Pentecostalism's sketchy origins

[DavidTree]

I didn't ask you to respond to that. But since you did, your response seems no different than others who get offended, and then write exaggerative statements as a griping rebuttal. It's simply added evidence that the modern tongues movement is a sacred cow, and has more to do with sentiment than with Biblical truth.

So MacArthur exhibits some level of prejudice and stereotyping. So what? no one is perfect. I don't subscribe to everything he says. But I'd like to point out that your religious jargon doesn't prove that you have anything other Christians don't have. Many people, including myself, have received the Spirit and are filled with the Spirit without the need for the modern tongues experience. Therefore your usage of "the Baptism of the Holy Spirit" is out of context, and is permeated by Pentecostal religious tradition.

BTW, nothing personal, I'm merely responding to your words. Your quote from James 1:7 indicates to me that the reason why you said it is because you think you have wisdom from God that I don't have. Don't you?

Well you certainly warrant for your self a rebuttal because your post here is evidence of illicit thought that does not agree with Scripture but comes from a heart of unbelief.

i never said to you or anyone that you must speak in tongues to authenticate the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.

The LORD Jesus Christ set the example for us by Himself being the First to be Baptized in the Holy Spirit, since HE is the Way the Truth and the Life.
Since HE is the Way, it stands to Reason that we should follow His Way.

Your have erred by assuming a sin was in my bosom and was used against you - this is error.

The context of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit begins in John chapter 1, is continued on thru the Gospel of John and is manifested in Acts chapters 1 -4 and continues throughout Acts.
The error of those who puff themselves up against this contextual Revelation of the Promise of the Father will always be rebuked including when they stand before the LORD, of which their error will be found out to their sorrow( do not assume here that i am saying they will be lost - false).

This error is already rebuked by the LORD in Acts and 1 Corinthians.
Avail yourself to His correction and you will be Blessed - amen.

NOTE: The reference to James 1:7 is the format laid out by God to receiving or not based on ones actions in connection to the Promises of God. It applies to all of God's children at all times.

 

[DavidTree]

I see you justifying the idea that if you haven't spoken in tongues, you don't have the Holy Spirit. Your response is a perfect example of people who think they have something that other Christians don't have. Do you also think of yourself as holier than those who have not received the same experience as you?

False again - you speak with a forked tongue.

 

[peldom10]

I was asked to post this here;


Baptism is Required page 1 of 2



Peter 3: 21.... whereunto even baptism doth also now save us...

John 3:5 .......Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.


Acts 2;38-....Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.


Acts 22;16... And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.


Galations 3:26...... For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.


KJV Marrk 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

KJV Matthew 3:14... But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? 15. Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now, for thus it becometh us to fulfil all rightesousness. Then He suffered Him.

KJV Matthew 28:19..... Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:.

Acts 8:12-18: But when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized.

Quote from Billy Graham that is note worthy;
....Also, to clarify I did not say remission of sin takes place at repentance. Scripture makes it clear that it occurs upon obedience to water baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus. Each is a step of faith, along with receiving the Holy Ghost, in the process of one's spiritual rebirth

.."Paul explains the doctrinal significance of what occurs when one is baptized.His explanation is found in his letter to those who had already been obedient to the command.

Paul tells the Roman Christians what actually occurred when they were/are baptized; they were baptized into His death. Being buried with Jesus into His death resulted in their sin being destroyed.

Even though Paul explains this concept, the NEW AGE RELIGION TEACHING is......... that water baptism is nothing other than a mere public display.......... And that is so far removed from the truth.

Keep in mind that Satan knows if he can continue to perpetuate that lie ...... he can keep people from entering the kingdom of God. Thus He has proven scripture which says ...in the end times there will be ...great delusions.....they are here.

Conclusion....teaching that baptism is not necessary is violation of Rev. 22;19.... And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. 20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus. (Also two other books of the Bib le instructs the same way).

 

[Amanuensis]

I disagree with your spin on this as well. Yes, they all spoke in tongues in Acts 2 on the day of Pentecost. No, they did not all speak simultaneously, since it says "they began to speak..." They all had flames of fire on their heads, which did not ever happen again. The shekinah of the Spirit was stronger at first than later, so they all did it. But many (if not all) of the 3000 who became Christians that day did not speak in tongues, since it says nothing about that. If they had all spoken in tongues, surely that would have been significant enough to mention it in the historical narrative, but there is no mention. Therefore, my conclusion is that only the 120 got the gift of tongues, but all received the Spirit, were baptized, and were added to the church.

The other 2 places in Acts that mention tongues were significant because it was new groups: Gentile proselytes in Acts 10 (in Caesarea in Judea), and disciples of John the Baptist in Acts 19 in Ephesus (far from Judea). It was important for these groups to have an immediate visible manifestation to show the apostles that God was working among the gentiles, outside of the Jewish circles - Acts 11:18. It is not reasonable to assume that every Christian spoke in tongues. This fits well in the framework of Paul's statements in 1 Cor. 12.

I can appreciate that you disagree. But it is not my spin that you are disagreeing with. It is my interpretation. Applying his question "do all speak in tongues" to the context of what he explained in the context about tongues and interpretation in the assembly is the most important rule of hermeneutics, that of immediate context. You can't say that I spinned it by applying it to what he was talking about. I would call that the safest application possible, and not a spin.

As to whether the 3000 spoke in tongues. I really do not know. I cannot say that they did, but I cannot conclude that they did not.

Your reason that if they did Luke would have mentioned it is not a persuasive reason to me. I think they call that making an argument out of silence. Just because Luke does not mention it does not mean it did not happen. I am not saying that they did. But I can't say that they did not.

Is it possible that Luke assumed that based on Peter's statement that they would receive the same promise that they saw and heard, that they did, and Luke did not feel the need to be any more verbose about it?

Or maybe it wasn't mentioned because it might confuse people into thinking that tongues was an evidence of being saved which it is not, so it would not be useful to mention that they also spoke in tongues and prophesied. But to say they did not based on silence is not something I can commit to. That is one I will learn about later I suppose.

 

[kaylagrl]

This is going to be odd. Somehow you got caught in quotes. I'll do my best.

K -You don't have any special knowledge. That's the point.
TD- Neither do you.
K- That was my point. We have a different view of that verse. But you're insisting I'm wrong. I'm saying I disagree with your view, I don't believe the perfect has come yet and you can't use that one verse to say tongues has ceased. I'm saying be mature and say you understand others can take that in a different interpretation to you and that does make them wrong. But you insist you're right. You're the one being obtuse.


K- Yeah, and that would be called judging. Which I could turn around on you. You're judging someone's intent and heart, you're not God.

TD- "By their fruits you shall know them." "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with a righteous judgment." In both cases, we are commanded by Jesus to discern other people. In person, I judge attitudes by behavior. In forums, I judge people by what they say. But then you do that, too. Everyone does. The question is, how accurate are your judgments? If you are judging with a prejudice, stereotyping, or projecting on someone something that isn't there, then your judgment is false. If you judge in line with what is being said, then the judgment is true.

K- First off, you don't know my fruits, so let's step off of that point. If I'm so judgmental with prejudice, stereotyping, and projection, why would I travel in every denomination sharing the Gospel? I would stay within my own people, just the ones that agreed with my POV. Sooo, you're throwing everything at the wall but it doesn't stick.


K - Could you explain how they are "legalistic" please.

TD - 1. Toe the line, or you could lose your salvation and go to hell. I heard many a sermon about that.
2. Verbal whips about miniscule sins, but offering no solution. That is, fear/guilt motivation.
3. If you confess anything, you're ostracized.
4. If you fail as a leader, there are no 2nd chances. They make you feel like if you step down, God will be angry.
5. If you don't tithe, you will be cursed.
6. Don't get caught sinning, or you'll be raked over the coals. Most new Christians early learn to hide their wrongdoings.
7. Doctrine and practice says that if you haven't spoken in tongues, you haven't received the Spirit. "Just keep trying, some day you'll get it" they say. So the narrative teaches people that they lack something they need as a Christian. Hardly edifying.
8. A constant "your blessing is just around the corner" type of hype, that is, hanging a carrot in front of you, to keep you striving.
Is this enough? I could go on.


1. So you're a Calvinist?
2. Miniscule sins such as?
3. What do you mean by "ostracized"? Go to any topic on homosexuality here and see what the response is. I believe homosexuality is wrong, and we had someone here confess they were was gay. I talked to him privately and he told me his life's story. We had some great conversation. In that thread I was attacked by several here and they weren't Pentecostals. So you can't paint one denomination with that.
4. Again, what do you mean by fail? A former pastor of mine left his wife and family because he was sleeping with his worship leader. He's now married to her. Should he have continued to be pastor of that church?
5. Some people believe tithe is just OT, some don't. Either way the Word says give and it shall be given unto you. Or don't you think Christians should be giving people? Everything we have belongs to God.
6. That can be found in every single church. We have had people on here say they are sinless. Every single church has people that feel that way. Every one!
7. No, you can have the Spirit, they are talking about tongues. Tongues has nothing to do with salvation. I attend a mixed church and everyone is fine with what they believe. No one feels less than the other.
8. Name it and claim it I don't agree with, if that's what you mean. That's a section of non -denominational Pentecostals.
Oh I understand you could go on. Over half of what you said is true in any church denomination. Been in hundreds, maybe more, churches and you're not stating anything that is specifically Pentecostal other than tongues.

TD - This is your statement I was addressing:

K-Aye my friend, there's the rub. You're judging the heart of your brother/sister in Christ. Anyone who wants the in filling of the Spirit can have it, and those who don't can walk away. It has nothing to do with salvation. Seems like there is spiritual jealousy at the root humm.

K- "There's the rub" - you're repeating my words sarcastically.

No, actually, I wasn't. I read your posts and answer in sentences. I had already put that in my post when I read further down that you used it. I thought it was odd because its not a phrase that's used today. No sarcasm.

TD- "acting as if you have a higher position or some mysterious knowledge that others don't have."
"your every response says that you think you are." (holier)


K- Bud I've already proven you wrong. If my idea was that I was holier, I wouldn't have traveled in ministry to every denomination. They would be beneath me spiritually and I'd hang with my own crowd. That's your hang up, I've already proven that wrong.

TD-My belief is based on what the Bible actually says

K- No, you believe the perfect has come, I don't. Both are what the Bible ACTUALLY says. You believe that it's now. I believe it's later. It's that simple.


TD - ( You say I'm upset because you) won't acknowledge my experience

K- Bro, you and the OP are constantly talking about your experience with Pentecostals. So I'm talking about mine. I could care less what you think. But if you're going to hammer your point, you can be sure that I will make me. You want people to listen to your experience and believe you, but you want to cancel anyone else's experience. People come in here and only want one side to be heard and seen as right. I'm here to tell the other side that I see as right. And I will tell it, I promise you that.

TD-It's this kind of response that leads me to believe that your tongues experience is a sacred cow.

K- Nope, proved that wrong. I wouldn't have traveled in different denominations had I believed that. And to add to that proof I attend a church now with mixed beliefs about it. So if it was such a scared cow, why would I do that? I wouldn't. So you can give that line of attack up, it's dead in the water. BTW which church do you attend?

 

[Gideon300]

The Welsh Revival started with multitudes being convicted of sin and turning to Christ. It transformed whole communities. The miners had to retrain their pit ponies because they were used to swearing and cursing as part of the commands, and so when the miners turned to Christ, their swearing and cursing disappeared and the pit ponies didn't know any commands without the curses that went with them.

But as the revival progressed, the kundalini manifestations came to the fore. Jesse Penn-Lewis recognised that many of these manifestations were dodgy, and so she wrote her book, "War On The Saints", which exposed the manifestations as of another spirit and not of the Holy Spirit. Most Pentecostals didn't accept Penn-Lewis' findings and viewed her as a false teacher. I read her book and I agree with what she wrote.

Similarly, the Brownsville revival started with many people being converted, but went the same way as the Welsh revival. I think that Jesse Penn-Lewis' book applies there as well.

Yes, I've read "War on the Saints". The same false manifestations were present in the Azusa St revival. The false was mixed with the real. The difference with the Toronto Blessing is that nothing of it was real. I briefly knew a pastor from India, who converted from Hinduism. He attended a Howard-Browne meeting, knowing nothing about the TB. He told me that it was exactly like manifestations in Hindu guru meetings. He was horrified.

There is a lot of talk about an end times harvest, a new revival before the Lord Jesus returns. I hope so. I have serious doubts about it. So far, all I've seen and heard points to a "Toronto Blessing" Mark II. When a supposed prophet states that the Holy Spirit is Lord, my alarm bells ring. The same man prophesied that Mr Trump would be reelected. He is a very influential person in the promotion of this supposed revival. I wish I could get excited. I see the Western world more and more descend into the pit of moral corruption and utter foolishness.

Someday there will be an American president whose first name is the result of a password generator. Comedians are becoming redundant. Real life is more of a joke than they can come up with.

 

[TDidymas]

Well you certainly warrant for your self a rebuttal because your post here is evidence of illicit thought that does not agree with Scripture but comes from a heart of unbelief.

i never said to you or anyone that you must speak in tongues to authenticate the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.

The LORD Jesus Christ set the example for us by Himself being the First to be Baptized in the Holy Spirit, since HE is the Way the Truth and the Life.
Since HE is the Way, it stands to Reason that we should follow His Way.

Your have erred by assuming a sin was in my bosom and was used against you - this is error.

The context of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit begins in John chapter 1, is continued on thru the Gospel of John and is manifested in Acts chapters 1 -4 and continues throughout Acts.
The error of those who puff themselves up against this contextual Revelation of the Promise of the Father will always be rebuked including when they stand before the LORD, of which their error will be found out to their sorrow( do not assume here that i am saying they will be lost - false).

This error is already rebuked by the LORD in Acts and 1 Corinthians.
Avail yourself to His correction and you will be Blessed - amen.

NOTE: The reference to James 1:7 is the format laid out by God to receiving or not based on ones actions in connection to the Promises of God. It applies to all of God's children at all times.

Sounds to me like beating around the bush. So staying on point per the OP, I'm saying nothing against the baptism of the Holy Spirit as it is laid out in scripture. My problem is with how the phrase is used to today, to justify the error of the Pentecostal denomination. Words and phrases from the Bible are constantly misused, because they are misunderstood. I spent 25 years in that movement, so I think I know what I'm talking about. Since you defend the modern tongues experience, it's only natural to assume you hold to that dogma.

 

[TDidymas]

False again - you speak with a forked tongue.

"Forked tongue" means double talk or deceptive, so your accusation is false.

However, perhaps I did misunderstand you, and where you're coming from. If so, please forgive me.

 

[TDidymas]

I can appreciate that you disagree. But it is not my spin that you are disagreeing with. It is my interpretation. Applying his question "do all speak in tongues" to the context of what he explained in the context about tongues and interpretation in the assembly is the most important rule of hermeneutics, that of immediate context. You can't say that I spinned it by applying it to what he was talking about. I would call that the safest application possible, and not a spin.

"Spin" is like the term "narrative" as is used lately. It means an interpretation with an agenda. So I think my term is correct. No, I disagree with your interpretation. The natural reading of ch. 12 doesn't say what you claim. But it does beg the question, do you think those gifts listed were given temporarily to different people only during that particular church service, and then those people left the service without any manifestation? I'm sure you don't believe this, but I just can't figure out how you come to the conclusion that Paul is talking only about the assembly. The way I read it is that a gift (one, not all) is given to an individual permanently to work at his discretion, because the power is delegated to that individual. Obviously, the leadership had several gifts, since Paul spoke various languages, healed people, delegated the Spirit, evangelized, planted churches, delivered helps, and other various things apostles did in the 1st Century. If Paul spoke in tongues more than anyone in Corinth, then he had the gift permanently. The vast majority of the P/C movement assumes that the gift of tongues was permanently given, otherwise, why would they practice what they do repeatedly? So when Paul says various gifts are given to different individuals, he is talking about permanent manifestations which those individuals can exercise at their discretion. Inside and outside the assembly.

It just seems to me that since you rejected my idea that Paul was talking about himself speaking in tongues only when appropriate, that is, during assembly and when there is an interpreter, you use the same argument here when it suits your agenda.
"I thank God I speak in tongues more than you all" - not just in assembly?
"Does everyone speak in tongues?" - just in the assembly?

Based on what I said above, how can you justify your idea?

As to whether the 3000 spoke in tongues. I really do not know. I cannot say that they did, but I cannot conclude that they did not.

"Do all speak in tongues?" (anywhere, any time) - this is plenty reason to conclude that many did not, and reasonable to conclude that none did.

Your reason that if they did Luke would have mentioned it is not a persuasive reason to me. I think they call that making an argument out of silence. Just because Luke does not mention it does not mean it did not happen. I am not saying that they did. But I can't say that they did not.

Whether or not, it doesn't justify the P/C dogma that everyone does, by which they judge people who don't as "not Spirit-filled."

Is it possible that Luke assumed that based on Peter's statement that they would receive the same promise that they saw and heard, that they did, and Luke did not feel the need to be any more verbose about it?

Since Luke was Paul's companion, he most likely got the narrative from him. And the fact that Paul did not believe every Christian had the gift of tongues, the most likely scenario is that most if not all the 3000 did not speak in tongues. The context of 1 Cor. 12 is about distribution of the gifts by the Spirit. If everyone had it, Paul would not have denied that they do.

Or maybe it wasn't mentioned because it might confuse people into thinking that tongues was an evidence of being saved which it is not, so it would not be useful to mention that they also spoke in tongues and prophesied. But to say they did not based on silence is not something I can commit to. That is one I will learn about later I suppose.

If everyone had, it would have been assumed in the churches that it was part of the evidence of salvation. They didn't yet have the NT to teach them. Paul's argument in 1 Cor. 12 is correct and inspired of God. Therefore, the idea that all who receive the Spirit will (or should) speak in tongues cannot be justified on a scriptural basis. This is one of the errors of the P/C movement that revolves around modern tongues which I believe is in error.

 

[TDidymas]

This is going to be odd. Somehow you got caught in quotes. I'll do my best.

K -You don't have any special knowledge. That's the point.
TD- Neither do you.
K- That was my point. We have a different view of that verse. But you're insisting I'm wrong. I'm saying I disagree with your view, I don't believe the perfect has come yet and you can't use that one verse to say tongues has ceased. I'm saying be mature and say you understand others can take that in a different interpretation to you and that does make them wrong. But you insist you're right. You're the one being obtuse.


K- Yeah, and that would be called judging. Which I could turn around on you. You're judging someone's intent and heart, you're not God.

TD- "By their fruits you shall know them." "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with a righteous judgment." In both cases, we are commanded by Jesus to discern other people. In person, I judge attitudes by behavior. In forums, I judge people by what they say. But then you do that, too. Everyone does. The question is, how accurate are your judgments? If you are judging with a prejudice, stereotyping, or projecting on someone something that isn't there, then your judgment is false. If you judge in line with what is being said, then the judgment is true.

K- First off, you don't know my fruits, so let's step off of that point. If I'm so judgmental with prejudice, stereotyping, and projection, why would I travel in every denomination sharing the Gospel? I would stay within my own people, just the ones that agreed with my POV. Sooo, you're throwing everything at the wall but it doesn't stick.

I have noticed one fruit - you judge, misunderstand, and hurl insults, and use a double standard. You call me obtuse, and yet I'm simply responding to your posts with rebuttal.


K - Could you explain how they are "legalistic" please.

TD - 1. Toe the line, or you could lose your salvation and go to hell. I heard many a sermon about that.
2. Verbal whips about miniscule sins, but offering no solution. That is, fear/guilt motivation.
3. If you confess anything, you're ostracized.
4. If you fail as a leader, there are no 2nd chances. They make you feel like if you step down, God will be angry.
5. If you don't tithe, you will be cursed.
6. Don't get caught sinning, or you'll be raked over the coals. Most new Christians early learn to hide their wrongdoings.
7. Doctrine and practice says that if you haven't spoken in tongues, you haven't received the Spirit. "Just keep trying, some day you'll get it" they say. So the narrative teaches people that they lack something they need as a Christian. Hardly edifying.
8. A constant "your blessing is just around the corner" type of hype, that is, hanging a carrot in front of you, to keep you striving.
Is this enough? I could go on.


1. So you're a Calvinist?
2. Miniscule sins such as?
3. What do you mean by "ostracized"? Go to any topic on homosexuality here and see what the response is. I believe homosexuality is wrong, and we had someone here confess they were was gay. I talked to him privately and he told me his life's story. We had some great conversation. In that thread I was attacked by several here and they weren't Pentecostals. So you can't paint one denomination with that.
4. Again, what do you mean by fail? A former pastor of mine left his wife and family because he was sleeping with his worship leader. He's now married to her. Should he have continued to be pastor of that church?
5. Some people believe tithe is just OT, some don't. Either way the Word says give and it shall be given unto you. Or don't you think Christians should be giving people? Everything we have belongs to God.
6. That can be found in every single church. We have had people on here say they are sinless. Every single church has people that feel that way. Every one!
7. No, you can have the Spirit, they are talking about tongues. Tongues has nothing to do with salvation. I attend a mixed church and everyone is fine with what they believe. No one feels less than the other.
8. Name it and claim it I don't agree with, if that's what you mean. That's a section of non -denominational Pentecostals.
Oh I understand you could go on. Over half of what you said is true in any church denomination. Been in hundreds, maybe more, churches and you're not stating anything that is specifically Pentecostal other than tongues.[/quote]
It's prolific in the P/C churches I've been in, and it's systemic in the doctrine and practices. But I also see that you take it personally when I make general statements about the movement, trying to answer your question. It appears when I make a general statement about the movement you think I'm talking about you. Are you thinking the shoe fits?

TD - This is your statement I was addressing:

K-Aye my friend, there's the rub. You're judging the heart of your brother/sister in Christ. Anyone who wants the in filling of the Spirit can have it, and those who don't can walk away. It has nothing to do with salvation. Seems like there is spiritual jealousy at the root humm.

K- "There's the rub" - you're repeating my words sarcastically.

No, actually, I wasn't. I read your posts and answer in sentences. I had already put that in my post when I read further down that you used it. I thought it was odd because its not a phrase that's used today. No sarcasm.

TD- "acting as if you have a higher position or some mysterious knowledge that others don't have."
"your every response says that you think you are." (holier)


K- Bud I've already proven you wrong. If my idea was that I was holier, I wouldn't have traveled in ministry to every denomination. They would be beneath me spiritually and I'd hang with my own crowd. That's your hang up, I've already proven that wrong.

TD-My belief is based on what the Bible actually says

K- No, you believe the perfect has come, I don't. Both are what the Bible ACTUALLY says. You believe that it's now. I believe it's later. It's that simple.


TD - ( You say I'm upset because you) won't acknowledge my experience

K- Bro, you and the OP are constantly talking about your experience with Pentecostals. So I'm talking about mine. I could care less what you think. But if you're going to hammer your point, you can be sure that I will make me. You want people to listen to your experience and believe you, but you want to cancel anyone else's experience. People come in here and only want one side to be heard and seen as right. I'm here to tell the other side that I see as right. And I will tell it, I promise you that.

TD-It's this kind of response that leads me to believe that your tongues experience is a sacred cow.

K- Nope, proved that wrong. I wouldn't have traveled in different denominations had I believed that. And to add to that proof I attend a church now with mixed beliefs about it. So if it was such a scared cow, why would I do that? I wouldn't. So you can give that line of attack up, it's dead in the water. BTW which church do you attend?

You keep singing the praises of your ministry. But what I see is your responses. I get that you're proud of yourself, and you likely have good reason to be. But since all this is off topic, I'd like to get back to my original conversation based on the OP.

The P/C movement claims that all who receive the Spirit speak in tongues. Do you believe this?

 

[Amanuensis]

It just seems to me that since you rejected my idea that Paul was talking about himself speaking in tongues only when appropriate, that is, during assembly and when there is an interpreter, you use the same argument here when it suits your agenda.
"I thank God I speak in tongues more than you all" - not just in assembly?
"Does everyone speak in tongues?" - just in the assembly?

Based on what I said above, how can you justify your idea?
.

I am not following you. My agenda is to understand what Paul was saying.

Did Paul sing in tongues in the assembly? Or was he talking about something he did in private?

I think it is clear that Paul was talking about a time of praying to himself and to God in tongues just as he told them to do if there was no interpreter. There was benefit in praying in tongues without an interpreter for the individual doing the praying.

1 Cor 14: 12So also you — since you are zealous for spiritual gifts, seek to excel in building up the church.
13Therefore the person who speaks in a tongue should pray that he can interpret. 14For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful. 15What then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with my understanding. I will sing praise with the spirit, and I will also sing praise with my understanding.

We can tell from taking in the whole context of these statements that the tenor of the message is that one can pray for and receive spiritual gifts and learn how to use them to the edification of the church. He even says that the person that speaks in a tongue (and I believe he is talking about in the assembly here) should pray for the gift of interpretation so that the church can be edified, and then he makes the point once again that when He himself prayed and SANG in tongues (and I think he is talking about when he does this between himself and God) that his understanding was unfruitful, but that he would do it anyway. This is obviously a personal devotion time and not in the assembly or he would say that he interprets it so that his understanding would not be unfruitful.

How could he say he would do it anyway even though his understanding was unfruitful and no mention of any need for an interpreter when he just told them if they do it they need to pray for interpretation if he is not contrasting the difference between praying in the assembly and between yourself and God?

If you have a better interpretation of this text please proceed to explain. We will see which interpretation sounds like it is following the intended message of the author. I do appreciate being shown things I missed....

Unless... He is saying "I will pray in the spirit...and then I will pray in the understanding interpreting what I just prayed in tongues?" I suppose that is a possible interpretation of what he meant. "I will sing in the spirit and I will sing the interpretation"

 

[hornetguy]

Because I was posting back and forth with another...and he jumped in.
That is an interloper.
It is an open board but, respectful procedure is..if two are have a debate, Post comments later.
I don't remember but, also I believe he was wrong.

Ok. I see your reasoning. I don't agree with it, but I see it. Since this is a thread open for discussion, it is my belief that if you wish to have a one-on-one discussion, you should either take it to PM, or start a new thread. Otherwise, anyone should be free to join in wherever they wish. You are certainly free to simply ignore their interloper comments if you choose, and continue your sidebar one-on-one. You are not obligated to respond to them.... just my thoughts on the subject, though.

 

[hornetguy]

As to whether the 3000 spoke in tongues. I really do not know. I cannot say that they did, but I cannot conclude that they did not.

I realize this thread is about "speaking in tongues", but I feel that this statement is a good indication of how far off the mark people have drifted in this claiming of ONE of the many gifts of the Spirit... it is correct, we do NOT know if the 3000 spoke in tongues, because it was not important enough to mention...
What we DO know, because it WAS important enough to mention, is that all 3000 were baptized into Christ.... according to scripture, that is the point where we receive the gift of the Spirit, which is manifested in many ways.
Let's say that tongues are a real manifestation/gift of the Spirit.... even Paul said that tongues are the LEAST desirable of the gifts. It seems to me that he is saying, don't make such a big deal out of it.... which is a lesson many people need to hear.
Let's emphasize what is important, which is giving our hearts to Jesus, and loving one another.

 

[DavidTree]

Sounds to me like beating around the bush. So staying on point per the OP, I'm saying nothing against the baptism of the Holy Spirit as it is laid out in scripture. My problem is with how the phrase is used to today, to justify the error of the Pentecostal denomination. Words and phrases from the Bible are constantly misused, because they are misunderstood. I spent 25 years in that movement, so I think I know what I'm talking about. Since you defend the modern tongues experience, it's only natural to assume you hold to that dogma.

I wanted to give you a 'thumbs up' on your post here as i agree with every point - except that the very last sentence is false.

What i defend is what the LORD has spoken - Period.

If the Gifts of the Holy Spirit were not for His Bride/ His Church/His Elect/His Saints then HE would of said so and we could easily SEE in the Scripture.

In, fact, HE gave us the exact Time the Gifts will no longer be upon His Sons.
This exact Time is written down for all to read and SEE.
As with all scripture, SEEING is BELIEVING.

 

[DavidTree]

I realize this thread is about "speaking in tongues", but I feel that this statement is a good indication of how far off the mark people have drifted in this claiming of ONE of the many gifts of the Spirit... it is correct, we do NOT know if the 3000 spoke in tongues, because it was not important enough to mention...
What we DO know, because it WAS important enough to mention, is that all 3000 were baptized into Christ.... according to scripture, that is the point where we receive the gift of the Spirit, which is manifested in many ways.
Let's say that tongues are a real manifestation/gift of the Spirit.... even Paul said that tongues are the LEAST desirable of the gifts. It seems to me that he is saying, don't make such a big deal out of it.... which is a lesson many people need to hear.
Let's emphasize what is important, which is giving our hearts to Jesus, and loving one another.

AMEN Brother
For i have been Baptized in the Holy Spirit and received the Gift of speaking in Tongues.
i also, like yourself, recognize it is the least of the Gifts, no boasting about it.
Yet the LORD chose the least Gift to bestow upon His Children beginning in Acts and continuing thru Acts.

i asked the LORD about this a long time ago and then the Holy Spirit said to me: "I care about the least of these"
God never forgets or devalues the "least of these" but delights in all His Children.
"The least of you will become a thousand, the smallest a mighty nation. I am the LORD; in its time I will do this swiftly.” - Isa 60:22

“Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ And the King will answer and say to them,
‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’

Now also, is the Gift of Discernment that assists us in seeing and exposing the 'propheteers' and the moneychangers who make merchandise of the word of God.

The Gift of Discernment also assists us in seeing and exposing false doctrine such as often pops up here on CC and throughout the churches.

 

[kaylagrl]

I have noticed one fruit - you judge, misunderstand, and hurl insults, and use a double standard. You call me obtuse, and yet I'm simply responding to your posts with rebuttal.

Ok, same here. Misunderstand isn't on purpose. Judge we've already proven wrong. Insults? I'm direct, yes, if you're unable to handle that, I'll be more careful.

K - Could you explain how they are "legalistic" please.
It's prolific in the P/C churches I've been in, and it's systemic in the doctrine and practices.

It's prolific in all churches, because it's human. You can see it here at CC. Please don't use silly liberal overused words like "systemic". smh You can find these attitudes in any church you go to.

But I also see that you take it personally when I make general statements about the movement,

I dislike when people lie about the movement. I dislike when people lump everyone together like all Pentecostals believe the same, they don't. I dislike when people make it look like a cult. And I am offended when people say the movement is demon possessed. You haven't done all of these, but you have some. And if I attacked your church, yes you would take it personally. You are insulted very quickly to things that aren't meant to be insults. You can deny it, but you would take it personally.

You keep singing the praises of your ministry.
But what I see is your responses. I get that you're proud of yourself, and you likely have good reason to be.

That is a flat out lie. Step off!! That IS an insult !!!

 

[peldom10]

................ even Paul said that tongues are the LEAST desirable of the gifts. It seems to me that he is saying, don't make such a big deal out of it.... which is a lesson many people need to hear.
Let's emphasize what is important, which is giving our hearts to Jesus, and loving one another.

Amen.
How to do that is significant....which should be our objective ...as we can see.

 

[peldom10]

AMEN Brother
For i have been Baptized in the Holy Spirit and received the Gift of speaking in Tongues.
i also, like yourself, recognize it is the least of the Gifts, no boasting about it.
Yet the LORD chose the least Gift to bestow upon His Children beginning in Acts and continuing thru Acts.

i asked the LORD about this a long time ago and then the Holy Spirit said to me: "I care about the least of these"
God never forgets or devalues the "least of these" but delights in all His Children.
"The least of you will become a thousand, the smallest a mighty nation. I am the LORD; in its time I will do this swiftly.” - Isa 60:22

“Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ And the King will answer and say to them,
‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’

Now also, is the Gift of Discernment that assists us in seeing and exposing the 'propheteers' and the moneychangers who make merchandise of the word of God.

The Gift of Discernment also assists us in seeing and exposing false doctrine such as often pops up here on CC and throughout the churches.

How do you know that?

 

[DavidTree]

How do you know that?

The same way the Apostles and those who came to Christ knew........it's personal between God and the individual(s).
i follow the Way - i listen to His Voice and i harden not my heart in what i hear from Him.
It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.

“Eye has not seen, nor ear heard,
Nor have entered into the heart of man
The things which God has prepared for those who love Him.”

But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.

 

[peldom10]

No one is demanding acceptance of interpretation. There isn't a shadow of a hint of a demand to accept my interpretation.

I simply explained an interpretation. The one that is the most natural reading of the text, (in my opinion) the one that someone is most likely to notice if left alone without someone "attempting to change it for them" As I see it.

You are free to decide what is the best interpretation and to present your reasons why you think what I said missed the mark from exegeting the text. That is what @TDidymas does.

I have purposed to try not to include any judgments about motives of those who don't interpret it the same way. I mainly focus on the interpretation that they provide and see if it aligns with the rules of interpretation. If it is better than what I have presented I will embrace it in a heart beat.

Words like "new age, and leftists" don't apply to the conversation. No one even knows what you are trying to say. Maybe if you presented your reasons why my interpretation does not match the text and what you believe the intended message Luke meant for Theophilis to understand it would benefit the readers. @TDidymas and I are not arguing, hurling accusations or mad at each other.


Giving a reason why you interpret it a certain way is not a 'demand for others to agree because you said so'.

I would encourage everyone, myself included, to practice focusing on presenting your interpretation of a text and why you believe it is the best one while leaving out any comments as to the personal motives of people who hold to a different interpretation. Those that differ should present their reasons for interpretation without making any accusations about the morality of the person who has a different interpretation.

That way the best interpretations will be explored and people can decide based on the rules of hermeneutics and no one is sinning by insulting one another. Wouldn't that be awesome?

Now you apply..."my opinion".
I don't believe you said that in the other post which I used as an example.

Curious...what Bible edition do you use?
Do you know that the 1611 KJV delineates definition of...leftist, etc? Yours may not.
There is a general understood practice here...show referred scripture or...my opinion.