Pentecostalism's sketchy origins
- Thread starter ResidentAlien
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I gave the scripture reference, and am describing it the same as the Acts 2 narrative. Yet you call it "human reasoning." So my reasoning is "human" and yours is "spiritual"? You don't think that's a double standard? If you think my reasoning is wrong, then quote scripture and explain it to prove so. I answered your question and gave explanation of scripture matching the Acts 2 narrative. But your response is that it's "human reasoning." You need to explain how, exactly.
I think @TDidymas just presented an interpretation that would help your case on 1 Cor 14:2 in post https://christianchat.com/threads/pentecostalisms-sketchy-origins.199418/post-4830493
I think his explanation is plausible for what Paul meant when he said they were not speaking to men, and yet it might still be a known language, however I still think that the gift of interpretation called for here is a supernatural give of the Holy Spirit therefore, if the interpreter is giving an interpretation it would be a case where they had never learned that language.
The only problem I have with this is that Paul had not identtified his language after 20 years of speaking more than them all. If he had been speaking a known language all that time wouldn't he have identified a few words? And then his understanding would have become fruitful after 20 years. This seems to suggest that he spoke in a tongue that was never identified. 1 Cor 14:14
I think his explanation is plausible for what Paul meant when he said they were not speaking to men, and yet it might still be a known language, however I still think that the gift of interpretation called for here is a supernatural give of the Holy Spirit therefore, if the interpreter is giving an interpretation it would be a case where they had never learned that language.
The only problem I have with this is that Paul had not identtified his language after 20 years of speaking more than them all. If he had been speaking a known language all that time wouldn't he have identified a few words? And then his understanding would have become fruitful after 20 years. This seems to suggest that he spoke in a tongue that was never identified. 1 Cor 14:14
There is no 'advice' that is equal to the Scripture unless it bows it's knee and confesses with it's tongue that JESUS is LORD.
Hypocrisy is making a claim that you believe the LORD but then deny Him and His words, which a person does when they speak against the Baptism of the Holy Spirit as "it is Written."
Hypocrisy is making a claim that you believe the LORD but then deny Him and His words, which a person does when they speak against the Baptism of the Holy Spirit as "it is Written."
I've found that this subject is far more controversial and divisive than almost anything else. It is a poorly understood issue, because it was assumed from the git-go that it was of God because of its mysterious nature. Even respected evangelical theologians are being persuaded to accept it.
But even though mainstream Christians don't believe the P/C movement is a cult, it has cult-like behaviors. P/C Christians in general do exhibit the fruit of the Spirit, but what is deceptive is that they get their behaviors from scripture, not from "speaking in tongues" as they think. The cult-like behaviors and thinking are things like calling themselves "Spirit-filled," as if no one outside the movement is Spirit-filled, and thinking they have something other Christians don't have, and their misuse of scripture, twisted to fit their experience is another.
However, I need to say that the very nature of controversies is all about opinion and dividing of opinionated people. It's the reason we have so many divisions and denominations in the churches. Yet, it's a minor issue, because the majors about who Jesus is and what He has done for us is the unifying factor. But in general, people are both prideful and fearful, and the reason why they don't want to be corrected.
But even though mainstream Christians don't believe the P/C movement is a cult, it has cult-like behaviors. P/C Christians in general do exhibit the fruit of the Spirit, but what is deceptive is that they get their behaviors from scripture, not from "speaking in tongues" as they think. The cult-like behaviors and thinking are things like calling themselves "Spirit-filled," as if no one outside the movement is Spirit-filled, and thinking they have something other Christians don't have, and their misuse of scripture, twisted to fit their experience is another.
However, I need to say that the very nature of controversies is all about opinion and dividing of opinionated people. It's the reason we have so many divisions and denominations in the churches. Yet, it's a minor issue, because the majors about who Jesus is and what He has done for us is the unifying factor. But in general, people are both prideful and fearful, and the reason why they don't want to be corrected.
-
1
- Show all
Ample evidence has been collected and shown that the gift does not originate from any region of the brain associated with speech.
Anyonw who sincerely wishes to learn His ways would know this.
Anyonw who sincerely wishes to learn His ways would know this.
-
3
- Show all
I could say the same thing about you. I could say to you - "study the Bible!" but such statements go nowhere. Get to specifics. Quote a verse you think contradicts what I'm saying, and then let me respond as to why it doesn't contradict what I'm saying. Is an intelligent conversation possible between us? (Not if you have a closed mind and keep on with ad hominem attacks).
1 Thes. 5:21 "But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good."
For you to suggest that your 'gift' cannot be examined tells me that you have a sacred cow.
And I know that your tongues is not a human language, since I was in the P/C movement for 25 years, and that's what they teach. But in following Biblical precedence of Acts 2, all other places that mention tongues indicate it's human languages. And IMO that's the only way it can be verified as a bonified miracle. Someone speaks some known language that he hasn't learned, and someone else understands the intelligible message spoken.
But modern tongues is not that. It's unintelligible because it's not language. It's the same kind of gibberish spoken since B.C. in which they claimed it was "language of the gods."
But here's how the test would work: Someone claimed that a person speaking in tongues spoke Lebanese. I know someone from Lebanon who could properly identify it. Such a thing would prove (or disprove) that modern tongues is the same thing as they got in Acts 2, at least for that case. But in all the various tongues posted on youtube, not a single one has been identified. If anyone in the P/C movement was able to identify even one single tongue as a real language, it would be prolifically blasted all through the internet. But so far, there have been no takers. It leads me to believe that P/Cs have a vested interest in keeping it in the realm of the mysterious, very possibly because they are afraid that it will be exposed as fraudulent (like so far all the ones on youtube).
For you to suggest that your 'gift' cannot be examined tells me that you have a sacred cow.
And I know that your tongues is not a human language, since I was in the P/C movement for 25 years, and that's what they teach. But in following Biblical precedence of Acts 2, all other places that mention tongues indicate it's human languages. And IMO that's the only way it can be verified as a bonified miracle. Someone speaks some known language that he hasn't learned, and someone else understands the intelligible message spoken.
But modern tongues is not that. It's unintelligible because it's not language. It's the same kind of gibberish spoken since B.C. in which they claimed it was "language of the gods."
But here's how the test would work: Someone claimed that a person speaking in tongues spoke Lebanese. I know someone from Lebanon who could properly identify it. Such a thing would prove (or disprove) that modern tongues is the same thing as they got in Acts 2, at least for that case. But in all the various tongues posted on youtube, not a single one has been identified. If anyone in the P/C movement was able to identify even one single tongue as a real language, it would be prolifically blasted all through the internet. But so far, there have been no takers. It leads me to believe that P/Cs have a vested interest in keeping it in the realm of the mysterious, very possibly because they are afraid that it will be exposed as fraudulent (like so far all the ones on youtube).
-
1
- Show all
Sorry to butt in on your response to CV5, but I felt a need to answer this. I thought I explained this earlier, but I'll say it differently.
Paul did not say his mind was unfruitful for 20 years, that's conjecture. But he said if he speaks in an unknown tongue with no interpreter, his mind is unfruitful. This was a point he was making to rebuke the Corinthians about what they were doing. Yet, he said "I will pray with the Spirit, and pray with the understanding also." This implies that Paul's mind was indeed fruitful, because this statement was his practice. He wasn't saying that as some ideal he hadn't reached. He was saying it because it was his experience.
So, why did he not identify the language? Simply because he was making general statements about how the Corinthians needed correction. Therefore what language he spoke (or languages) was irrelevant to his argument.
Paul did not say his mind was unfruitful for 20 years, that's conjecture. But he said if he speaks in an unknown tongue with no interpreter, his mind is unfruitful. This was a point he was making to rebuke the Corinthians about what they were doing. Yet, he said "I will pray with the Spirit, and pray with the understanding also." This implies that Paul's mind was indeed fruitful, because this statement was his practice. He wasn't saying that as some ideal he hadn't reached. He was saying it because it was his experience.
So, why did he not identify the language? Simply because he was making general statements about how the Corinthians needed correction. Therefore what language he spoke (or languages) was irrelevant to his argument.
-
1
- Show all
No, that is what you said by implication. Let me quote what you said:
The conversation we are having is about modern tongues, whether or not it is of God. In this context, you are trying to promote it with the words "filled with the Holy Spirit" - are you not doing this? If not, then please explain what you mean, since I assumed you meant the same thing that P/C dogma teaches. I'm trying to understand exactly what you're saying.
The conversation we are having is about modern tongues, whether or not it is of God. In this context, you are trying to promote it with the words "filled with the Holy Spirit" - are you not doing this? If not, then please explain what you mean, since I assumed you meant the same thing that P/C dogma teaches. I'm trying to understand exactly what you're saying.
The whole sweep of 1 Corinthians 14 simply indicates that "foreign language tongues", spoken without an interpreter, are not profitable in that they do not edify and build up the Church. Essentially Paul is saying that they are wasting valuable time and effort, which would much better be directed toward prophecy. Because prophecy is exceedingly profitable for both believer and unbeliever alike. Un-interpreted tongues.....not so much.
Paul is also calling to their attention that since everyone was speaking "foreign language tongues" without order, neither with an interpreter, the service was incorrigibly chaotic.
We should be mindful of the fact that vv. 10 and 11 (and preceeding verses) are extraordinarily explicit in stating that what they were dealing with was real, existing foreign languages. I mean that is the literal description Paul used. And the congregation had absolutely no idea of the meaning because they did not have an interpreter, or simply failed to follow up with an interpretation. Therefore making a whole escapade a waste of breath.
This chapter is very simple and very easy to understand. I have no idea why confusion reigns within the CP crowd.
Paul is also calling to their attention that since everyone was speaking "foreign language tongues" without order, neither with an interpreter, the service was incorrigibly chaotic.
We should be mindful of the fact that vv. 10 and 11 (and preceeding verses) are extraordinarily explicit in stating that what they were dealing with was real, existing foreign languages. I mean that is the literal description Paul used. And the congregation had absolutely no idea of the meaning because they did not have an interpreter, or simply failed to follow up with an interpretation. Therefore making a whole escapade a waste of breath.
This chapter is very simple and very easy to understand. I have no idea why confusion reigns within the CP crowd.
-
2
- Show all
