Pentecostalism's sketchy origins

[DavidTree]

Ok, so how then do you explain the obvious difference between modern tongues and Acts 2?

i do not look at, nor pay attention to the 'propheteers' who make merchandise of the word of God.

What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?
Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect?
It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.

The Holy Spirit will never cause us to argue against "it is written."
PEACE

 

[cv5]

Yet I was told it wasn't fake

Indeed. Evidently the CP's can't tell the difference either. When you think about it any unbelieving prankster could walk into any CP Church service......and fool the whole congregation from the pastor all the way down. No sweat.

 

[kaylagrl]

It was a question, but you take it in the worst possible way, as a judgment and insult.

But since you demand that I show you a Christlike spirit, where is yours? Jesus commanded us all to forgive our brother (or sister) from the heart. Where is your forgiving spirit? (I've yet to see it).

I asked a simple question and you dodged it. The Bible tells you to humble yourself, not others. You didn't ask forgiveness, you said you had no reason to. So why ask about a forgiving spirit. Now, can you answer the question without deflecting?

 

[cv5]

Indeed. Evidently the CP's can't tell the difference either. When you think about it any unbelieving prankster could walk into any CP Church service......and fool the whole congregation from the pastor all the way down. No sweat.

Which is exactly what the prosperity gospel CP fraudsters do to their congregations.....

 

[Evmur]

Yet I was told it wasn't fake, I've heard many speaking the same gibberish, every youtube video of tongues is gibberish (not language), no one claiming to have the authentic gift will submit it for examination, among other things, tells me it's all the same, so it's all fake.

we have the witness of the Holy Spirit ... didn't you?

... don't look at the fakes, look at what is true, I guarantee ...

... if you are seeking that which is true and of God you will find it.

 

[Evmur]

Yet, many people looking from the outside of the movement are saying there's something wrong with the picture. So it's a sore thumb. Just because it gives you pleasure to suck on it, doesn't make it authentic. Numerous times I requested some evidential proof (beyond someone's anecdote), but no takers. It leads me to believe that the resistance is confirmation that it is not authentic.

when you say constantly that you want somebody to demonstrate tongues to you etc you show a total lack of canny as to how God works.

 

[hornetguy]

when you say constantly that you want somebody to demonstrate tongues to you etc you show a total lack of canny as to how God works.

I thought that tongues were given as a sign to unbelievers?
I know that it's a prayer language, and is supposed to be between the speaker and God, according to you guys, but how does that work out in an assembly? Someone over by himself speaking to God? Who interprets that for the edification of others?

22 So then, tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophecy is not for unbelievers, but for those who believe. 23 Therefore if the whole church gathers together and all the people speak in tongues, and [j]outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are insane?

 

[Evmur]

I thought that tongues were given as a sign to unbelievers?
I know that it's a prayer language, and is supposed to be between the speaker and God, according to you guys, but how does that work out in an assembly? Someone over by himself speaking to God? Who interprets that for the edification of others?

22 So then, tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophecy is not for unbelievers, but for those who believe. 23 Therefore if the whole church gathers together and all the people speak in tongues, and [j]outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are insane?

Edification comes with tongues when used in private. I been 45 years in this thing and I've never been in a meeting where everybody spoke in tongues at once for any prolonged period of time.

In the times when everybody prays together [or sings] in tongues there comes a point when the anointing lifts and the tongues cease.

 

[hornetguy]

Out of curiosity... I've never read any scripture that indicates ANY believers spoke in tongues that had not had one of the apostles lay hands on them... other than the Pentecost experience that started the indwelling of the Spirit... am I missing any?

 

[Amanuensis]

Out of curiosity... I've never read any scripture that indicates ANY believers spoke in tongues that had not had one of the apostles lay hands on them... other than the Pentecost experience that started the indwelling of the Spirit... am I missing any?

Peter did not lay hand on those in the House of Cornelius.

 

[CS1]

Peter did not lay hand on those in the House of Cornelius.

that's right

 

[Amanuensis]

I thought that tongues were given as a sign to unbelievers?
I know that it's a prayer language, and is supposed to be between the speaker and God, according to you guys, but how does that work out in an assembly? Someone over by himself speaking to God? Who interprets that for the edification of others?

22 So then, tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophecy is not for unbelievers, but for those who believe. 23 Therefore if the whole church gathers together and all the people speak in tongues, and [j]outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are insane?

In the assembly someone who gives a tongue and then someone interprets it is manifested in a different way. It is about the timing when it happens and the way it it is loud enough that everyone knows it is for someone to interpret. And this is not the same as when people are praying to to themselves and to God. It is obvious when you are there.

The tongues are for a sign for unbelievers was a statement in the context of a quote from Isaiah. Meaning that it was given to be a testimony that God would fulfill prophesy in giving it but they still would not believe. A sign for the unbeliever meaning NOT that it would cause him to be a believer (which is how I think many quote it in error) but a sign against their Unbelief. They will remain unbelievers, but without and excuse.

Look at the context in 1 Cor 14 where it is quoted and notice that the example of an unbeliever witnessing a gift falling down and repenting because of it (as many people think tongues as a sign to unbelievers would mean) is not about tongues but prophesy. Even though it says prophesy is a sign to believers. So prophesy is a sign that leads people to believe, but tongues is a sign that prophesy of Isaiah and Joel has been fulfilled, but the unbelievers who see it and remain in unbelief will have no excuse in the day of judgment that God did something in their day that was prophesied and still they did not belief. A sign for the unbeliever.

But prophesy a sign for the believer, = the example Paul gave of an unbeliever, believing after hearing a prophesy.

 

[CS1]

So now I ask, (and I am not arguing, or trying to set you up for anything) what is the gift of interpretation of tongues in the church setting? Would you see it like this:

Someone would speak in tongues, (a known language they had never learned) and someone who did not know that language, but had the gift of interpretation could give the message in Greek and thereby everyone be edified by the message. Or...

Would it be: Someone spoke in tongues (a known language they had never learned) and someone who had the gift of interpretation could suddenly know that language translate it, then after wards remember the words that were spoken and the words they translated. So that over a period of years they could effectively become bilingual?

I mean in order to comprehend what Paul was talking about we should try and put ourselves in the shoes of the Corinthian believers who received this letter. What was going on there, what did it mean to them when they read it. They were familiar with the manifestation of the gift of interpretation weren't they? Was it something they had yet to see used at all? Or was it something they were aware of but had not been requiring and now they are being told that they should?

I am thinking. "Paul? What does that look like, when someone has the gift of interpretation" How does it work? If I were there what would I have witnessed when it was used?

you did not respond to my answering of your question.

 

[CS1]

In the assembly someone who gives a tongue and then someone interprets it is manifested in a different way. It is about the timing when it happens and the way it it is loud enough that everyone knows it is for someone to interpret. And this is not the same as when people are praying to to themselves and to God. It is obvious when you are there.

The tongues are for a sign for unbelievers was a statement in the context of a quote from Isaiah. Meaning that it was given to be a testimony that God would fulfill prophesy in giving it but they still would not believe. A sign for the unbeliever meaning NOT that it would cause him to be a believer (which is how I think many quote it in error) but a sign against their Unbelief. They will remain unbelievers, but without and excuse.

Look at the context in 1 Cor 14 where it is quoted and notice that the example of an unbeliever witnessing a gift falling down and repenting because of it (as many people think tongues as a sign to unbelievers would mean) is not about tongues but prophesy. Even though it says prophesy is a sign to believers. So prophesy is a sign that leads people to believe, but tongues is a sign that prophesy of Isaiah and Joel has been fulfilled, but the unbelievers who see it and remain in unbelief will have no excuse in the day of judgment that God did something in their day that was prophesied and still they did not belief. A sign for the unbeliever.

But prophesy a sign for the believer, = the example Paul gave of an unbeliever, believing after hearing a prophesy.

well I think you have a valid point but the context of prophesying and tongues and interpretation of tongues are equal in the edification 1cor 14 says in verse 5 latter part

"for he who prophesies is greater than he who speaks with tongues, unless indeed he interprets, that the church may receive edification."

The edification of the church includes the unbeliever who is in the church or those who hear it.

 

[hornetguy]

Peter did not lay hand on those in the House of Cornelius.

But it is my understanding that, similar to Pentecost, this was deliberately done to PROVE that Gentiles were deserving of baptism and recognition as believers... in other words, the other Jews there could not accuse Peter of "overstepping" his authority. If the Spirit came upon them spontaneously (from God), then there could be no doubt....

Philip (not an apostle) baptized the eunuch, and there was no mention of tongues... just that he went on his way rejoicing...

so, the question remains... other than the miraculous instances of Pentecost and Cornelius... any others? Of course, I realize there are not very many instances of baptism listed, but of those.... ?

includes the unbeliever who is in the church or those who hear it.

I don't think that is correct.... "the church" is universally used to denote believers.. not unbelievers.

 

[GRACE_ambassador]

Edification comes with tongues when used in private. I been 45 years...

So, if I speak to God "in my OWN language," I have not been edified? for 44 years?

 

[Amanuensis]

But it is my understanding that, similar to Pentecost, this was deliberately done to PROVE that Gentiles were deserving of baptism and recognition as believers... in other words, the other Jews there could not accuse Peter of "overstepping" his authority. If the Spirit came upon them spontaneously (from God), then there could be no doubt....

Philip (not an apostle) baptized the eunuch, and there was no mention of tongues... just that he went on his way rejoicing...

so, the question remains... other than the miraculous instances of Pentecost and Cornelius... any others? Of course, I realize there are not very many instances of baptism listed, but of those.... ?


I don't think that is correct.... "the church" is universally used to denote believers.. not unbelievers.

When did Paul get the gift? How does Anaias over in Damascus far removed from the leadership in Jerusalem support an theory of apolstolic authority needing to be present?

Your "imagined reasons" for why they did not need hands laid on them, weakens the argument that hands being laid on them was required. For whatever "reasons" you come up with as to why in some cases it was NOT required, (first gentiles) you have nevertheless conceded that in these cases it was NOT required and by doing so you have made a case for saying It was NOT required.

 

[CS1]

When did Paul get the gift? How does Anaias over in Damascus far removed from the leadership in Jerusalem support an theory of apolstolic authority needing to be present?

Your "imagined reasons" for why they did not need hands laid on them, weakens the argument that hands being laid on them was required. For whatever "reasons" you come up with as to why in some cases it was NOT required, (first gentiles) you have nevertheless conceded that in these cases it was NOT required, and by doing so you have made a case for saying It was NOT required.

I never held to that because the word of God in Acts shows Cornellious house received as Peter was still speaking and Ananias was called a disciple who laid hands on Paul.

WE can't make a normative scripture when the action is descriptive.

 

[hornetguy]

Your "imagined reasons" for why they did not need hands laid on them, weakens the argument that hands being laid on them was required. For whatever "reasons" you come up with as to why in some cases it was NOT required, (first gentiles) you have nevertheless conceded that in these cases it was NOT required and by doing so you have made a case for saying It was NOT required.

Not in the least.... if an event is considered a "one-off" kind of thing, that does not set a precedent. That is sort of the definition of being "different" or "one-off", or "special"..... that means it is NOT the norm. If God was making a point in a one time happening, that doesn't mean that it can happen that way "at will"...

If that is not the case, then why do we not ALL have a dove come down and land on us when we receive the Spirit? It happened that way once, didn't it? Or, why do we not see visible tongues of flame at our heads when the Spirit enters? It happened that way once, didn't it? By your reasoning, we should all expect that to happen. Instead, they were "one-off" events, to make a point.

 

[TheLearner]

The sign of the Lord's imminent return today is the restoration of the nation Israel. Biblically there's no doubt that Israel itself is denoted as a sign. Always has been always will be.

Since today's Israel is unbelievers in the Messiah, NO they are not a fulfullment of prophecy. Where does the Bible say they will be in the land in unbeif? (what happend to the spell check?)