TONGUES false teaching.
- Thread starter Major
- 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 rejected your explanations of them both.
Yes, it does. The word "anyone" means "any person".
Verse 2 mirrors the structure used in the requirements for deacons; however, Paul identified Phoebe as a deacon. Therefore the requirement speaks to monogamy, not maleness. There aren't any specifically male pronouns in the Greek in either verse 4 or 5.
I have come across several legitimate contextual explanations for this section that don't forbid women from teaching. Authentein simply does not mean "have authority".
Your scenario is indeed ridiculous. Any wise husband would sit and absorb the truth his wife taught.
Unlike you, I don't condemn anyone. I just disagree with those who call tongues "gibberish".
Which is a different tongue than Greek. I have already addressed this.
Again, I am not your friend. My friends don't insult me, support others who insult me, or make unwarranted assumptions about me. Maybe your understanding of "friend" is faulty as well.
S
Scribe
Guest
I am very happy.
You are free to present a better hermeneutic.
S
Scribe
Guest
Ok I will take that as an answer. You would not write a letter to the slave owner and ask him to let you pay his bill and send the slave back. Someone might say, you should do that because that is what Paul would do. But you would say, that does not apply because we are in a culture today where this kind of thing is outlawed everywhere and our government will protect this man and I am not under any biblical obligation based on the literal reading of Philemon to do it exactly the way Paul with Onesismus. Therefore cultural conditions can be taken into consideration when we read instructions about Slaves and masters.
I am sure that every thinking person can agree with this and it is also true that women were treated like slaves and that they suffered conditions in the 1st century that was not the will of God for men to treat women but it was going to take centuries to changes. We are still in that transition in many parts of the world they haven't changed at all.
If he says that a bishop or elder should be blameless married to one wife it is because it was assumed he would be a male since it would have been unheard of to allow a woman to be a bishop. It is not a specific ban on women. It is assumed due to the culture of that day. Yes I do see a cultural context. The treatment of women and slaves are two examples that should be considered in a cultural context.
OP poster above doesnt see things in cultural context which is sad because I have tried to explain many times to him but he keeps on insisting certain things.
But remember we are not all simple country boys who have never heard of other languages.
some of us are girls/women from the city who have taught english as a second language lol. In many cities you would have at least two dozen different languages spoken amongst any given congregation.
to then rail against them and say well its just gibberish when all people are doing is praising God with them is churlish.
and sure how would you like it I made fun of your country bumpkin accent and said I couldnt understand you and could you just speak proper english .... ?
If God can understand you its enough surely. Your heart is in the right place but there are many things you refuse or dont understand it seems and thats ok, perhaps its not really for you to know yet... of course no man knows all the languages of the entire known world and to think that any of us are total polyglots is unrealistic.
But remember we are not all simple country boys who have never heard of other languages.
some of us are girls/women from the city who have taught english as a second language lol. In many cities you would have at least two dozen different languages spoken amongst any given congregation.
to then rail against them and say well its just gibberish when all people are doing is praising God with them is churlish.
and sure how would you like it I made fun of your country bumpkin accent and said I couldnt understand you and could you just speak proper english .... ?
If God can understand you its enough surely. Your heart is in the right place but there are many things you refuse or dont understand it seems and thats ok, perhaps its not really for you to know yet... of course no man knows all the languages of the entire known world and to think that any of us are total polyglots is unrealistic.
This was clearly not the case in I Corinthians where 'no man understandeth him' and someone with the gift of interpretation had to interpret so that others could understand.
Can you name any Greek scholars that do that?
Why should someone speak in tongues 'to himself and to God' in the assembly as opposed to waiting until it is over? Doesn't that distract from the speaker hearing someone else pray, teach, prophesy, etc. in the lingua franca?
S
Scribe
Guest
Yes check out Gordon Fee, Robert Stranstad, William Menzies, Stanely Horton. for starters. Their bibliographies will give you many more.
There are times when one is preaching and we are listening. Then there are worship times when we all pray and worship audibly and it is in order. Then there are times when that worship time or prayer time gets quiet and someone might speak in tongues and another interpret. These ebbs and flows in the volume of the services are all in order and very edifying.
As to how they conducted their meetings. Though you might be accustomed to quiet prayer, it is well known that ther first church was probably a noisy lot, praying out loud. Even the Wailing Wall in modern times can give you an idea of the Jewish mode of vocal prayer "between themselves and God."
We pentecostals are lead by the Holy Spirit in our prayer meetings and believe that the same Holy Spirit led them in Paul's day as He does today if you let Him and do not try to Quench Him. But it is not that complicated. Just visit an Assembly of God church near you. Hopefully they will be a mature assembly and you can witness it for yourself.
The A/Gs I grew up in didn't have everyone pray all at the same time, in tongues or English, that I recall. I've seen everyone speaking in tongues at the same time in Pentecostal churches in the southeast. I know some A/Gs do that. I've seen Charismatic churches where a 'worship leader' or other church leader tells everyone to speak in tongues at the same time.
If I Corinthians 14 is written to address the very practices you describe, then it isn't right to consider it Spirit-led. I Corinthians 14 addresses the issue of using genuine spiritual gifts in a disorderly way. The Spirit can work, even if we are not in the right order. If Paul is not addressing the issue of lots of people speaking in tongues without interpretation, then what is he addressing? Turn taking without interpretation? He does instruct them that tongues be done' and that by course.'
No one had to interpret here...people heard the languages they were born with and clearly understood it.
Acts 2:4-12
And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance. Now there were Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men from every nation under heaven. And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together, and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language. They were amazed and astonished, saying, “Why, are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born? Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya around Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs—we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God.” And they all continued in amazement and great perplexity, saying to one another, “What does this mean?”
S
Scribe
Guest
We are in an endless loop. You keep describing out of order (immature assemblies) you have witnessed and I keep describing speaking to oneself and to God in services where it is in accordance with what Paul said. It is decent and in order and not these other scenarios you describe. If you have not seen it visit some near you today maybe you will find it is different. A prayer meeting will be on a special night not on Sunday morning. Sunday you will probably not see anyone speak in tongues but if you happen to get real close to someone and think they might be speaking in tongues to themselves and to God they are not out of order you are for trying to put your ear in their face. LOL
You said..........
"If he says that a bishop or elder should be blameless married to one wife it is because it was assumed he would be a male since it would have been unheard of to allow a woman to be a bishop. It is not a specific ban on women. It is assumed due to the culture of that day. Yes I do see a cultural context. The treatment of women and slaves are two examples that should be considered in a cultural context."
Again, you are saying that "Culture" dictates the meaning of God's Word.
So by that "Philosophic" position, homosexuality is today OK with God as the culture today has accepted it as normal.
Then by that same thinking.....abortion is now OK with God because society has accepted it as birth control.
I say NO!
God said...........
"This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach".
A Pastor must be a "Married MAN" according to God.....not culture or society.
I believe bishops should be men. That's the first requirement. If anyone desires to oversight let him be a man.....
let him be a man of one woman.
But I do not know if we have evidence from scripture to exactly equate bishop and pastor. 'Pastor' started to be used as the main word for priest/elder in the Reformation in Geneva and the Presbyterians popularized this use of the term in the English-speaking world. They also created a new church office of 'elder' by adapting it from the city government of Geneva. Elders are told to pastor and are called bishops in Acts 20:28. They are told to pastor and take oversight in I Peter 5. Pastors and teachers are gifts. But Peter was also told to pastor Jesus sheep. If older women teaches younger women and offers them guidance on how to live, to love their husbands, etc., might not some of these women have grace to shepherd and teach? Bishops are to be apt to teach. That does not mean they are the only teachers. Why would they be the only ones with grace from God to tend sheep?
Bishop/elder is not the only ministry. Phoebe was apparently a servant of the church in Cenchrea. That's 'ministry.' Paul also gave instructions on how women are to prophesy in I Corinthians 11.
S
Scribe
Guest
No, that does not make sense. Slaves are not to be sent back to their owners today. Therefore there is a cultural context to consider. You don't have to justify sin to say so.
And your philosophy of women suggests that you think a woman elder would be as sinful as a homosexual elder.
That is the case because slavery is illegal. In modern times, for the most part, slavery shows up in illegal prostitution rings, which is not the same thing that we see in the OT or the Grecco-Roman world. Neither the Old Testament or New Testament said that slavery was a sin. Philemon had a slave, but loved the brethren.
In the Old Testament, they weren't supposed to force a run-away slave to go back. Onesimus apparently went away willingly. He should not have run away.