Pentecostalism's sketchy origins

[kaylagrl]

All I am saying is that Kenneth Copeland, Creflo Dollar, Joyce Meyer and Benny Hinn are going to hell. And that all of them are manifesting fraudulent signs and wonders to deceive and draw away disciples to themselves in order to destroy them. In service of their master and father Satan.

That's what I'm saying my friend. What do you think about my thesis?

I get where you're coming from, but I don't know if I can firmly say that. But I have a pastor friend that had Hinn in his church. I think this was back when he was still AofG. I don't know why he was there because this pastor friend had no use for him. Either way he said Hinn was in his office and he has to have someone carry his jacket. He has someone whose job it is to carry it. So my pastor friend said he told him his jacket had to be carried, like he expected him to do it. He said when Hinn left his office he threw his jacket on the floor and left it there. lol

 

[Amanuensis]

I disagree completely with this blanket statement of yours. You believe what you want, or what you NEED to believe.
It's easy to stand up and proclaim it, but impossible to quantify, or verify. But, if it makes you feel better about yourself, and your beliefs, go for it.

Yes I know you disagree with it. It was a rebuttal to the blanket statements that were made toward Pentecostal/Charismatics that they think they are holier/more spiritual than thou.

I gave my opinion about it. We all have our opinions. It is obvious that we don't agree. Giving reasons for our opinions allows others to see both sides of the issue.

As to how I feel about myself for my opinions expressed? I feel that I did a good job of explaining the reasons for my opinion.

Maybe the next time you feel that a Charismatic is coming across as more spiritual than you, you can examine why you feel this way. Did they say that to you?
Is it because you are going through and equation in your mind, some kind of mental process like;
"they really believe that they have something extra because they speak in tongues, therefore they must think that I am lacking something extra because I don't" and then you project this "you think your are more spiritual than I am" onto them yourself?

I suppose it might be true that Charismatics believe that non Charismatics are missing something, not for salvation but for power for ministry, similar to saying a non praying minister is missing something that could be theirs if they prayed.

I don't think that is the same as saying "we are holier than thou" and to try and turn it around like that is just pettiness and petulance.

 

[Amanuensis]

If one is so hopelessly deceived to be attending a Kenneth Copeland/Joel Osteen/Benny Hinn/Joyce Meyer/Paula White assembly.........I am afraid that superficial "holy living" is not enough to save you in the end.

So it was with the apostate external religionists during Jesus' earthly ministry.

If someone thinks that those people represent the hundreds of millions of Pentecostal Charismatics in the world or even in the US then no wonder there is so much misunderstanding.

Most Pentecostals/Charismatics do not agree with these celebrity and TV personalities and it really is like judging the Baptists based on that Westboro Baptist church. We know that would not be fair. Why do it to Charismatic/Pentecostals.

That sort of thing just makes one look dishonest and not capable of having a reasonable conversation. Or maybe they are just extremely ignorant of the facts concerning the Pentecostal movement and churches in the world.

 

[shittim]

"Most Pentecostals/Charismatics do not agree with these celebrity and TV personalities and it really is like judging the Baptists based on that Westboro Baptist church. We know that would not be fair. Why do it to Charismatic/Pentecostals. "

Well said

 

[hornetguy]

I gave my opinion about it. We all have our opinions. It is obvious that we don't agree. Giving reasons for our opinions allows others to see both sides of the issue.

I have no problem with each of us giving our opinions... but a blanket statement that says that pentecostals live holier lives is simply false.

I suppose it might be true that Charismatics believe that non Charismatics are missing something, not for salvation but for power for ministry, similar to saying a non praying minister is missing something that could be theirs if they prayed.

Do you think that Paul believed that those that do not speak in tongues were somehow "missing" something? Even he said that not everyone WOULD.

4 Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5 And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. 6 There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons. 7 But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. 8 For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit; 9 to another faith [f]by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of [g]healing [h]by the one Spirit, 10 and to another the [i]effecting of [j]miracles, and to another prophecy, and to another the [k]distinguishing of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He [l]wills.

30 All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they? 31 But earnestly desire the greater gifts.

5 Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues, but rather that you would prophesy; and greater is the one who prophesies than the one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may receive edification.

 

[shittim]

All the gifts operate from the same infilling of Holy Spirit, yes the are those who are called to certain ministries and yet any and all who are Holy Spirit filled are capable to operate in any of the gifts the Lord chooses to manifest through the believer.
It seems to be a common issue that many do not differentiate between the public manifestation and the prayer that we are directed to do without ceasing.

 

[Amanuensis]

I have no problem with each of us giving our opinions... but a blanket statement that says that pentecostals live holier lives is simply false.

Do you think that Paul believed that those that do not speak in tongues were somehow "missing" something? Even he said that not everyone WOULD.

4 Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5 And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. 6 There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons. 7 But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. 8 For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit; 9 to another faith [f]by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of [g]healing [h]by the one Spirit, 10 and to another the [i]effecting of [j]miracles, and to another prophecy, and to another the [k]distinguishing of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He [l]wills.

30 All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they? 31 But earnestly desire the greater gifts.

5 Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues, but rather that you would prophesy; and greater is the one who prophesies than the one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may receive edification.

I do believe that Paul meant what he said when he said that he wanted them all to speak in tongues, and that he wanted them to pray for the gift of interpretation. I believe he wanted them all to prophesy as well. BUT NOT AT THE SAME TIME.

I do believe Paul wanted them to Earnestly desire the best gifts of the Spirit. I am sure that would equate to "you are missing out if you do not do this."

In Chapter 12, when he presents the argument that entire argument that you quoted, the reason he ends with "Do all speak with tongues, Do all interpret" is because it was their misuse of tongues in the assembly that was behind this dialogue and why he is making this argument that you have quoted in 12.

The use of the gifts within the assembly require that they take turns speaking in tongues two or three at the most and with an interpreter or speak to themselves and to God.

Paul was not contradicting Luke's accounts where all did speak in tongues in Acts 2, the 12 at Ephesus, all in the house of Cornelius, but was talking about in the assembly in the operation of these gifts for mutual edification.

I believe that taking his rhetorical questing out of context of the instructions he was giving for how to operate these gifts in the assembly and forcing a meaning that Paul did not intend, as if to say that not all of the 120 spoke in tongues because Paul said that not all speak in tongues is a violation of the rules of hermeneutics in this case the rule of immediate context of the writer.

We don't have the authority to apply it to a different context than how to use the gift in the assembly and meeting of the local church which was the reason for these three chapters.

All 120 spoke in tongues on the day of Pentecost, all of the house of Cornelius spoke in tongues, all 12 at Ephesus, and if we follow Paul's point here in 1 Cor 12 we should agree that

not all 12 at Ephesus would speak in the local assembly,

Not all of the house of Cornelius would speak in tongues at their local church meeting later,

not all the 120 would speak in tongues when they gathered on a weekly basis after this, but all did receive the gift.

You may call my interpretation a spin as other non Pentecostals have done, but I believe that forcing Paul to say something outside of the context of the local assembly is a spin. I think my interpretation is following the rules of hermeneutics more carefully than yours.

We could submit it to some scholars and see what they think. I am going to guess that you will have at least 50% nonpentecostal scholars who are expert in Greek and the manuscripts concede that we should only apply Paul's statement to the subject he is discussing which is the operating of these gifts in the assembly. As he goes on to explain in 1 Cor 14.

I think we also must concede that all 120 spoke in tongues, yet, later when they met in weekly meetings they were not to all speak at the same time without an interpreter in order to follow Paul's advice.

Do all speak in tongues? Well no, not in the assembly for mutual edification. That is the point of these three chapters. Did all speak in tongues when they received the baptism of the Holy Spirit? Yes, but that is not what Paul is asking.

 

[cv5]

I do believe that Paul meant what he said when he said that he wanted them all to speak in tongues, and that he wanted them to pray for the gift of interpretation. I believe he wanted them all to prophesy as well. BUT NOT AT THE SAME TIME.

I do believe Paul wanted them to Earnestly desire the best gifts of the Spirit. I am sure that would equate to "you are missing out if you do not do this."

In Chapter 12, when he presents the argument that entire argument that you quoted, the reason he ends with "Do all speak with tongues, Do all interpret" is because it was their misuse of tongues in the assembly that was behind this dialogue and why he is making this argument that you have quoted in 12.

The use of the gifts within the assembly require that they take turns speaking in tongues two or three at the most and with an interpreter or speak to themselves and to God.

Paul was not contradicting Luke's accounts where all did speak in tongues in Acts 2, the 12 at Ephesus, all in the house of Cornelius, but was talking about in the assembly in the operation of these gifts for mutual edification.

I believe that taking his rhetorical questing out of context of the instructions he was giving for how to operate these gifts in the assembly and forcing a meaning that Paul did not intend, as if to say that not all of the 120 spoke in tongues because Paul said that not all speak in tongues is a violation of the rules of hermeneutics in this case the rule of immediate context of the writer.

We don't have the authority to apply it to a different context than how to use the gift in the assembly and meeting of the local church which was the reason for these three chapters.

All 120 spoke in tongues on the day of Pentecost, all of the house of Cornelius spoke in tongues, all 12 at Ephesus, and if we follow Paul's point here in 1 Cor 12 we should agree that

not all 12 at Ephesus would speak in the local assembly,

Not all of the house of Cornelius would speak in tongues at their local church meeting later,

not all the 120 would speak in tongues when they gathered on a weekly basis after this, but all did receive the gift.

You may call my interpretation a spin as other non Pentecostals have done, but I believe that forcing Paul to say something outside of the context of the local assembly is a spin. I think my interpretation is following the rules of hermeneutics more carefully than yours.

We could submit it to some scholars and see what they think. I am going to guess that you will have at least 50% nonpentecostal scholars who are expert in Greek and the manuscripts concede that we should only apply Paul's statement to the subject he is discussing which is the operating of these gifts in the assembly. As he goes on to explain in 1 Cor 14.

I think we also must concede that all 120 spoke in tongues, yet, later when they met in weekly meetings they were not to all speak at the same time without an interpreter in order to follow Paul's advice.

Do all speak in tongues? Well no, not in the assembly for mutual edification. That is the point of these three chapters. Did all speak in tongues when they received the baptism of the Holy Spirit? Yes, but that is not what Paul is asking.

I think the more relevant question today is:

Are these Pentecostals today who SAY they are speaking in tongues actually speaking in legitimate tounges? I for one am convinced that I have never once in my life witnessed legitimate tongues. You would think that they would be legitimate tongues demonstrated SOMEWHERE/SOMETIME on the MILLIONS of "Pentecostal worship services" broadcasts on TV.
But there never is. Ever.....

Furthermore when will these Pentecostals ADMIT that Satanic nutter heretic decievers like Kenneth Copeland and Benny Hinn are speaking in BOGUS/FRAUD tongues......which BTW are utterly indistinguishable from the so-called TRUE tongues that the supposedly legitimate Pentecostals speak? Which are the ONLY ones I have heard over and over again. The type spoken to me right to my face numerous times.

Beyond all this there is absolutely no doubt the the best/greatest gifts of the Spirit are NOT tongues....which are literally last on the list of precedence. And which Paul clearly indicates not all possess.

 

[Amanuensis]

I think the more relevant question today is:

Are these Pentecostals today who SAY they are speaking in tongues actually speaking in legitimate tounges? I for one am convinced that I have never once in my life witnessed legitimate tongues. You would think that they would be legitimate tongues demonstrated SOMEWHERE/SOMETIME on the MILLIONS of "Pentecostal worship services" broadcasts on TV.
But there never is. Ever.....

Furthermore when will these Pentecostals ADMIT that Satanic nutter heretic decievers like Kenneth Copeland and Benny Hinn are speaking in BOGUS/FRAUD tongues......which BTW are utterly indistinguishable from the so-called TRUE tongues that the supposedly legitimate Pentecostals speak? Which are the ONLY ones I have heard over and over again. The type spoken to me right to my face numerous times.

Beyond all this there is absolutely no doubt the the best/greatest gifts of the Spirit are NOT tongues....which are literally last on the list of precedence. And which Paul clearly indicates not all possess.

A few thoughts in response:

We have discussed the hermeneutic of if the tongue has to be a known tongue on earth. I think from what Paul said in 1 Cor 14:14 and in 1 Cor 14 in general that it is not the case. Previous posts were quite verbose on exegeting the text.

We don't discount gifts of the Spirit because preachers go south on us. And I can always tell the fake from the real. I don't expect people without the gift to know the difference but we do. It should be expected that we would know the difference so don't think that is an arrogant statement. If the gift is real those that have it should be expected to know the fake, and the gift of the discerning of spirits helps with this as well. It also makes sense that someone who does not have the gift would not have the method to measure the false and the real. They would simply be using their own biased and intellect thinking that it is all fake and none of them are real. If we really do have the gift it makes sense that we can tell the fake from the real on a deeper level than sounds and syllables as you are supposing.

Discussing how a false teacher speaking in tongues does not disprove tongues is going to turn out to be a philosophical discussion about the phenomenon of backslidden preachers and the gifts of the Holy Spirit being faked I suppose.

Or even the concept that the gifts are not taken back even if someone backslides though most backsliders have no interest in operating in the gifts out of shame of their backslidings.

If one does backslide and become a false teacher, they may sound the same to the uninitiated but those who have the real gift will hear the hollow, clanging brass and tinkling cymbal of disorder in their manifestation and know there is no authority in the Spirit coming out of them. I have heard the fake. It grieves me and I know it grieves the Spirit but it does not mean that others aren't real because someone is being fake.

But as I said, this is a philosophical conversation subject to endless questions and we don't have all the answers about it. I can only say that a backslidden preacher might still speak in tongues and though it sounds the same as someone who is for real, it is hollow in content. Having the gift of interpretation and the discerning of spirit we notice that it is fake and also when an interpretation is fake, but someone without these gifts would not know how to judge all this and just want to dismiss all of it as fake but that is not necessarily the logical conclusion to be made.

As to the best gifts:

A scriptural exegesis on Paul's teaching in 1 Cor 12-14 explains that we should be operating in the motivation of the Love of God from the Holy Spirit that is focused on edifying others and which gift we operate in at any given time will be the gift that accomplishes this objective in that moment. Tongues with the gift of interpretation (not translation of human languages) is equivalent to prophesy but prophesy is better if one does not have the gift of interpretation because edification of others is the objective.

This does not dismiss tongues as not worth wanting, but elevates the need for the gift of interpretation because together it is like prophesy in the objective of edifying others. However speaking in tongues to oneself (praying in the Spirit 1 Cor 14:14) without an interpretation is edifying to oneself and should not be dismissed as not worth doing.

The whole "best gift" discussion by Paul knew nothing about dimissing of tongues as not worth desiring nor did anything Paul say about it result in anyone saying "I don't want the gift of tongues" Who in their right minds says "I don't want any gift" that the Holy Spirit wanted to give the believers." If the Holy Spirit does not want to give it to me, that is fine, but if he does, would I every say "No Thank You?" Never. of course not. God forbid. Nothing Paul said should cause someone to think Paul said, "don't bother with tongues, it is not a gift you should even want, too low on the totem pole of gifts, not as good as others, skip it." But that is how many non Pentecostals represent what Paul said.

The best gift is Love but he said that in the context of how to operate in the gifts with Love as the motivator.

Therefore Love operates in the gifts of the Spirit for mutual edification.

Now think about what I just said. 1 Cor 13 is saying that this God kind of Love (kjv Charity) can manifest in Gifts of the Spirit for the edifying of the body and this is our objective. Our objective should not be to replace the gifts of the Spirit with Love.

Our objective is to be used by the Holy Spirit gifts motivated, energized, empowered by God's Love. Love is manifested through the edifying gifts of the Spirit if done correctly with mutual edification in focus.

It is not edifying to refuse the gifts. It is not love to not allow gifts to be manifest in the church.

If the motivation is Love; if Love is the reason one is willing to step out in faith and be used by the Spirit to edify someone, then it is what God intended.

It is not very loving to refuse to step out in faith and be used by God in the gifts of the Spirit because that would not be thinking about edifying others when God wanted to use one to do so. If we would rather say "I Pass" on being used by the Holy Spirit to love people by praying for supernatural healing, then we are not walking in love.

Can I get an amen?

 

[Edify]

If you don't want to have a discussion with people who have different understanding of scripture than you, then I suggest that you are in the wrong website. You should find a charismatic, pentecostal website and participate in "rah-rah, yay for our team" discussions, where nobody will challenge you to explain your beliefs with scripture.... and who certainly won't disagree with you.

Sorry, I'm afraid I can't do that. I'm not used to running whenever someone suggest I leave.
BTW, I notice some of your posts seem a little "dumbed down" as if lacking understanding, then out of nowhere you post scripture like you knew all along what you were talking about. You are much smarter than you sometimes act. Not sucking up to you, just stating plain facts.

 

[Edify]

Theres something terribly wrong in this OP. It's as if we being manipulated to be polarized in our opinions further & further apart. And I mean on purpose.
I suggest we pray about this that the Lord reveal what's really going on.
I sense a spiritual darkness at work here. Be careful so you won't be set up.

 

[Amanuensis]

Theres something terribly wrong in this OP. It's as if we being manipulated to be polarized in our opinions further & further apart. And I mean on purpose.
I suggest we pray about this that the Lord reveal what's really going on.
I sense a spiritual darkness at work here. Be careful so you won't be set up.

The thread is the opinion that Pentecostal roots have some serious scandals and therefore the whole thing must be false.

The discussion originally was about how 1) The scandals were exposed as soon as they originated and rejected by the main body of Pentecostals, and 2) The discussion as to correct hermeneutics can only be handled by exegeting the scriptures on these Pentecostal interpretations and cannot be answered by pointing at bad examples of men in the movement.

What we must all learn to do is present our interpretations using rules of interpretations that most can agree with.
Emotional rhetoric about peoples motives behind their opinions is not helpful.

This format is great for training on how to write a concise and yet verbose answer on an interpretation that should pass the test of a hermeneutics class in bible college. If one can do that well they should be able to edify both their audience and themselves in the effort.

 

[Edify]

I believe a spirit of dissimulation is at work in this OP.

 

[peldom10]

When Jesus resurrected from the dead & showed Himself to His disciples, those who believed were saved right then.
But, Jesus commanded his disciples to tarry in the upper room until they received power from on high.
What happen in the upper room was separate from believing in Jesus' resurrection. John the baptist spoke that Jesus would baptize believers with the Holy Spirit & fire... again, not speaking about salvation.
That is proper exegesis.
Besides this, we have the Welsh Revival, Azuza Revival, as well as others where already saved people were receiving the Baptism in the Holy Spirit. The same things happened exactly in all the meetings. Saved people were receiving Power from on high. Many sinners were saved as well.
Cornelius' household was the only place in scripture where t, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

God's commandment to get baptized...prevails.

 

[hornetguy]

I do believe that Paul meant what he said when he said that he wanted them all to speak in tongues, and that he wanted them to pray for the gift of interpretation. I believe he wanted them all to prophesy as well. BUT NOT AT THE SAME TIME.

I do believe Paul wanted them to Earnestly desire the best gifts of the Spirit. I am sure that would equate to "you are missing out if you do not do this."

In Chapter 12, when he presents the argument that entire argument that you quoted, the reason he ends with "Do all speak with tongues, Do all interpret" is because it was their misuse of tongues in the assembly that was behind this dialogue and why he is making this argument that you have quoted in 12.

The use of the gifts within the assembly require that they take turns speaking in tongues two or three at the most and with an interpreter or speak to themselves and to God.

Paul was not contradicting Luke's accounts where all did speak in tongues in Acts 2, the 12 at Ephesus, all in the house of Cornelius, but was talking about in the assembly in the operation of these gifts for mutual edification.

I believe that taking his rhetorical questing out of context of the instructions he was giving for how to operate these gifts in the assembly and forcing a meaning that Paul did not intend, as if to say that not all of the 120 spoke in tongues because Paul said that not all speak in tongues is a violation of the rules of hermeneutics in this case the rule of immediate context of the writer.

We don't have the authority to apply it to a different context than how to use the gift in the assembly and meeting of the local church which was the reason for these three chapters.

All 120 spoke in tongues on the day of Pentecost, all of the house of Cornelius spoke in tongues, all 12 at Ephesus, and if we follow Paul's point here in 1 Cor 12 we should agree that

not all 12 at Ephesus would speak in the local assembly,

Not all of the house of Cornelius would speak in tongues at their local church meeting later,

not all the 120 would speak in tongues when they gathered on a weekly basis after this, but all did receive the gift.

You may call my interpretation a spin as other non Pentecostals have done, but I believe that forcing Paul to say something outside of the context of the local assembly is a spin. I think my interpretation is following the rules of hermeneutics more carefully than yours.

We could submit it to some scholars and see what they think. I am going to guess that you will have at least 50% nonpentecostal scholars who are expert in Greek and the manuscripts concede that we should only apply Paul's statement to the subject he is discussing which is the operating of these gifts in the assembly. As he goes on to explain in 1 Cor 14.

I think we also must concede that all 120 spoke in tongues, yet, later when they met in weekly meetings they were not to all speak at the same time without an interpreter in order to follow Paul's advice.

Do all speak in tongues? Well no, not in the assembly for mutual edification. That is the point of these three chapters. Did all speak in tongues when they received the baptism of the Holy Spirit? Yes, but that is not what Paul is asking.

You make some valid points, but I think you have overlooked the purpose of chapter 12... it is Paul explaining how the gifts of the Spirit are to work in the assembly of believers.
He went into great detail describing how the believers that have been bestowed with different gifts work together, like the different parts of a body. He specifically pointed out that a foot is not a hand, etc... in other words, a foot cannot do what a hand does, and a nose cannot speak. Different parts (gifts) make up the body. He even said that the different parts should not WISH to be something they are not
"16 And if the ear says, “Because I am not an eye, I am not a part of the body,” it is not for this reason [o]any less a part of the body. "

Paul explicitly tells us that most of us will NOT have all the manifestations of the Spirit, and we shouldn't expect to. In fact, if everyone has "tongues" as a gift, then the "body" would only be a big eye, or foot.

We receive the Spirit when we are baptized, thus ALL believers are baptized with the Spirt of God... otherwise, Paul would not have said..

"12 For just as the body is one and yet has many parts, and all the parts of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. 13 For [m]by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.

 

[hornetguy]

Sorry, I'm afraid I can't do that. I'm not used to running whenever someone suggest I leave.
BTW, I notice some of your posts seem a little "dumbed down" as if lacking understanding, then out of nowhere you post scripture like you knew all along what you were talking about. You are much smarter than you sometimes act. Not sucking up to you, just stating plain facts.

Well, thanks, I think.... I try to discuss things in as simple terms as possible. It seldom benefits to try to impress people with a lot of details and data. I try to explain my thoughts in ways to which people can relate....

and I didn't intend to suggest you leave, I was just offering an option.... If it offended you, apologies....

 

[cv5]

And I can always tell the fake from the real. I don't expect people without the gift to know the difference but we do. It should be expected that we would know the difference so don't think that is an arrogant statement. If the gift is real those that have it should be expected to know the fake, and the gift of the discerning of spirits helps with this as well. It also makes sense that someone who does not have the gift would not have the method to measure the false and the real. They would simply be using their own biased and intellect thinking that it is all fake and none of them are real. If we really do have the gift it makes sense that we can tell the fake from the real on a deeper level than sounds and syllables as you are supposing.

If one does backslide and become a false teacher, they may sound the same to the uninitiated but those who have the real gift will hear the hollow, clanging brass and tinkling cymbal of disorder in their manifestation and know there is no authority in the Spirit coming out of them. I have heard the fake. It grieves me and I know it grieves the Spirit but it does not mean that others aren't real because someone is being fake.

we notice that it is fake and also when an interpretation is fake, but someone without these gifts would not know how to judge all this and just want to dismiss all of it as fake but that is not necessarily the logical conclusion to be made.

Excuse me but I definitely know these fake tongues when I hear it. Instantaneously. Definitely. Absolutely. Positively. Furthermore I definitely have the Spirit of discernment within me by which I can discern the bogus Pentecostal charismatic heretics......which are legion BTW. The prosperity gospel/word faith nutters are pretty much all Pentecostals of one kind or another. There is not one Baptist or Protestant among them.

So let me lay it on the line and tell you that the BOGUS "tongues" is the rubbish babbling irreverent meaningless mindless babbling baby-talk.....that is exclusive among Pentecostals. In my experience and to my best knowledge, Pentecostals never speak anything other than this gibberish babbling. Ever. This is the stuff that doesn't meet any criteria whatsoever for any language whatsoever. The stuff that doesn't need an interpreter because it cannot be interpreted by any means into a rational meaningful intelligent message. And please somebody tell me when was the last time you had an interpreter at a Pentecostal tongues jamboree? You know.......somebody who could understand Mandarin Chinese or Farsi, and thereby transmit the message?

Any Spirit imbued Christian understands exactly what's going on in Acts 2:4-11. They were hearing REAL, ACTUAL, EXISTING languages. And there were hearing a message that had a definite purpose........AND WAS READILY UNDERSTOOD!

Furthermore there is no doubt whatsoever that when Paul was speaking (to the Corinthians) regarding the gift of tongues, he was also speaking about real actual existing languages. This of course is why they needed an interpreter.....someone who understood the REAL, ACTUAL, EXISTING language being spoken.

 

[cv5]

Find out why Charismatics on average live holier lives than the other denominations. Maybe that is what they call good fruit.

Like Joel Osteen, Joyce Meyer, Benny Hinn, Paula White and Kenneth Copeland?
I think not. I think they are some of the most unholy people you can imagine. 100% carnal 100% of the time. Tares among the wheat. Clouds without water. The epitome of Jude 1:12......

 

[cv5]

Real legitimate tongues are so remarkable and obvious that they cannot possibly be denied.

So-called tongues nowadays.......not so much. In fact nothing is more abstruse nothing is more inscrutable nothing is more dark and mysterious. In fact they are so mysterious that only Pentecostals can grasp and understand their import and meaning. Which of course is exactly contrary to their intended purpose!

They could be (and should be) recorded measured verified and confirmed by anybody and everybody. Yet this confirmation is the most evasive thing on planet. The gift of tongues certainly was not evasive, abstruse or inscrutable in Acts chapter 2 that's for sure. The entire city realized what was happening almost instantly. Nowadays.......not so much.

Oh and one other thing: When was the last time any Pentecostal outreach program used this exclusive gift of tongues for the sake of evangelizing? I mean it's a pretty obvious application right? But no all we have is rumors of this happening......nothing confirmed nothing substantiated just gossip and hearsay.

 

[Amanuensis]

Excuse me but I definitely know these fake tongues when I hear it. Instantaneously. Definitely. Absolutely. Positively. Furthermore I definitely have the Spirit of discernment within me by which I can discern the bogus Pentecostal charismatic heretics......which are legion BTW. The prosperity gospel/word faith nutters are pretty much all Pentecostals of one kind or another. There is not one Baptist or Protestant among them.

So let me lay it on the line and tell you that the BOGUS "tongues" is the rubbish babbling irreverent meaningless mindless babbling baby-talk.....that is exclusive among Pentecostals. In my experience and to my best knowledge, Pentecostals never speak anything other than this gibberish babbling. Ever. This is the stuff that doesn't meet any criteria whatsoever for any language whatsoever. The stuff that doesn't need an interpreter because it cannot be interpreted by any means into a rational meaningful intelligent message. And please somebody tell me when was the last time you had an interpreter at a Pentecostal tongues jamboree? You know.......somebody who could understand Mandarin Chinese or Farsi, and thereby transmit the message?

Any Spirit imbued Christian understands exactly what's going on in Acts 2:4-11. They were hearing REAL, ACTUAL, EXISTING languages. And there were hearing a message that had a definite purpose........AND WAS READILY UNDERSTOOD!

Furthermore there is no doubt whatsoever that when Paul was speaking (to the Corinthians) regarding the gift of tongues, he was also speaking about real actual existing languages. This of course is why they needed an interpreter.....someone who understood the REAL, ACTUAL, EXISTING language being spoken.

Yes, we have gone over Acts 2 and 1 Cor 14 text carefully and I have presented exegesis on the texts that considerably weaken the interpretation that is must be a known language on the earth.

I don't know if you read them. They were responses to @TDidymas and we discussed the possible interpretations of the text very carefully. If you read them and found them not persuasive that is fine, but others read them and think that they do weaken the argument that they must be known languages. I am assuming you are aware of verses like:

Acts 2:
6When this sound occurred, a crowd came together and was confused because each one heard them speaking in his own language. 7They were astounded and amazed, saying,A “Look, aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans?a 8How is it that each of us can hear them in our own native language? 9Parthians, Medes, Elamites; those who live in Mesopotamia, in Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia,a 10Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome (both Jews and converts),a 11Cretans and Arabs — we hear them declaring the magnificent acts of God in our own tongues.” 12They were all astounded and perplexed, saying to one another, “What does this mean? ” 13But some sneered and said, “They’re drunk on new wine.”a

When you carefully read the text it is a possible and likely that it is describing a supernatural miracle such that two people who spoke different languages heard the same speaker speaking in tongues and they both understood in their own language but they could not understand each others language? How could this be? That was what had them so amazed, and perplexed, and astounded. Just running into someone who was bilingual would not have caused such consternation. How did they know these Galileans were not bilingual. The Shock was probably more about the fact that they could all understand in their own language the speakers who were speaking in tongues but they could not understand each other. How could that be? Like... "Wait.. I'm speak Parthian(or whatever they spoke there) and you speak Mesopotamian, and we both understand the person speaking in tongues in our own language? How can this be.

You can say you don't believe that is the meaning but you can't deny that others think is a plausible and likely. And you can't really call them dumb, because they might be correct and you might be the one who is wrong.

Others mocking said they were full of wine: This suggests that some did not recognize that they were speaking in any language and though they were speaking gibberish. And so now we have evidence that it could have sounded just like what you call gibberish today and you might be one of the Mockers.

Would anyone think that someone learning a language instantaneously be a drunk? No. They would think they were a savant or a brilliant genius or a miracle worker, but not a drunk. If they thought they were speaking gibberish then they would think they were a drunk. These Mockers heard gibberish. At least that is what is sounded like to them. Therefore they accused them of being drunk. You may not agree but it is the most likely interpretation to many others. And you can't call them dumb for thinking so, because you might be the one that is wrong and they might be correct.

1 Cor 14: 2For the person who speaks in a tongue is not speaking to people but to God, since no one understands him; he speaks mysteries in the Spirit.
Many consider this to say that it is not a known language. Only the gift of interpretation will allow others to get the meaning, not a translator of another language and not a word for word linguist. You might have a different opinion an theory but you can't call people dumb who have this opinion because they might be correct.

And also:
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.

And also:
18I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you; 19yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, in order to teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue.

Since Paul had been praying in tongues for 20 years (it had been 20 years since Anais laid hands on him) and he spoke in tongues more than them all, but not in church, and during all that time he still did not identify what language he spoke, nor had anyone else, nor had he any understanding when he did it, then this contradicts your theory that it must be a known language.


You can explain your theory why you think that these verses do not weaken your argument that it must be a known language that someone can identify but you have to concede that they do create a challenge for you to come up with something reasonable and your theory has been brought into question with these verses. Therefore it is at least possible that your theory is wrong.

It is possible that because of these verses and more than I have time to present as examples that your dogmatic conclusions are strong in your mind but weak to others who know the scriptures as much or quite possible more than you.

So you can be as emotionally emphatic in stating your theories as you like but if they don't pass the hermeneutical test the emotions in which you express them don't help your case at all but only make you look zealous about your opinions.

You are entitled to your hermeneutical theories but you have no right to condemn all Pentecostals as having no hermeneutical theory for they certainly do and in my opinion a superior one to yours.