, fraud, urban legends and such, that whenever God does a miracle, people tend not to believe it.

It is possible that some authentic Biblical tongues have been spoken in the past century. Although I acknowledge that possibility, I don't believe in the modern P/C (Pentecostal/Charismatic) movement. I believe they teach bad doctrines, and the tongues they regularly practice are counterfeit, human ability, and not of the Holy Spirit. I think it makes for a convoluted mess. And the fact that they cannot seem to hold a civil conversation about it (in my experience) shows that the practice and belief about it is divisive.

I would define cessationism in this way: in the 1st Century, God gave miraculous gifts to believers (as an aid to faith in Christ). As the churches were established, NT writings copied and circulated, the first generation of Christians dying, and probably other factors, those gifts ceased, as most of the early church fathers testified. Those gifts were delegated to those people to use at their discretion, so it was a permanent gift to those individuals. And no one today has such a permanent miraculous gift to use at their discretion.

Therefore, I would explain the story you told by saying that it was a one-time miraculous event that God did, just the same as healings are done today. No one has the gift of healing, since no one can heal anyone any time they want. Healings happen because God decides to do it that time. It would seem reasonable, then, that God would decide occasionally to speak to someone through a miraculous language. It doesn't mean that modern tongues is the gift of tongues as the Bible describes.

Therefore, all the hubbub and doctrines taught by P/Cs about tongues is unbiblical, wrong, and not of God, IMO. And if you read my OP I cited, you'll see where I'm coming from.

 

[presidente]

It is possible that some authentic Biblical tongues have been spoken in the past century. Although I acknowledge that possibility, I don't believe in the modern P/C (Pentecostal/Charismatic) movement.

The example she gave of someone speaking in tongues in Armenian was from a Pentecostal or Charismatic preacher, apparently.

And someone could operate in a gift of the Spirit, teach, even lead a church and fall into sin. Paul had a fellow worker named Demas. Another book says Demas had loved this present world. Judas has power to do miracles. Balaam and Caiaphas prophesied. We have to continue in our faith.

And the fact that they cannot seem to hold a civil conversation about it (in my experience) shows that the practice and belief about it is divisive.

Have people on this forum held civil conversations with you?

I would define cessationism in this way: in the 1st Century, God gave miraculous gifts to believers (as an aid to faith in Christ). As the churches were established, NT writings copied and circulated, the first generation of Christians dying, and probably other factors, those gifts ceased, as most of the early church fathers testified.

Jude said to contend for 'the faith once delivered to the saints.' The idea that the Spirit gives gifts like gifts of healing, prophecy, tongues, and interpretation as He wills is part of the apostolic teaching in the New Testament. The idea that these gifts gradually died out as you describe is not taught in the New Testament.

If you actually sit down and look up some of the so-caelld 'chruch father's' writings and other writings from the period looking for references to spiritual gifts, you will find lots and lots of evidence for continuation of spiritual gifts and a belief in the continuation of spiritual gifts. For example, Irenaeus, writing around 200 AD, wrote of brethren who healed the sick, had foreknowledge, prophesied, spoke in tongues, and interpreted, and even raising the dead. He wrote a book exposing many of the gnostic heresies of his days, called _Against Heresies_. In another work, he wrote that rejecting prophecy was one of the characteristics of the heresies, cutting people off from the grace of God thereby. Hermas also wrote about prophesying in church in the second century.

You could also read Eusebius' treatment of the Montanist controversy in his __Ecclesiastical History__. With the various quotes from previous centuries, he shows that the church accept the gift of prophecy as a genuine gift that belong to the church and he quoted many who rejected Montanus' gift as not being genuine. Their issue was not with whether prophesying continued, but whether Montanus was authentic. He quotes Miltiades who said that 14 years after Montanus and his two assistants died, the Montanists could not put forth a prophecy, but that prophecy would continue until the Lord returned, as the apostle taught.

Those gifts were delegated to those people to use at their discretion, so it was a permanent gift to those individuals. And no one today has such a permanent miraculous gift to use at their discretion.

Could a prophet prophesy anything he wanted at will and make it God's word? Acts never labels what the apostles did 'gifts'.

Look at the wording here in I Corinthians 12
7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;
9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;
10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:

If someone gets one one-off word of knowledge or one prophecy, isn't that one 'manifestation of the Spirit.' The individual is dependent on the Spirit to empower him or her for any of these gifts. Once in Lystra, Paul saw a crippled man and saw that he had the faith to be healed, then told him to walk. Jesus often said things like 'according to your faith be it unto you' and similar statements before healing someone. He did not do many mighty works in Nazareth because of their unbelief. Peter could walk on water when Jesus told him to... but only before he doubted.

 

[KarynLouise]

The example she gave of someone speaking in tongues in Armenian was from a Pentecostal or Charismatic preacher, apparently.

And someone could operate in a gift of the Spirit, teach, even lead a church and fall into sin. Paul had a fellow worker named Demas. Another book says Demas had loved this present world. Judas has power to do miracles. Balaam and Caiaphas prophesied. We have to continue in our faith.



Have people on this forum held civil conversations with you?



Jude said to contend for 'the faith once delivered to the saints.' The idea that the Spirit gives gifts like gifts of healing, prophecy, tongues, and interpretation as He wills is part of the apostolic teaching in the New Testament. The idea that these gifts gradually died out as you describe is not taught in the New Testament.

If you actually sit down and look up some of the so-caelld 'chruch father's' writings and other writings from the period looking for references to spiritual gifts, you will find lots and lots of evidence for continuation of spiritual gifts and a belief in the continuation of spiritual gifts. For example, Irenaeus, writing around 200 AD, wrote of brethren who healed the sick, had foreknowledge, prophesied, spoke in tongues, and interpreted, and even raising the dead. He wrote a book exposing many of the gnostic heresies of his days, called _Against Heresies_. In another work, he wrote that rejecting prophecy was one of the characteristics of the heresies, cutting people off from the grace of God thereby. Hermas also wrote about prophesying in church in the second century.

You could also read Eusebius' treatment of the Montanist controversy in his __Ecclesiastical History__. With the various quotes from previous centuries, he shows that the church accept the gift of prophecy as a genuine gift that belong to the church and he quoted many who rejected Montanus' gift as not being genuine. Their issue was not with whether prophesying continued, but whether Montanus was authentic. He quotes Miltiades who said that 14 years after Montanus and his two assistants died, the Montanists could not put forth a prophecy, but that prophecy would continue until the Lord returned, as the apostle taught.



Could a prophet prophesy anything he wanted at will and make it God's word? Acts never labels what the apostles did 'gifts'.

Look at the wording here in I Corinthians 12
7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;
9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;
10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:

If someone gets one one-off word of knowledge or one prophecy, isn't that one 'manifestation of the Spirit.' The individual is dependent on the Spirit to empower him or her for any of these gifts. Once in Lystra, Paul saw a crippled man and saw that he had the faith to be healed, then told him to walk. Jesus often said things like 'according to your faith be it unto you' and similar statements before healing someone. He did not do many mighty works in Nazareth because of their unbelief. Peter could walk on water when Jesus told him to... but only before he doubted.

I wish I was as well educated as you. I'm just starting to read the church fathers, but I'm not good about keeping up with it.

 

[TDidymas]

The example she gave of someone speaking in tongues in Armenian was from a Pentecostal or Charismatic preacher, apparently.

And someone could operate in a gift of the Spirit, teach, even lead a church and fall into sin. Paul had a fellow worker named Demas. Another book says Demas had loved this present world. Judas has power to do miracles. Balaam and Caiaphas prophesied. We have to continue in our faith.

What? As if "our faith" requires a belief in modern tongues?
You mention Judas having power to do miracles, yet Jesus called him "the son of perdition." Do you claim he was saved and filled with the Holy Spirit at the time?
I already said that God can do anything He wants, even perform miracles through unregenerate men and "sons of perdition."

Have people on this forum held civil conversations with you?

I didn't mean everyone. You've been quite civil, in spite of your misrepresentations.

Jude said to contend for 'the faith once delivered to the saints.' The idea that the Spirit gives gifts like gifts of healing, prophecy, tongues, and interpretation as He wills is part of the apostolic teaching in the New Testament. The idea that these gifts gradually died out as you describe is not taught in the New Testament.

I didn't say it was. I was relating church history.
Besides that, Jude said nothing at all concerning the gifts of the Spirit in his context of "the faith." He rather spoke of holiness and right doctrine. (that is, orthodoxy and orthopraxy).

If you actually sit down and look up some of the so-caelld 'chruch father's' writings and other writings from the period looking for references to spiritual gifts, you will find lots and lots of evidence for continuation of spiritual gifts and a belief in the continuation of spiritual gifts. For example, Irenaeus, writing around 200 AD, wrote of brethren who healed the sick, had foreknowledge, prophesied, spoke in tongues, and interpreted, and even raising the dead. He wrote a book exposing many of the gnostic heresies of his days, called _Against Heresies_. In another work, he wrote that rejecting prophecy was one of the characteristics of the heresies, cutting people off from the grace of God thereby. Hermas also wrote about prophesying in church in the second century.

Iranaeus was contemporary with Montanus, and since neither men were infallible, they both could have been deceived by the same kind of human ability that is commonly practiced today. It's the same with the Donatists later, which movement died out as did Montanism. Therefore, the "tongues as initial evidence" theory cannot be true.

You could also read Eusebius' treatment of the Montanist controversy in his __Ecclesiastical History__. With the various quotes from previous centuries, he shows that the church accept the gift of prophecy as a genuine gift that belong to the church and he quoted many who rejected Montanus' gift as not being genuine. Their issue was not with whether prophesying continued, but whether Montanus was authentic. He quotes Miltiades who said that 14 years after Montanus and his two assistants died, the Montanists could not put forth a prophecy, but that prophecy would continue until the Lord returned, as the apostle taught.

And so do Christians today also claim that the P/C movement is not genuine. The P/Cs also prove so, by the fact that the vast majority of their prophecies are false (they don't come true in the time specified). Many self-proclaimed prophets don't specify any times, but use "if" and other contingencies to excuse themselves.

Could a prophet prophesy anything he wanted at will and make it God's word? Acts never labels what the apostles did 'gifts'.

Look at the wording here in I Corinthians 12
7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;
9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;
10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:

If someone gets one one-off word of knowledge or one prophecy, isn't that one 'manifestation of the Spirit.' The individual is dependent on the Spirit to empower him or her for any of these gifts. Once in Lystra, Paul saw a crippled man and saw that he had the faith to be healed, then told him to walk. Jesus often said things like 'according to your faith be it unto you' and similar statements before healing someone. He did not do many mighty works in Nazareth because of their unbelief. Peter could walk on water when Jesus told him to... but only before he doubted.

1. Paul wrote "the spirit of the prophet is subject to the prophet" in the context of being silent until an appropriate time. Therefore, a prophet could prophesy when he wanted to do so. Paul implied that also, since he was rebuking the Corinthians for speaking in tongues inappropriately. He wrote "the gift and calling of God is irrevocable," so those gifts were delegated to individuals to use at their discretion.
2. A one-off miracle is not excluded. But there are some P/Cs today that teach those gifts were all one-offs. Do you agree with that theory? (I don't)
3. The passage in 1 Cor. 12 doesn't say one way or another if the gifts were given permanently to individuals, or temporarily to individuals in a corporate setting. That distinction has to be made in the wider context of scripture.

 

[Evmur]

Modern Chaos: The Charismatic and Pentecostal Movements
5 min 35 secs

Segment taken from the Film 'Of Chaos and Confusion: The Modern Church':
-> Of Chaos and Confusion: The Modern Church (Full Film) - YouTube (2 hours, 29 mins)

[video=youtube;nezpNOBDOwM]

A Megiddo Films Production
Produced, Written and Directed by Paul Flynn
Running Time: 2.5 hours
Copyright 2012 Paul Flynn.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
link -> http://megiddofilms.org/

They seem to be the only ones winning souls. The MILLIONS who have been saved in China since the 80s are Pentecostal to a man and woman.

 

[ResidentAlien]

They seem to be the only ones winning souls. The MILLIONS who have been saved in China since the 80s are Pentecostal to a man and woman.

You throw this out constantly but it's meaningless. I suppose numbers are supposed to be impressive.

Let me ask you: Mormonism is growing at a phenomenal rate. Does that mean it's Biblical or that people are getting saved? You confuse numbers with salvation.

 

[Heaven_Bound]

You throw this out constantly but it's meaningless. I suppose numbers are supposed to be impressive.

Let me ask you: Mormonism is growing at a phenomenal rate. Does that mean it's Biblical or that people are getting saved? You confuse numbers with salvation.

Mormons have multiple wives that produce an alarming amount of children. That belief grows because the pews keep getting filled by sister wives giving birth, not by Salvation, to a False Doctrine found within a bible that claims Satan and Jesus were brothers.

 

[ResidentAlien]

Mormons have multiple wives that produce an alarming amount of children. That belief grows because the pews keep getting filled by sister wives giving birth, not by Salvation, to a False Doctrine found within a bible that claims Satan and Jesus were brothers.

You assume Pentecostalism isn't teaching false doctrine.

 

[Oblio]

I feel like I'm standing with all of church history behind me, and in front of me is what the LORD is going to do. All the charismatic passion and all the sound doctrine in the world cannot touch what has come upon the earth.
We are entering the third year of a global crisis and if the forums that I've been spending my time on for the past year and a half are any indication, the body of Christ is still no more united than a new puzzle in a box. And no one talks about it!

 

[Heaven_Bound]

When I lived in Mesa, Arizona, the second largest per capita Mormon established community and second largest Temple within the USA, I coached Pop Warner Youth football and interacted with the Mormons on a daily basis. My Chiropractor was Mormon, good man, and we became good friends, told me [because I asked] he wore his MAGIC UNDERWEAR AND T-SHIRT to work daily because many of his patients were non believers.

I never asked, but, if you think a non believer spirit can creep into your body through where your UNDERWEAR is worn at, you got some serious issues going on!

 

[Heaven_Bound]

You assume Pentecostalism isn't teaching false doctrine.

Not saying that at all. But they are using the right Bible to begin with!

 

[ResidentAlien]

Not saying that at all. But they are using the right Bible to begin with!

Using the right Bible is meaningless if you don't obey what it says.

Granted, no one teaches absolutely true doctrine across the board; but Pentecostalism was built on a foundation of error. The New Apostolic Reformation is one of Pentecostalism's illegitimate children, and it's probably the one single group that's that's leading people astray more than any of 'em.

 

[Heaven_Bound]

Using the right Bible is meaningless if you don't obey what it says.

Granted, no one teaches absolutely true doctrine across the board; but Pentecostalism was built on a foundation of error. The New Apostolic Reformation is one of Pentecostalism's illegitimate children, and it's probably the one single group that's that's leading people astray more than any of 'em.

I have already mentioned this in another thread, so might as well drop it here too.

Look at every Denomination from the past 25 years.

On average, everyone but Pentecostals, have up to 25 on average and as much to 35% of their Leadership coming from people WHO ARE PROFESSING/CONFESSING HOMOSEXUAL IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.

You know why the LIGHT IN THE LOAFERS PEOPLE are not Leaders in the Pentecostal/Charismatic realm?

Because Speaking in Tongues convicts them and will cause their DEMONS to leave!

When Robert Jeffress, one of the most well known Baptist preachers teaches, WE CANNOT PREACH AGAINST HOMOSEXUALS, that Denomination is SPIRITUALLY DEAD!

 

[presidente]

What? As if "our faith" requires a belief in modern tongues?

Many of us Christians believe that doctrine must be based on scripture, that the Bible spells out the doctrines of the church. Spiritual gifts being given to the first generation or so of Christians and gradually fading away is not not in scripture. The idea that the the manifestations of the Spirit are given to every man as He wills--followed by that list of gifts-- that is a Biblical doctrine on the matter.

You mention Judas having power to do miracles, yet Jesus called him "the son of perdition." Do you claim he was saved and filled with the Holy Spirit at the time?

Jesus said he was a devil. The apostles had the power to do miracles before the outpouring of the Spirit in Acts 2.

I didn't say it was. I was relating church history.

So you would base doctrine on church history and not scripture on this issue? If you want to know if some of these spiritual gifts were active in church history, you can find web pages with numerous examples. Burgess wrote a three volume set 'The Spirit and the Church.' Volume III 'Antiquity' contains numerous examples from the antenicene period. Michael Green's _Evangelism in the Early Church_ also makes the case for the role of spiritual gifts in that era as they relates to evangelism.

Iranaeus was contemporary with Montanus, and since neither men were infallible, they both could have been deceived by the same kind of human ability that is commonly practiced today. It's the same with the Donatists later, which movement died out as did Montanism. Therefore, the "tongues as initial evidence" theory cannot be true.

Your last sentence does not follow logically from the previous statements. Also, if you read my recent posts, I do not believe in the 'tongues as initial evidence' theory.

And so do Christians today also claim that the P/C movement is not genuine.

Are you implying that Pentecostals and Charismatics are not Christians? There are many Christians outside of the movement who acknowledge that God operates through these spiritual gifts.

[quote[
The P/Cs also prove so, by the fact that the vast majority of their prophecies are false (they don't come true in the time specified). Many self-proclaimed prophets don't specify any times, but use "if" and other contingencies to excuse themselves.[/quote]

There are movements that actively teach that 'missing it' on prophecies is no big deal who seem to do just that quite often, but since so many prophecies are given to local churches and individuals, and not by people on TV or YouTube channels with lots of viewers, you cannot rightly say 'most prophecies' are false. Except for a few instances, 'in real life'' my experience with prophecies have been positive.

Only some prophecies are predictions of the future anyway. We can see that they are not all predictions of the future in the Old Testament also. And Old Testament prophecies often did not have an end date. People with different eschatological systems disagree as to how or when many of these prophecies would be fulfilled.

1. Paul wrote "the spirit of the prophet is subject to the prophet" in the context of being silent until an appropriate time. Therefore, a prophet could prophesy when he wanted to do so.

The passage also says that 'if a revelation cometh to one that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.' The one prophesying has to have some content to share. If a prophet is prophesying and one sitting by gets a revelation, the speaking prophet is able to be quiet so the Spirit can continue ministering through prophecy to another individual. That's different from the prophet making up what the message is.

2. A one-off miracle is not excluded. But there are some P/Cs today that teach those gifts were all one-offs. Do you agree with that theory? (I don't)

In the first list in I Corinthians, the Spirit may give the manifestation of the word of wisdom, to another the word of knowledge. These could be one-offs. But toward the end of the chapter, we read

27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

These seem to be regular roles.

My question about this is studying this chapter an academic exercise for you, or do you believe it and expect God to do this in the church?