Pentecostalism's sketchy origins

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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




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





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

traveled in ministry to every denomination

OK we see where your intellect has already taken you = rebuffing the messenger and denial of the word of God.

Brother, you are disagreeing with the written word of God = the Acts of the Apostles = book of Acts.

Prove from Acts that my post was in error.

Also prove from Scripture that Paul received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit from intellectualism.

The fact that a very rare occurrence of an intellectual being #1 saved AND #2 Baptized in the Holy Spirit meant that a drastic change of HEART and MIND took place in Saul of Tarsus.

WHAT, according to the Factual account in Acts happened to Saul of Tarsus???

Peace

I agree with you on this. But all that I've seen of the Pentecostal movement is the kind of tongues that is deemed gibberish, which is random syllables in repeated patterns. That kind does not have sufficient language structure and vocabulary to convey meaning. Furthermore, anyone can do it if they try hard enough (or have enough patience with themselves). It is many times triggered by some expectation, and comes out of the intuitive function of the mind. It's a natural psychological ability, not a miraculous event.

Pentecostals teach that everyone filled with the Spirit will speak in tongues (the kind I'm describing), which implies that anyone can do it. If everyone should do it, then anyone can. That anyone can do it has been proven by experimentation of people not necessarily Christian. The same type of tongues that people in other religions practice. Therefore, there is every evidence that modern tongues is not Biblical tongues.

And since you argue seeing is believing, I do believe what I see, which is in comparing what I see in scripture with what I see practiced by Pentecostals and Charismatics (P/Cs), it's not the same. I've heard many P/Cs try to justify what they practice by putting a spin on the scripture that doesn't follow the natural flow of the text (that is, the context of scripture). Therefore, to believe that the modern P/C movement is of God, I need to see real languages being spoken miraculously, with the translation of it. Do you see where I'm coming from? And not just people saying it happened. It begs the question, do you know of a church where real languages (like those of Acts 2) is regularly practiced?

I've already spent WAY too much time discussing a topic that just isn't high on my interest list... if I'm meant to speak in tongues, I'm sure I will. There are too many other, more important things to focus on, and this discussion is descending into the territory that Paul warned Timothy about...
"23 Again I say, don’t get involved in foolish, ignorant arguments that only start fights."
Blessings to you all....

I'm just going on what you say:
You've said that at least 6 times in conversations with me. It appears to me you're trying to make yourself look good.
.

Ok, I do see that you are considering what the text actually says. Paul's argument in 14:12-15 is rebuking the Corinthians of speaking in tongues in the assembly indiscriminately, without any understanding or interpretation. So, in :14, when Paul says "if I pray in a tongue..." he is saying if he prays in a tongue only (without any understanding), then his mind is unfruitful. But then he says "I will pray... with understanding." I take this to mean that Paul never spoke in tongues without understanding the message conveyed. He is not saying this as some ideal goal he hasn't yet reached. He is saying that this is his practice

Furthermore, he doesn't say that they should pray quietly in tongues if there is no interpreter. I take him to mean that they should be silent. I know we discussed this previously, but my point in saying it is that he doesn't say that he prays and sings in tongues outside the assembly. That's an assumption being made. An example in point is in Acts 16 when Paul and Silas were in jail, they prayed and sang praises to God, I take it to mean in a known language, and this would be in an assembly and in public, not in a private prayer.

And my point in bring this up is that you said you thought when Paul said "do all speak in tongues?" that this was in the assembly only. Did I understand you correctly? It's how I read your response. So I was saying how can you justify saying that this statement was only referring to the assembly, when you say his praying is outside the assembly? It's not consistent. And my point is that it doesn't follow the natural flow of the argument, as I pointed out previously.

Ad Hominem attack - abuse of scripture that absolutely is farthest from the Truth
AND
You just dishonored God and His Holy Spirit = intellectual immaturity at the lowest level of discourse.

Are you just on some kind of mission to try to insult and discredit me? I can think of no other reason you would be saying things like this..
I have NOT "dishonored God".... I never would, and if you'd been here long enough, and discussed with me long enough, you would know that.
Your behavior and comments are the precise reason I am not going to participate in this supposedly intelligent discussion any further. You seem to think you have some sort of "calling" to get on a soapbox and hurl accusations... you would likely be very comfortable in early Pilgrim New England... I don't have time for those kind of silly discussions and accusations.... hence the verse from Timothy....

Okay, here are a few question about what happened on New Year's Day, 1901, and whether or not it was a genuine outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

1. Think about the timing. Doesn't it seem a little too convenient that it just happened to take place on New Year's Day, the day for "new beginnings?"

2. Charles Parham believed (rightly) that tongues were authentic human languages that could be used to evangelize foreign lands. Subsequent to the events of New Year's Day, missionaries were sent to India, China, and I believe Japan, to test the theory. It was an incredible failure (no one understood a word they said) and that ended the great experiment.

3. At some point (I'm not exactly sure of the timing), when it was clear that the "gift of tongues" which had been poured out weren't real languages, a new idea took center stage: that is, "heavenly or angelic languages." This is a clear-cut example of forcing the scriptures to conform to experience rather than the other way around.

4. On New Year's Day, when Agnes Ozman supposedly received the gift of tongues, someone there said she spoke Chinese; however, there are a couple of problems with this. First, Ozaman probably had a working knowledge of Chinese as she had been trained as a missionary, and part of that training included Chinese. Second, if she didn't know Chinese, what was she speaking? We know missionaries went to China but couldn't speak the language. If that's the case, Ozman wasn't speaking Chinese and the person who said she was either didn't have a clue or was lying.

5. If the languages spoken on New Years Day 1901 weren't human languages, how is it that Parham didn't know it? We're supposed to believe he was a prophet, or at the very least someone with the gifts of insight and knowledge. Parham didn't waste any time going to the press proclaiming that what had happened was the "first outpouring of the Holy Spirit in this manner since the Day of Pentecost"; but this was a blatant lie and he knew it. He was aware of other "outpourings," like that at Frank Sandford's Shiloh community. He also had to be aware of other "outpourings" previous to this as there had been many claims of outpourings with signs and wonders for a long time. He was a publicity hound and was looking for followers (preferably with cash I'm sure).

All this raises serious concerns about the authenticity of Parham's claims. But what does it even matter you may ask. If Parham was a scoundrel what does that have to do with anything today? Actually nothing, except for one small thing: The Assemblies of God claim Parham as their "founding father." They're either woefully ignorant of their own man and his character, or they don't care. Either one isn't good.

Everything I've said can easily be verified online if a person is sincere enough to look it up; most of it probably in this very thread somewhere. I also started a previous thread titled Pentecostalism's founding mother spoke Chinese. In this post there's a link to a newspaper article that shows the "chicken scratching" that was supposedly the written form of the "language" which Ozaman spoke.

I'm not interested in debating this issue. I post it for those who might have a few scraps of critical thinking left and who love the truth. I really hope and pray people will wake up to what's going on.

I agree with you on this. But all that I've seen of the Pentecostal movement is the kind of tongues that is deemed gibberish, which is random syllables in repeated patterns. That kind does not have sufficient language structure and vocabulary to convey meaning. Furthermore, anyone can do it if they try hard enough (or have enough patience with themselves). It is many times triggered by some expectation, and comes out of the intuitive function of the mind. It's a natural psychological ability, not a miraculous event.

Pentecostals teach that everyone filled with the Spirit will speak in tongues (the kind I'm describing), which implies that anyone can do it. If everyone should do it, then anyone can. That anyone can do it has been proven by experimentation of people not necessarily Christian. The same type of tongues that people in other religions practice. Therefore, there is every evidence that modern tongues is not Biblical tongues.

And since you argue seeing is believing, I do believe what I see, which is in comparing what I see in scripture with what I see practiced by Pentecostals and Charismatics (P/Cs), it's not the same. I've heard many P/Cs try to justify what they practice by putting a spin on the scripture that doesn't follow the natural flow of the text (that is, the context of scripture). Therefore, to believe that the modern P/C movement is of God, I need to see real languages being spoken miraculously, with the translation of it. Do you see where I'm coming from? And not just people saying it happened. It begs the question, do you know of a church where real languages (like those of Acts 2) is regularly practiced?

Good Morning and thank you for your response in love = non attacking and forthright.

My definition of "SEEING is BELIEVING" only pertains to Scripture, meaning this: what we Read and SEE in Scripture is the TRUTH we are to BELIEVE.

i do agree with you on the error of some Penetcostals that try to force and manipulate babbling as evidence of the Holy Spirit.

We are given the Holy Spirit definition of 'Tongues' in 1 Corinthians 14:1-4

Earnestly pursue love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy.
For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men, but to God.
Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries in the Spirit.
But he who prophesies speaks to men for their edification, encouragement, and comfort. The one who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but the one who prophesies edifies the church.

As we read all of 1 Corinthians ch12 -ch14 we see that "Tongues" is not a known human language, that only Holy Spirit knows what is being prayed and that it glorifies God and edifies the individual.

Because of this it should not be blurted out in church. Everything in the churches is to be done in self control under the Holy Spirit.
No thru the flesh.
For many who do then cause confusion.

If not displayed in church...then where and when? What purpose?

Good Morning and thank you for your response in love = non attacking and forthright.

My definition of "SEEING is BELIEVING" only pertains to Scripture, meaning this: what we Read and SEE in Scripture is the TRUTH we are to BELIEVE.

i do agree with you on the error of some Penetcostals that try to force and manipulate babbling as evidence of the Holy Spirit.

We are given the Holy Spirit definition of 'Tongues' in 1 Corinthians 14:1-4

Earnestly pursue love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy.
For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men, but to God.
Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries in the Spirit.
But he who prophesies speaks to men for their edification, encouragement, and comfort. The one who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but the one who prophesies edifies the church.

As we read all of 1 Corinthians ch12 -ch14 we see that "Tongues" is not a known human language, that only Holy Spirit knows what is being prayed and that it glorifies God and edifies the individual.

Because of this it should not be blurted out in church. Everything in the churches is to be done in self control under the Holy Spirit.
No thru the flesh.
For many who do then cause confusion.

You missed my point entirely. Trying to make myself look good, that's all you took from it. smh We're done this conversation. I have nothing more to say to that offense.

After considering the context I am in agreement with Gordon Fee's commentary on 1 Cor 14:14. That he is talking about the self edifying aspect of praying in tongues EVEN IF his own understanding is unfruitful is something that he did anyway:

"14 With this sentence Paul begins the specific application of the preceding argument against unintelligibility. He does so, as he will again at the end (v. 18), by referring to his own experience of speaking in tongues.523 But the specific concern of this sentence is less than certain. Probably he is using his own experience to point up a basic principle, which will be elaborated in the following
question and response (v. 15) and then applied specifically to their community at worship (vv. 16–17).

This seems to make the best sense of what is otherwise a very difficult sentence in the middle of this argument,524 made the more so by the addition of the explanatory “for” found in the majority of, and thus later, witnesses.525 Paul is not arguing that the tongues-speaker should also interpret for the benefit of one’s own understanding. That would be a considerable “rock” in the middle of this argument for the edification of others through intelligibility. It would also tend to contradict what has been said earlier (vv. 2 and 4) and intimated in the following question and answer (v. 15), that the one who speaks in tongues is edified by their own communion with God through the Spirit, without the need of perceptual understanding.

Paul’s point is a simple one, and one that they themselves should fully recognize: When I pray in tongues526 I pray in the Spirit, but it does not benefit my mind—the implication being, as he will go on to argue (vv. 16–17), that neither does it benefit the minds of others. As suggested before, in the present context the difficult wording “my spirit prays” seems to mean something like “my S/spirit prays.”527 On the one hand, both the possessive “my” and the contrast with “my mind” indicate that he is here referring to his own “spirit” at prayer. On the other hand, there can be little question, on the basis of the combined evidence of three other passages (12:7–11; 14:2 and 16), that Paul understood speaking in tongues to be an activity of the Spirit in one’s life; it is prayer and praise directed toward God in the language of Spirit-inspiration.

The most viable solution to this ambiguity is that by the language “my spirit prays” Paul means his own spirit is praying as the Holy Spirit gives the utterance. Hence, “my S/spirit prays.” As the following elaboration (v. 15) makes certain, Paul does not mean that praying in the Spirit is a bad thing because it does not benefit his understanding; rather, this states the way things are. What he does go on to say is that he will do two things, one apparently for his own sake, the other for the sake of others. 15 Paul now elaborates the preceding principle with an eye toward turning it into the application to follow (vv. 16–17).

In light of the simple reality just stated, he asks rhetorically, “So what shall I do?”528 His answer is that he will do both. On the one hand, “I will pray with my S/spirit,”529 meaning, as the preceding sentence and one to follow (v. 19) make certain, “I will pray530 in tongues.” Although this is obviously not Paul’s present concern, it joins with Paul’s own personal thanksgiving regarding speaking in tongues (v. 18) in suggesting that such was his regular practice and that he was edified thereby, even if his mind (= understanding) did not enter into such praying.531 On the other hand, the combination “but also”532 indicates that the emphasis now lies here, “I will also pray with my understanding,”533 meaning “I will also pray and praise in Greek for the sake of others.”

Although it is not explicitly stated here, this contrast between praying and singing with my S/spirit and my mind ultimately aims at relegating the former to the setting of private praying, while only the latter is to be exercised in the assembly. This is implied both in the sentences that follow (vv. 16–17), where he allows that the tongues-speaker is praising God all right but to no one else’s benefit, and especially at the end (v. 19), where this distinction is made explicitly."

Fee, Gordon D.. The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Revised Edition (The New International Commentary on the New Testament) (p. 743). Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co..

You said: "Do you see where I'm coming from? And not just people saying it happened. It begs the question, do you know of a church where real languages (like those of Acts 2) is regularly practiced?'

YES Brother, i do know where you are coming from and you will see that i agree with you on many points as it agrees with Scripture.

As you continue walking with the LORD, please review Acts and 1 Corinthians as there is great blessing in His Heart for you.
Do not focus on those who use the Scriptures for gain and to be seen and applauded by men.

"Woe to you when all men speak well of you,
For so did their fathers to the false prophets."