I did sisterif you are looking for your Bible, maybe you left it where you usually put things you do not use often
that would be the book you need to consult![]()
I did sisterif you are looking for your Bible, maybe you left it where you usually put things you do not use often
that would be the book you need to consult![]()
if you are looking for your Bible, maybe you left it where you usually put things you do not use often
that would be the book you need to consult![]()
One gospel is correct. Spiritual gifts are also correct. Speaking or praying in tongues is not correct. 1 Cor is a letter of correction to a church that was out of order according to the apostle. Todays church wants to act like the church in Corinth and they are no more correct today than those in Corinth in the first century.there is only one gospel and those of us who are following Christ here and do speak in tongues and do have various spiritual gifts, have said so countless times while those who apparently are not afraid to lie, continue to accuse us and state ridiculous things that no one has said
Do you realize you're agreeing with someone who isn't even a Christian? What is the sign that is needed for such people?
Do you realize you're agreeing with someone who isn't even a Christian? What is the sign that is needed for such people?
Your response is essentially, "I am innocent because you've done something wrong." Well, I haven't, and you haven't even begun to admit your error, let alone address it.
How about you quote me where I have said anything to support the idea that it is "plainly evident" that I'm "looking for a (sic) alternative source of the faith of God...". Provide the evidence or withdraw the accusation.
In Acts 2, what was spoken? Tongues. Languages (plural!). The message was the gospel; the medium for that message was unlearned languages spoken by the disciples. You've conflated the two. Peter, Paul, James, Stephen, and all the others preached the gospel, not 'the tongue'.
It's plainly evident that you're wrong, and it's time that you stop playing games with the word of God and start accepting it for what it says instead of adding to it and inventing your own private interpretations.
That isn't what non-cognitive means... at all. Once again, you are making up a definition for a term with which you are unfamiliar. Just look it up.Non cognitive would be any ohter source that atempts to bring in information
Please provide actual quotations of things that I have written that give you that idea.It seems you are looking for a alternative source of faith?
Where do you get the idea that "the new tongue... can drive out lying spirits"?What is the new tongue that can drive out lying spirits? I say the gospel?
So when Cornelius and his companions spoke in tongues, they were out of order. Hmm... Peter didn't say anything about that. Maybe because it wasn't out of order.One gospel is correct. Spiritual gifts are also correct. Speaking or praying in tongues is not correct. 1 Cor is a letter of correction to a church that was out of order according to the apostle. Todays church wants to act like the church in Corinth and they are no more correct today than those in Corinth in the first century.
Many seek Christ not for truth but for excitement. The sweet token God has given us is His unchanging word. His Spirit leads and guides us into His truth. Truth ought to delight our souls far beyond anything else in this world. The word is how we know the nature and person of God.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Since Cornelius was not in the church at Corinth you assertion is meritless. Greedy Gentiles at Corinth were abusing the goodness of God.So when Cornelius and his companions spoke in tongues, they were out of order. Hmm... Peter didn't say anything about that. Maybe because it wasn't out of order.
Perhaps a bit of a misnomer when you put it the way you do (i.e. 'every human action is cognitive'). It's not my own term, but as I understand it in this sense, it's 'non-cognitive' in that the speaker is not consciously thinking about what sounds s/he is going to produce. So unlike in speaking a real language where (even though it happens in a minutest fraction of a second) one is thinking about the sounds that are going to be produced in a particular utterance (i.e. the brain is in the process of generating 'language'), glossolalia doesn't require that; the sounds are completely random - no real thought (cognitive) process (insofar as producing language) is necessary> hence the term 'non-cognitive' (in the sense that you're not thinking about what you're going to say; there's no real thought process involved in what you're saying - it just happens).
Probably not the best way to explain it, but hope you kind of get the idea.
So it was the church in Corinth that was out of order, not 'speaking in tongues' that was out of order? Consider carefully before answering.Since Cornelius was not in the church at Corinth you assertion is meritless. Greedy Gentiles at Corinth were abusing the goodness of God.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Yes the "non-cognitive" might be descriptive of the "automaticity" of the behaviour.
Perhaps a bit of a misnomer when you put it the way you do (i.e. 'every human action is cognitive'). It's not my own term, but as I understand it in this sense, it's 'non-cognitive' in that the speaker is not consciously thinking about what sounds s/he is going to produce. So unlike in speaking a real language where (even though it happens in a minutest fraction of a second) one is thinking about the sounds that are going to be produced in a particular utterance (i.e. the brain is in the process of generating 'language'), glossolalia doesn't require that; the sounds are completely random - no real thought (cognitive) process (insofar as producing language) is necessary> hence the term 'non-cognitive' (in the sense that you're not thinking about what you're going to say; there's no real thought process involved in what you're saying - it just happens).
Probably not the best way to explain it, but hope you kind of get the idea.
Please provide actual quotations of things that I have written that give you that idea.
Where do you get the idea that "the new tongue... can drive out lying spirits"?
i don't think that's necessarily true. there is glossolalia in which people are, whether consciously or subconsciously, actively trying to imitate the linguistic patterns of real language. ((see my post above this one, for an example))
in that case it would be just as cognitive as someone who speaks a language they do know, which people with a fluency don't actively devote cognitive thought to what words to choose or how to enunciate them; they simply speak with their mind focused on the ideas they are trying to convey, which may be completely non-verbal & non-aural.
Hi thanks for the reply
I get that idea it would seem by your supporting another opinion of one those who do not answer questions, those who look to experience to confirm something they perform. I am trying to establish the mutual foundation of the tongue doctrine. Its foundation would seem it is all but destroyed in favor of a new experience wonderment gospel. a source of mysticism (not as it is written the true source of Christian faith )
What does the sign represent according to the law established in Isaiah 28 written in 1 Corinthians 14:22-23. It is the law of signs. Sign are for those who believe not, no faith, the rebellious .Prophecy the tongue of God. The Christians one true source of faith. . . for those who believe God through prophecy (not through signs after what the eyes see the temporal. .
If you follow the misunderstanding that tongues are unknown sounds then: boo, peep or eeek could drive out lying spirits. In His name or authority is the word of God. . . the new tongue given to the believer. . the gospel will drive them out.
Mark 16:17And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues
Again if it not the new tongue.Then what is that drives them out as that the disciples could not drive out?
Once again, you would do well to take a course in basic English grammar. Sometimes it is quite difficult to determine the meaning of your word collections.
I believe that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are all active today. It's really that simple.
What does the sign represent? That God is at work today!
Regarding the driving out of unclean spirits, the sentence structure precludes your interpretation. It does not say that tongues will cast out devils; rather, it says that the believers will cast out devils.
Greedy Gentiles ae those who sought not the truth of Gods word but the excitement of miracles and tongues. Babes in Christ carried away with their own earthly passions.So it was the church in Corinth that was out of order, not 'speaking in tongues' that was out of order? Consider carefully before answering.
"Greedy Gentiles"? Where do you get that 'meritless' assertion?
i don't think that's necessarily true. there is glossolalia in which people are, whether consciously or subconsciously, actively trying to imitate the linguistic patterns of real language.