Pentecostalism's sketchy origins

[cv5]

Good points. However, I'm not sure Pentecostals would say tongues is the greatest gift but that tongues are evidence of the "baptism of the Holy Spirit." This "baptism" is what sets them apart from others in their minds. IMHO

IMO......it's what yolks them to heretics like Parham, Copeland and Joyce Meyer. If I encounter any so-called Christians that align themselves to these heretic nutters like Creflo Dollar, Joyce Meyer, Paula White, Tilton and Kenneth Copeland etc etc.......I urge them to depart, repent and then I am out of there.

Other than that, I never actually attend an assembly or mingle in any substantial way.

 

[ResidentAlien]

"
Charles Fox Parham (1873-1929)
Parham is the father of Pentecostalism. His actual life story, however, is filled with scandals, false prophecies, and even overt racism. "
https://www.themessedupchurch.com/b...e-prophets-con-artists-criminals-and-heretics

"
In 1902, Parham’s British(or Anglo-)Israelism, which proclaimed the spiritual and racial superi-ority of the white Anglo-Saxon race, is full blown, complete with an iden-tification of the throne of David with the British royal family courtesy of the prophet Jeremiah (who is supposed to have taken King Zedekiah’sdaughter to Ireland), and an identification of Britain with “Ephraim” andthe United States with “Manasseh” among the ten “lost tribes.” Manycommentators, including Parham’s biographer Goff, have failed to see theintrinsically racist character of British Israelism. Parham got these ideasearly on in his ministry in the 1890s.
4
In 1900 he spent six weeks at Frank Sandford’s Shiloh community in Maine, where he imbibed most of Sandford’s doctrines, including Anglo-Israelism and “missionary tongues,”doctrines that Parham maintained for the rest of his life.
5
Parham alsoentertained notions about the “Antichrist” as “the reincarnation of JudasIscariot,” did not believe in the immortality of the soul, and held to thedoctrine of the annihilation of the wicked. He had strange ideas aboutwhat constituted the “Body” and “Bride” of Christ and the meaning of “redemption.” In fact, Parham had an all-round “unorthodox” theology,certainly by evangelical standards! He also advocated Zionism, the cre-ation of the state of Israel, and Jerusalem as the commercial center of theworld. But there are even more sinister statements in his books.
"
https://www.academia.edu/10825872/The_Dubious_Legacy_of_Charles_Parham

Teaching Anglo-Israelism puts them out of even being Christians. This would include their followers too.

1 John 2:9
He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now.

1 John 2:11
But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes.

1 John 3:15
Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

1 John 4:20
If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?

Well, someone has at least done their homework.

 

[cv5]

True

I had opportunity to preach to Jewish folks a couple of different occasions last few week. The key featuring and launching pad for my preaching was in fact the restoration of Israel.
IMO May 14th 1948 and June 7, 1967 have fulfilled prophecy to the very day. At exactly 2520 year intervals from the 606BC captivity of the nation and 586BC desolation of Jerusalem. Which I explained in exacting detail with reference to the relevant Scriptures.

Let me tell you to have them hear that from a lowly gentile......was quite a shock believe me.

 

[Amanuensis]

Acts ch 2 (master template, first mention):

Disciples speaking in tongues they did NOT know (confirmed in Corinthians).
Visitors hearing the word of God in languages that they DID know and understand.

Conclusion: The Acts 2 tongues were real existing languages. Which according to Corinthians require an interpreter when there is no valid target audience per se.

So I have one question to ask you. I would like a Yes or No answer:
Is today's charismatic incoherent babbling gibberish "tongues" a real actual authentic New Testament tongue? Yes or No.

I ask because the heretical Kenneth Copeland "tongues" are indistinguishable from the supposed authentic charismatic tongues. This according to my firsthand observation of both. They are both one and the same and in fact use the same typical identifiable gibberish words!

Yes, today's tongues do match what is in the Bible.

No I don't believe that tongues have to be a foreign language

I have already explained why the text in Acts 2 suggests that two people of different languages heard the same person speaking in tongues and both understood them in their own language which makes it possible that the tongue speaker sounded the same as what you hear today, but the hearers heard them in their own language. Also the Mockers prove that hey heard what they thought was gibberish.

I have already answered this. In previous posts to @TDidymas I was verbose in exegeting the exact text in Acts 2 and 1 Cor 14 to support my position that modern tongues do match what the text says.

If someone insists that Paul was talking about language translators in 1 Cor 14 I just have to end the conversation. I lose confidence that they are being honest. I don't think they really think that is what Paul was talking about. The gift of interpretation is not linguistic translation of foreign languages. It is a prophetic message giving the meaning and not a word for word translation.

What Kenneth Copeland does is not relative to exegeting scriptures. I don't care what he does. I have never listened to him, I think I heard him in the 80s and did not care for what he was saying or feel right about his spirit and I tuned him out back then.


I think that the idea that someone speaking in tongues must be a perfect person was the idea that the Corinthians had which is why they were in the flesh and showboating and Paul had to correct them and tell them they were sounding brass if they weren't operating in love.

So backslidden preachers can still speak in tongues but it will be sounding brass. To say that it is not real tongues or never was is not how Paul corrected the Corinthians did he?

The Corinthians received the real gift but then some of them, or a lot of them, were showboating thinking it made them look more spiritual. Did Paul say that their tongues weren't real? To think that someone who has the wrong motive means that their gift was fake is not supported by 1 Cor 14. The gift was given to them by faith and not by their trek record of holiness. Then what they did with the gift showed that some misunderstood the purpose and used it for self aggrandizement.
Paul told them they were sounding brass.

So it is with backslidden preachers of false teachers. Maybe they started out sincere and got proud and turned out false and then they keep faking the use of tongues but there is no message in it. Just them continuing to make sounds that were similar to what they remember when they first got the gift. You see your method of judging these things based on Kenneth Copeland is really just a bunch of conclusions based on your own reasoning that sounds good to you but it can't be supported by the scriptures on the subject.

 

[Amanuensis]

I am on the cutting edge and it has nothing whatsoever to do with charismatic Pentecostal assemblies.

When I say cutting edge I mean preaching the gospel to every creature. Which I do (mostly one on one) everywhere all the time. Continuously nonstop whenever the opportunity arises.

I never waste my time at Charismatic assemblies looking for signs and the miracles. I have work to do.

That is great. Keep up the good work. May you see lots of conversions to Christ.

 

[cv5]

Yes, today's tongues do match what is in the Bible.

No I don't believe that tongues have to be a foreign language

I have already explained why the text in Acts 2 suggests that two people of different languages heard the same person speaking in tongues and both understood them in their own language which makes it possible that the tongue speaker sounded the same as what you hear today, but the hearers heard them in their own language. Also the Mockers prove that hey heard what they thought was gibberish.

I have already answered this. In previous posts to @TDidymas I was verbose in exegeting the exact text in Acts 2 and 1 Cor 14 to support my position that modern tongues do match what the text says.

If someone insists that Paul was talking about language translators in 1 Cor 14 I just have to end the conversation. I lose confidence that they are being honest. I don't think they really think that is what Paul was talking about. The gift of interpretation is not linguistic translation of foreign languages. It is a prophetic message giving the meaning and not a word for word translation.

What Kenneth Copeland does is not relative to exegeting scriptures. I don't care what he does. I have never listened to him, I think I heard him in the 80s and did not care for what he was saying or feel right about his spirit and I tuned him out back then.


I think that the idea that someone speaking in tongues must be a perfect person was the idea that the Corinthians had which is why they were in the flesh and showboating and Paul had to correct them and tell them they were sounding brass if they weren't operating in love.

So backslidden preachers can still speak in tongues but it will be sounding brass. To say that it is not real tongues or never was is not how Paul corrected the Corinthians did he?

The Corinthians received the real gift but then some of them, or a lot of them, were showboating thinking it made them look more spiritual. Did Paul say that their tongues weren't real? To think that someone who has the wrong motive means that their gift was fake is not supported by 1 Cor 14. The gift was given to them by faith and not by their trek record of holiness. Then what they did with the gift showed that some misunderstood the purpose and used it for self aggrandizement.
Paul told them they were sounding brass.

So it is with backslidden preachers of false teachers. Maybe they started out sincere and got proud and turned out false and then they keep faking the use of tongues but there is no message in it. Just them continuing to make sounds that were similar to what they remember when they first got the gift. You see your method of judging these things based on Kenneth Copeland is really just a bunch of conclusions based on your own reasoning that sounds good to you but it can't be supported by the scriptures on the subject.

Charismatic babbling mysteriously unintelligible "tongues" are demonstrably bogus buddy. There is no good Biblical or rational reason whatsoever to believe that they are legitimate. This bogus babbling is precisely the same as that spoken by Kenneth Copeland. Yet you profess that what YOU speak is genuinely miraculous? I think not.

The arguments you set forth for their veracity are quite frankly......extremely tenuous at best and better described as ridiculous. And of course I have heard all of these arguments many many times in the past. Threw them in the trash can.

When and if I hear legitimate miraculous tongues I will let you know. But trust me when I tell you I am not looking and I am not waiting. Too busy fulfilling my mandate to preach the gospel to every creature.

 

[ResidentAlien]

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

No deception whatsoever. I've stated plainly and openly what I believe; and more importantly, what the evidence shows.

My intention is that people will examine the evidence for themselves and reach their own conclusions. That's my motive—no more, no less.

Sorry if the truth looks like darkness to you; I can't help that.

 

[Amanuensis]

Charismatic babbling mysteriously unintelligible "tongues" are demonstrably bogus buddy. There is no good Biblical or rational reason whatsoever to believe that they are legitimate. This bogus babbling is precisely the same as that spoken by Kenneth Copeland. Yet you profess that what YOU speak is genuinely miraculous? I think not.

The arguments you set forth for their veracity are quite frankly......extremely tenuous at best and better described as ridiculous. And of course I have heard all of these arguments many many times in the past. Threw them in the trash can.

When and if I hear legitimate miraculous tongues I will let you know. But trust me when I tell you I am not looking and I am not waiting. Too busy fulfilling my mandate to preach the gospel to every creature.

Each person must walk in the light that they have. I fellowship in a Pentecostal church where some do not speak in tongues. They don't agree on every interpretation on this subject. We don't try to convince each other. We both allow each other to discover the best hermeneutic and leave it between them and God. We don't elevate this subject beyond what scriptures gives it.

One thing that the Holy Spirit makes clear to those who are lead by the Holy Spirit is to NOT argue about tongues. That is a sure sign of NOT being filled with the Spirit. LOL.

Be blessed brother and may you be nice to Charismatics along the way.

 

[cv5]

Yes, today's tongues do match what is in the Bible.

No I don't believe that tongues have to be a foreign language

I have already explained why the text in Acts 2 suggests that two people of different languages heard the same person speaking in tongues and both understood them in their own language which makes it possible that the tongue speaker sounded the same as what you hear today, but the hearers heard them in their own language. Also the Mockers prove that hey heard what they thought was gibberish.

I have already answered this. In previous posts to @TDidymas I was verbose in exegeting the exact text in Acts 2 and 1 Cor 14 to support my position that modern tongues do match what the text says.

If someone insists that Paul was talking about language translators in 1 Cor 14 I just have to end the conversation. I lose confidence that they are being honest. I don't think they really think that is what Paul was talking about. The gift of interpretation is not linguistic translation of foreign languages. It is a prophetic message giving the meaning and not a word for word translation.

What Kenneth Copeland does is not relative to exegeting scriptures. I don't care what he does. I have never listened to him, I think I heard him in the 80s and did not care for what he was saying or feel right about his spirit and I tuned him out back then.


I think that the idea that someone speaking in tongues must be a perfect person was the idea that the Corinthians had which is why they were in the flesh and showboating and Paul had to correct them and tell them they were sounding brass if they weren't operating in love.

So backslidden preachers can still speak in tongues but it will be sounding brass. To say that it is not real tongues or never was is not how Paul corrected the Corinthians did he?

The Corinthians received the real gift but then some of them, or a lot of them, were showboating thinking it made them look more spiritual. Did Paul say that their tongues weren't real? To think that someone who has the wrong motive means that their gift was fake is not supported by 1 Cor 14. The gift was given to them by faith and not by their trek record of holiness. Then what they did with the gift showed that some misunderstood the purpose and used it for self aggrandizement.
Paul told them they were sounding brass.

So it is with backslidden preachers of false teachers. Maybe they started out sincere and got proud and turned out false and then they keep faking the use of tongues but there is no message in it. Just them continuing to make sounds that were similar to what they remember when they first got the gift. You see your method of judging these things based on Kenneth Copeland is really just a bunch of conclusions based on your own reasoning that sounds good to you but it can't be supported by the scriptures on the subject.

Biblically, authentic legitimate tongues are a "sign to unbelievers". That being said, IF charismatic Pentecostals are indeed speaking tongues they couldn't possibly have FAILED more miserably in the utilization of this gift for its intended purpose. Should be a potent witnessing tool......but it is nothing of the sort.

Neo-tounges are relegated to little more than a stunt, showmanship, theatrics.....with zero actual utility.

According to your earlier statements, all of a sudden (in this day and age) no one ELSE can understand these neo-tongues, they are only RIGHTLY HEARD by other Charismatic Pentecostals, are primarily spoken inside a church meeting, and ONLY understood by other Charismatic Pentecostals EXCLUSIVELY. Plain-vanilla Christians have no hope of hearing or interpreting.
Moreover, these tongues are absolutely useless to any unbeliever who understands only a foreign language.

For this and many many other reasons I considered what is commonly called tongues today as bogus.

 

[CS1]

Again those who disagree with the gifts of the Holy Spirit seek secular news media from secondary sources to attack those who they disagree with biblically. And call themselves chritians. the news information provided states it was "secondary information". NO EYEWITNESSES.

FYI Perham is not the father of Pentecostalism. Jesus IS found in Acts 1:8 YOU SHALL receive Power After the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be MY witnesses "

 

[Amanuensis]

Biblically, authentic legitimate tongues are a "sign to unbelievers". That being said, IF charismatic Pentecostals are indeed speaking tongues they couldn't possibly have FAILED more miserably in the utilization of this gift for its intended purpose. Should be a potent witnessing tool......but it is nothing of the sort.

I can't really tell if you want to discuss these points or not. I will give a brief answer to the first one, because I am not sure if you are reading my answers.

You seem to be saying that you believe that the scriptures present the speaking in tongues as a sign to unbelievers that when they see it they will believe?

This is not what Paul meant when he quoted Isaiah.

21It is written in the law,
I will speak to this people
by people of other tongues
and by the lips of foreigners,
and even then, they will not listen to me,a b
says the Lord. 22Speaking in tongues, then, is intended as a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is not for unbelievers but for believers. 23If, therefore, the whole church assembles together and all are speaking in tongues and people who are outsiders or unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your minds? 24But if all are prophesying and some unbeliever or outsider comes in, he is convicted by all and is called to account by all. 25The secrets of his heart will be revealed, and as a result he will fall facedown and worship God, proclaiming, “God is really among you.”

If you pay attention to the text he is saying that even though He would give them this prophesied miracle they still will not believe so that when he says that it is a sign for unbelievers it means it is a sign of judgment that the unbelievers will be without excuse in the day of judgment.

Then he goes on to show how prophesy will cause an unbeliever to fall down and repent and so your idea that tongues would do this is not what Paul said at all. Paul is saying that Prophesy will cause an unbeliever to repent not that tongues would do that. This prophesy would make an unbeliever a believer. Not tongues.

By stating that tongues is a sign for unbelievers without the associated quote from Isaiah you have made a mistake in how you interpreted Paul's intended meaning. Lots of people do it. It is one of the least understood verse on this topic. It is easy to understand if quoted with the Isaiah context.

According to your earlier statements, all of a sudden (in this day and age) no one ELSE can understand these neo-tongues, they are only RIGHTLY HEARD by other Charismatic Pentecostals, are primarily spoken inside a church meeting, and ONLY understood by other Charismatic Pentecostals EXCLUSIVELY. Plain-vanilla Christians have no hope of hearing or interpreting.
Moreover, these tongues are absolutely useless to any unbeliever who understands only a foreign language.

I did not say all of a sudden in this day no one can understand them. I said that Paul said in 1 Cor 14:2 that no man can understand them and that they are not speaking to man but to God.

And yes, 1 Cor 12 - 14 does show us that at that time they were to speak in tongues as the Spirit gave the utterance 2 or 3 at the most taking turns and only with interpretation to edify the saints when they met together in the assembly. I think we all agree that was a the positive part that was a good thing. So yes, doing that same thing in the assembly today would be biblical. And match what they did. It's not complicated. It does require faith. As do all good things from God.

 

[cv5]

One thing that the Holy Spirit makes clear to those who are lead by the Holy Spirit is to NOT argue about tongues. That is a sure sign of NOT being filled with the Spirit. LOL.

Legitimate miraculous tongues will get no argument from me......and certainly does not need support from you. They are self-evident and beyond refutation.

On the other hand the babbling that I hear spoken that purports to be tongues needs to be confronted, examined and verified. And in my opinion people need to be warned of it. Just the same way that I would warn people about Kenneth Copeland and his ilk.

 

[cv5]

I can't really tell if you want to discuss these points or not. I will give a brief answer to the first one, because I am not sure if you are reading my answers.

You seem to be saying that you believe that the scriptures present the speaking in tongues as a sign to unbelievers that when they see it they will believe?

This is not what Paul meant when he quoted Isaiah.

21It is written in the law,
I will speak to this people
by people of other tongues
and by the lips of foreigners,
and even then, they will not listen to me,a b
says the Lord. 22Speaking in tongues, then, is intended as a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is not for unbelievers but for believers. 23If, therefore, the whole church assembles together and all are speaking in tongues and people who are outsiders or unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your minds? 24But if all are prophesying and some unbeliever or outsider comes in, he is convicted by all and is called to account by all. 25The secrets of his heart will be revealed, and as a result he will fall facedown and worship God, proclaiming, “God is really among you.”

If you pay attention to the text he is saying that even though He would give them this prophesied miracle they still will not believe so that when he says that it is a sign for unbelievers it means it is a sign of judgment that the unbelievers will be without excuse in the day of judgment.

Then he goes on to show how prophesy will cause an unbeliever to fall down and repent and so your idea that tongues would do this is not what Paul said at all. Paul is saying that Prophesy will cause an unbeliever to repent not that tongues would do that. This prophesy would make an unbeliever a believer. Not tongues.

By stating that tongues is a sign for unbelievers without the associated quote from Isaiah you have made a mistake in how you interpreted Paul's intended meaning. Lots of people do it. It is one of the least understood verse on this topic. It is easy to understand if quoted with the Isaiah context.





I did not say all of a sudden in this day no one can understand them. I said that Paul said in 1 Cor 14:2 that no man can understand them and that they are not speaking to man but to God.

And yes, 1 Cor 12 - 14 does show us that at that time they were to speak in tongues as the Spirit gave the utterance 2 or 3 at the most taking turns and only with interpretation to edify the saints when they met together in the assembly. I think we all agree that was a the positive part that was a good thing. So yes, doing that same thing in the assembly today would be biblical. And match what they did. It's not complicated. It does require faith. As do all good things from God.

On the other hand, Acts chapter 2 tongues......that very phenomenon.......was the cause of the salvation of 3000 souls that day. Which of course is their intended purpose. Ipso facto.

And yes I am perfectly well aware of the correct interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14. And yes tongues are undoubtedly a sign and witness and have utility for preaching the gospel to unbelievers. To say otherwise is absurd on its face and simply beggars the imagination.

The right interpretation of Isaiah is that SOME will still not believe DESPITE the signs. It is self-evident that ALL did not refuse to believe! Because 3000 souls were saved that very day! There are multitudes who refuse to believe despite the signs miracles and wonders. Yet some do. Some always do.

I say again the "sign gifts"........including tongues.......are PRIMARILY meant to authenticate the gospel so that SOME people (the elect) WILL believe. They are NOT meant to be a "Pentecostal only" glee club gimmick. There NOT meant to obscure the gospel.

I also emphasize that the babbling neo-tongues of today serve no utility whatsoever in evangelizing or saving souls. They simply do not work in that regard whatsoever. If anything they make the Church a laughingstock to unbelievers. Go to the Island of Tonga and speak your Tongues and see how it Works out for you. Don't expect me to pay for your plane ticket...I already know how it's going to go.

 

[Amanuensis]

Legitimate miraculous tongues will get no argument from me......and certainly does not need support from you. They are self-evident and beyond refutation.

On the other hand the babbling that I hear spoken that purports to be tongues needs to be confronted, examined and verified. And in my opinion people need to be warned of it. Just the same way that I would warn people about Kenneth Copeland and his ilk.

I am not interested in going back and forth and sinning so I won't do that.

However in the same spirit of careful examination of the text that I have tried to stay with in previous posts I think it is helpful to mention that the "others mocking said these men are full of new wine" is there for a reason and I think that it reminds us that at that time, there were those who did not see it as a sign "beyond refutation" and dismissed them as incoherent babblers.

It is not possible to ignore that detail and say that this manifestation if it is real will cause all that hear it to know that it is real. That did not happen on that day so your theory is not correct. Again, I am trying to point out how to exegete and not ignore these kinds of details and come up with theories that cannot be supported by the text.

You are stating that it was irrefutable on that day. And yet here in the text are people who thought it was nonsense. This means you have to concede, yes, some may even think that the real is nonsense because they don't understand the words being spoken.

 

[cv5]

I am not interested in going back and forth and sinning so I won't do that.

However in the same spirit of careful examination of the text that I have tried to stay with in previous posts I think it is helpful to mention that the "others mocking said these men are full of new wine" is there for a reason and I think that it reminds us that at that time, there were those who did not see it as a sign "beyond refutation" and dismissed them as incoherent babblers.

It is not possible to ignore that detail and say that this manifestation if it is real will cause all that hear it to know that it is real. That did not happen on that day so your theory is not correct. Again, I am trying to point out how to exegete and not ignore these kinds of details and come up with theories that cannot be supported by the text.

You are stating that it was irrefutable on that day. And yet here in the text are people who thought it was nonsense. This means you have to concede, yes, some may even think that the real is nonsense because they don't understand the words being spoken.

So you're holding out and saying that it is possible (or even likely) that "babbling tongues" (precisely that which we hear today in Pentecostal circles) were spoken in Acts ch 2, and the recipients/hearers were are able to discern their own authentic language from it, as well as an accurate message?

Okay understood.

That being the case I challenge any Pentecostal to go to Tonga/India/China, speak these "babbling tongues", and do their best to obtain SUCCESS in proclaiming the gospel message and thereby convert souls through that peculiar agency.

 

[Amanuensis]

So you're holding out and saying that it is possible (or even likely) that "babbling tongues" (precisely that which we hear today in Pentecostal circles) were spoken in Acts ch 2, and the recipients/hearers were are able to discern their own authentic language from it, as well as an accurate message?

Okay understood.

That being the case I challenge any Pentecostal to go to Tonga/India/China, speak these "babbling tongues", and do their best to obtain SUCCESS in proclaiming the gospel message and thereby convert souls through that peculiar agency.

There are multiplied millions of people in China and India speaking in tongues. Google it. "How many Pentecostals in Tonga" I don't know the answer but my guess is that they are the largest missionary group in that country. I will Google and see.

 

[Edify]

Sorry if the truth looks like darkness to you; I can't help that.

I thought the same thing about you.I'm glad most of the Pentecostals left this Op to quit listening to all the insults they didn't deserve. That means they don't want to be the agitating, insulting polar opposites of you guys. My hat goes off to them.

 

[cv5]

There are multiplied millions of people in China and India speaking in tongues. Google it. "How many Pentecostals in Tonga" I don't know the answer but my guess is that they are the largest missionary group in that country. I will Google and see.

I did not ask if THEY were speaking in tongues. I asked if YOU would/could/should use YOUR supposed "gift of tongues" and go down there to preach the gospel TO THEM. Then report back with the results. If YOUR gift of tongues is genuine and authentic, YOU would be responsible for the greatest revival in the modern age. I figure you and a dozen of your "tongue speaking" buddies would be the most famous people on planet earth. You would be mobbed by CNN ABC PBS CBS NBC BBC.......and be the subject of intense scientific scrutiny. I would not hesitate to bring along a couple of your "healing gift" buddies to boot. I assume you know at least a few.

What I'm trying to say is: why are the supposed millions of Pentecostal "tongue speakers" squandering their gift like sinful slothful pew potatoes? Why are they defying Jesus' command of Luke 11:33? Why are these supposed tongues only heard and understood by professing Pentecostals within their own assemblies and there's never an outreach program UTILIZING this magnanimous profound gift for the good of others, for the purpose of preaching the gospel to to other countries languages and cultures? Just think.......a mere 12 of you could convert 300 per day for years and years on end.....traveling from one town and village to the next the world over. If just ONE of your healing gift buddies could do what Peter did in Acts 3......maybe you could bump that number up another 5000 per day?

I pray that the Lord would give ME the legitimate authentic gift of tongues. I would be like the energizer bunny and be traveling the planet preaching the gospel until I dropped dead in the sheer joy of exhaustion. I would DEMAND that news cameras and cell phones track/record my every miraculous utterance for posterity. I guarantee you that the entire planet would know that there was at least one genuine Christian speaking authentic miraculous tongues in the Name of the Lord Jesus, for the glory of God the Father, by the empowering of the Holy Spirit.

 

[randyk]

A structure is only as solid as its foundation. In this short study into Pentecostalism's origins we'll discover whether it's built on solid rock or sinking sand...

So, the question I leave you with is this: If the tree is bad, how can the fruit possibly be good?

The idea of early and latter rains were just part of the harvest cycle. Many saints have thought that it prefigured a larger redemptive program in God's plan for Israel and for the Church. Israel certainly went through several stages of restoration before Christ came. And likewise, the Church has gone through several stages in order to reach out to the world with the Gospel.

The notion of restoring spiritual gifts simultaneous with a latter day renewal certainly came true with the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements. It was an endtime major outreach to the world that continues to this day. CBN and TBN are a good example of Charismatic and Pentecostal outreaches to the world that are without precedent.

Certainly, the interest in renewal in Parham's time was not new. It had existed throughout the time of Wesley and on into the Holiness movement. I do think some gifts of the Spirit are not exercised simply because they are not taught and identified as such. And when gifts are not universally experienced, but only parceled out to individuals, as the Spirit gives, then people may be hesitant to stick their noses out there, being afraid to get them "chopped off."

Anyway, I don't believe in a "Prayer Language" that Pentecostals claim *all Spirit-Baptized believers should experience.* But I do believe *some* do have the gift of tongues. Same with the other gifts of the Spirit.

Look back in the time of Hezekiah and Josiah of Israel. The Law of God was virtually lost to the point people didn't see the value in it anymore. At the least, they were very ignorant of the blessings it could bring. Perhaps teaching the spiritual gifts has a similar value when we begin to look back into them?

I do think there's a lot of bad doctrine in Pentecostalism. But this is true in every move of God in history. What church is not beset by human error and failure? Should this stop us? Only if we don't address it.

 

[hornetguy]

Yes he is "explaining how the gifts of the Spirit are to work in the assembly of believers"
And because of that I understand the question "do all speak in tongues" as applying to in the assembly.

I disagree with your understanding of it... I think you see it that way because you believe it to BE that way.

Paul was simply talking about spiritual gifts. He was explaining how not everyone has, or should expect to have, the same gifts.
He then went on to explain how all the members of the church, the body of Christ, were like the members of a physical body. Each different part had its own role to fulfill... those that had the gift of wisdom should not look at others that do NOT have the gift of wisdom as being lesser parts of the body. Each different part has a role to play, in the functioning of the body of Christ.
He said nothing about the assembly until chapter 14, where he gave the explicit instructions about how the gifts were to be used.

In your assembly, when someone speaks in a tongue, who interprets what they have said? And how do you know that the interpretation is true? Do you limit it to only one or two, or does just about everyone speak in tongues?