The Administration Of Tongues

[Biblicist]

Maybe it's just me, but I'm often surprised at how little sense of humor people online exhibit.

As our western form of English (with it's wonderful idiosyncrasies) is not emekrus's first language, then your subtle play on words can easily be missed; I wonder if Paul used the Oxford, Cambridge or maybe even the Anitiochus version of the KJV?

Quest. A young child once asked, "Which Virgin conceived the baby? Was it the virgin Mary, or the King James Virgin?"

 

[Biblicist]

But this whole verse has nothing to do with Jesus being enabled to minister. It has everything to do with describing him as being "made like unto his brethren in every respect"...I think.

Our discussions have been interesting in that my replies which are intensely Trinitarian would be rather hard to comprehend through the filter of your Oneness perspectives. One of the joys of being a Trinitarian Pentecostal has been with the tremendous amount of work that has been performed since the 80’s with regard to the Trinitarian nature of the Godhead and particularly with the growing recognition that even though the Reformation saw some amazing changes, Pentecostals and charismatics understood that the Protestant understanding was still essentially Binitarian (not Trinitarian) and even touched of Christomonism. In more recent years there has been a lot of activity occurring in the field of Pneumatology where it seems that the Holy Spirit is now being restored to his rightful position within the salvific process.

The Pentecostal theologian Amos Yong made an interesting observation between Trinitarian and Oneness perspectives which you might find interesting:

“To begin, Oneness theology is not devoid of trinitarian features, just as trinitarian Pentecostals have never ceased to emphasize the unity of God. In their official theological statements, both groups take account of the biblical revelation of the divine unity and the divine plurality in turn. Thus the official United Pentecostal Church introductory handbook does not fail to discuss the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, even as Assemblies of God theological textbooks begin their discussion of the Trinity by stating explicitly that "the Scriptures teach that God is One, and that beside Him there is no God." Further, both groups agree that the biblical testimony sanctions a trinitarian revelation of God relative to the economy of salvation. David Reed’s observation, as far back as 1975, that Oneness theologians and apologists spoke of God "solely in terms of His redemptive activity" is also true for trinitarian pentecostals”.​

The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh: Pentecostalism and the Possibility of Global Theology (2005) Amos Yong​

Some good books that address the person and ministry of the Holy Spirit:

• Baptized in the Spirit: A Global Pentecostal Theology (2006) Frank D. Macchia
• Justified in the Spirit: Creation, Redemption, and the Triune God (2010) Frank D. Macchia
• Pneumatology (2002) Veli-Matti Karkkainen
• Beyond Pentecostalism (2010) Wolfgang Vondey
• God’s Empowering Presence (1996) Gordon D. Fee
• The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh: Pentecostalism and the Possibility of Global Theology (2005) Amos Yong
• Paul, the Spirit, and the People of God (1994) Gordon D. Fee
• Holy Spirit and Salvation (2010) Veli-Matti Karkkainen
• The Holy Spirit in Biblical Teaching (2013) Anthony C. Thiselton

IOW, no mystery of GOD/Holy Spirit manifesting Godliness, but a man? Big mystery of God becoming flesh, and having a justified spirit. Nothing unusual about God being seen by angles. And who was proclaimed to nations God or Jesus? Who was taken up in glory, God or Jesus? Leaving the Trinity, and Father/HS, out for the purpose of this discussion.

So anyway to me to proclaim the spirit of Jesus being justified, as opposed to the Holy Spirit being justified just makes more sense IMO.

The problem we have with “the S/spirit of Jesus/Christ” is that where we obviously realise that there are not two Divine Spirits residing within the Believer, we still cannot always be sure if the Scriptures are referring to the Holy Spirit who Jesus sent, or with the attitude of Christ within us?

I do agree with it being 'problematic'. I just don't agree with Gingrich's problem solving skills on this point. Maybe if he was 'Pentecostal/Charismatic.

Do you mean by ‘Pentecostal/charismatic’ in that we could maybe colour the data to make it fit into a preconceived point of view?

One of the advantages of using a lexical resource is that they are essentially by-partisan (other than works such as the old Vine’s Dictionary) in that they should be addressing the data and not providing unnecesssary commentary. When it comes to the incredible amount of work that has been undertaken and still being performed by scholars that are both Christian or non-Christian, though all would most likely still have a church affiliation; as grammar is not the sole domain of the Christian or even of the Pentecostals and charismatics, it becomes a field that is independent of sectarian bias where the specialists simply deal with the data. In fact, the more liberally minded scholar is probably less biased in that as he may deem the miracles to be myth and where his mindset sees this as being a primitive or early form of Christianity, then they are more than content to let the miracle stories speak for themselves, whereas a hard-core cessationist (i.e., Vines) will try and add in an undue amount of negative comment.

As for Gingrich’s analysis of the data regarding ἐν, his data would be both greatly valued and recognised by scholars from within all persuasions; the problem being is to how we are to address the information that he has provided for each individual use of ἐν.

1CO 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

What wonderful Trinitarian Pentecostal theology, here we have Justification in faith in/of Jesus where we are fully justified through the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit. 1Cor 6:11 is both Christocentric and Pnuemacentric.

Since I believe it is our spirit which is justified by the Spirit of God. I still think "in the spirit" should be lower case in 1Tim 3:16.

Noted.

 

[emekrus]

I understood what you meant, for what it's worth. You meant 'the verse' not the translation...right? But I must admit, that quote didn't ring a bell for me in any translation let alone KJV. But upon looking further, I found it and here's the correct address for any interested; Gal 3:17.

GAL 3:15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.

I did like your Smith Wigglesworth quote too.

Well, thanks a great deal for the correction, I've edited accordingly...

 

[Hillsage]

Our discussions have been interesting in that my replies which are intensely Trinitarian would be rather hard to comprehend through the filter of your Oneness perspectives.

I don't know that I'm oneness, trinitarian or modalist or bits and pieces of all. I do believe that "God is Spirit" always was always will be. But 'in the beginning was THE WORD...not a man named Jesus. In the beginning was Father/spirit Word/spirit Holy Spirit/spirit...GOD. And The Word gave up equality with God to become flesh according to scripture.

PHI 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, (not Jesus Christ BTW)
6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form

So I believe in the trinity of FATHER WORD SPIRIT. I believe the WORD totally gave up being GOD to become a sinless and ultimately perfect man for us. Upon DEATH on the cross he once again gained back the "name above all names". And 'name' in this context doesn't mean a 'moniker' as much as it does a level of 'authority and character'. So with that brief explanation, I honestly don't know what theological name of man fits me. Or if any do.

The Pentecostal theologian Amos Yong made an interesting observation between Trinitarian and Oneness perspectives which you might find interesting:

“To begin, Oneness theology is not devoid of trinitarian features, just as trinitarian Pentecostals have never ceased to emphasize the unity of God. In their official theological statements, both groups take account of the biblical revelation of the divine unity and the divine plurality in turn. Thus the official United Pentecostal Church introductory handbook does not fail to discuss the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, ....​

The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh: Pentecostalism and the Possibility of Global Theology (2005) Amos Yong​

Yes that's an interesting quote. I really do like the first line, because it points out that there is still two sides (or more) to the coin of our understanding on this.
Don't know if you've heard my Jack Taylor quote before; "The day man invented 'theology', which is 'the study of God', I'm pretty sure that God looked down from heaven and said, "Oh boy, this is gonna be good." And it certainly has been 'good', but way too often in a 'bad way' too. IOW it's been good to study because 'We really don't know', but it's been bad because of the divisiveness, because 'We think we do know'.

I notice that the official United Pentecostal handbook does fail to discuss Father, WORD, and Holy Ghost though.

The problem we have with “the S/spirit of Jesus/Christ” is that where we obviously realise that there are not two Divine Spirits residing within the Believer, we still cannot always be sure if the Scriptures are referring to the Holy Spirit who Jesus sent, or with the attitude of Christ within us?

Define "Divine Spirits". Does the Holy Spirit becomes 'a spirit' when placed there by the Holy Spirit into a body of sinful flesh? And then upon regeneration it becomes 'a holy spirit'? 'A spirit' which 'the Spirit can descend UPON as scripture always says concerning Jesus who was born with 'a holy spirit' to start with and therefore needed not, a 'born again' experience. But he still needed a baptism from above of The Spirit? I don't know for sure, but it all works for me....but I still try to remain open....I think...I hope.

1JO 4:13 Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of/tou his Spirit.

And the word for "OF" is tou and means 'out of'. So what does that really mean? I don't know. But it's obvious to me that with all the opposing 'scholarly' opinions out there, I'm comfortable believing that the mystery is still pretty safe with God.

Do you mean by ‘Pentecostal/charismatic’ in that we could maybe colour the data to make it fit into a preconceived point of view?

Not at all. I'm not interested in the opinions of the best theological MINDS. I'm interested in the guy who got his revelation from the Spirit of truth and not just differing 'theological minds'. And I simply believe that the best answer is going to have to come from some one who is Spirit baptized for that to happen. But Spirit baptized or speaking in tongues certainly is no guarantee 'in and of itself'. We've both seen too many Spirit baptized still be deceived.

What wonderful Trinitarian Pentecostal theology, here we have Justification in faith in/of Jesus where we are fully justified through the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit. 1Cor 6:11 is both Christocentric and Pnuemacentric.

But I differentiate between 'faith in Jesus' vs 'faith of Jesus'. Even as I match those terms with their corresponding mates of 'being in the faith' vs 'being of the faith'. As well as 'Christ in you' vs 'you in Christ'. All these nuances being factors that weave into my POV....for whatever that POV is worth.

 

[Biblicist]

I don't know that I'm oneness, trinitarian or modalist or bits and pieces of all. I do believe that "God is Spirit" always was always will be. But 'in the beginning was THE WORD...not a man named Jesus. In the beginning was Father/spirit Word/spirit Holy Spirit/spirit...GOD. And The Word gave up equality with God to become flesh according to scripture.

The Father is definitely spirit, even when he was walking alongside Adam in the garden of Eden; but this should not preclude that he did not appear in human form. As for the Word (the Son), the Scriptures tell us that he has always been with his Father. Depending on which version of the Nicene Creed you adhere to, where the original says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father or the revised version (the Filioque) which says that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, then the Holy Spirit has always been in existence as well.

Even though my theology is intensely Trinitarian where I walk amongst those who are also Trinitarian, I know full well that most of my card-carrying Trinitarian friends and peers are often really only Binitarian where our Evangelical brothers and sisters may very well often fall into the camp of Christomonism.

Define "Divine Spirits". Does the Holy Spirit becomes 'a spirit' when placed there by the Holy Spirit into a body of sinful flesh? And then upon regeneration it becomes 'a holy spirit'? 'A spirit' which 'the Spirit can descend UPON as scripture always says concerning Jesus who was born with 'a holy spirit' to start with and therefore needed not, a 'born again' experience. But he still needed a baptism from above of The Spirit? I don't know for sure, but it all works for me....but I still try to remain open....I think...I hope.

1JO 4:13 Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of/tou his Spirit.

And the word for "OF" is tou and means 'out of'. So what does that really mean? I don't know. But it's obvious to me that with all the opposing 'scholarly' opinions out there, I'm comfortable believing that the mystery is still pretty safe with God.

Maybe my following question could be a result of my somewhat warped Aussie humour, but could you do me a favour, the next time that you find yourself in a new church/homegroup, could you maybe wear a discrete body camera where you can record the looks on people faces while they are struggling to work out how to reply to your “the Holy Spirit becomes a ‘spirit’” – it would be priceless as very few Trinitarians have spent the time thinking through their beliefs.

On a more thoughtful note, theologically speaking, there would be a virtual unanimous agreement that at the moment of our conversion/initiation, we each receive the actual presence of the Holy Spirit within us, where the ἐκ τοῦ (of the) refers to how we each share in the Holy Spirit which makes us all a part of the one Body. It is only through this communal reception that we become brothers and sisters in Christ.

As I am a Dichotomist or more properly, a functional Dichotomist, I would say that beside our human body and soul, as the new Christian is made complete by the actual reception of the Holy Spirit, that the Believer is now a trichotomist being.

For the Trichotomist, they of course believe that that the Holy Spirit resides in and empowers the dormant human spirit.

The next graphic shows how ἐκ has been used to modify other Greek words. This graphic isn't as clear as I would like it to be. The number 1666 is the GK number (a modern version of the old Strong's number) for the NIV, where it shows about 18o words that ἐκ modifies.

ἐκ is not as simple as you might think; it can be used to not only mean 'out' but as the graphic belows shows, it can mean a wide range of other things as well.

Not at all. I'm not interested in the opinions of the best theological MINDS. I'm interested in the guy who got his revelation from the Spirit of truth and not just differing 'theological minds'. And I simply believe that the best answer is going to have to come from some one who is Spirit baptized for that to happen. But Spirit baptized or speaking in tongues certainly is no guarantee 'in and of itself'. We've both seen too many Spirit baptized still be deceived.

When it comes to receiving insights into God’s Word, should someone who does the hard slog where they prayerfully spend time in the Word of God receive less than someone who essentially sits effortlessly back in their chair and waits for something to pop into their mind – we usually call the latter hard-core cessationists.

If you were to take a course in Greek, would you prefer a charismatic who has had maybe a couple of months training to a non-charismatic (or even an outright liberal) who has spent his life delving into the Greek language and with the intricacies of the language of the Greek New Testament; for me, I would go for the liberal church goer who has demonstrated a high degree of competency to a novice charismatic who can do little more than read and write Greek.

Now, when it comes to Soteriology, Christology and Pneumatology, if I knew that the lecturer was not Born Again then I would not even bother signing up for the class.

With those nine text books that I referred to, the only one who is not a Pentecostal is Anthony Thiselton; so there you have it, it is possible to be both Spirit filled and intelligent! Mind you, I have no doubt that the vast majority of Pentecostals would be embarrassed if they found themselves sitting in front of Thiselton where he randomly asked the audience questions about the Holy Spirit.

• Baptized in the Spirit: A Global Pentecostal Theology (2006) Frank D. Macchia
• Justified in the Spirit: Creation, Redemption, and the Triune God (2010) Frank D. Macchia
• Pneumatology (2002) Veli-Matti Karkkainen
• Beyond Pentecostalism (2010) Wolfgang Vondey
• God’s Empowering Presence (1996) Gordon D. Fee
• The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh: Pentecostalism and the Possibility of Global Theology (2005) Amos Yong
• Paul, the Spirit, and the People of God (1994) Gordon D. Fee
• Holy Spirit and Salvation (2010) Veli-Matti Karkkainen
• The Holy Spirit in Biblical Teaching (2013) Anthony C. Thiselton

You may have already noticed where all of the books were written after 1995. We probably both experienced the charismatic renewal as bright-eyed teenagers, where in those days Pentecostal or even charismatic scholars did not exist. I would say that for most of us (including me) that a Spirit led Theologian was something of an oxymoron where we knew that theologians were grown in cemeteries seminaries. But since the late 80’s things have now changed where non-classic Pentecostal and charismatic scholarship has finally taken the high ground.

N.T. Wright who is a specialist on Paul has a YouTube video titled How Paul invented Christian Theology, where the title did admittedly surprise me as we all realise that the Old Testament had been around a long time before Paul even existed. Even though his lecture goes for over an hour, within the first ten minutes he was able to explain that Paul’s approach to teaching/theology is vastly different to that of his Jewish peers. At about the six minute mark, Wright mentions that the Jewish rabbis “did not do theology” where their commentaries simply spoke of what God had already revealed to Israel through the Law; he also said “The Jews did not ask how they could understand God more”.

 

[Hillsage]

The Father is definitely spirit, even when he was walking alongside Adam in the garden of Eden; but this should not preclude that he did not appear in human form.

But scripture doesn't say they "walked in the "flesh" of the day. It says they "walked in the cool/RUWACH/SPIRIT of the day". Unfortunately NON spirit filled guys couldn't apparently relate with such an interpretation. So out of the 347 times RUWACH is in the OT it was translated "COOL" once....which I find curious? So I don't "preclude" something scripture isn't backing and am sticking with Sspirit. His Spirit and my/Adam's spirit. The soul is the 'majority rule' vote, in a spirit/soul/body individual. If your soul is one with the spirit you are 'spiritually minded/souled' and if your soul is one with your body you are 'carnally minded/souled'. And Paul did say to not be "double minded"/souled di psuchos...what do you do with that verse in your dichotomist view? Is a body/soul/soul part of that "functional dichotomy" anatomy view of yours?

As for the Word (the Son), the Scriptures tell us that he has always been with his Father.

The word is not the son IMO. The word became the son. If an orange became an apple would you still call it an orange? Where does it say that the word/son was always with God?

Depending on which version of the Nicene Creed you adhere to, where the original says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father or the revised version (the Filioque) which says that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, then the Holy Spirit has always been in existence as well.

I feel no leading of the Sspirit to 'adhere' to any "version". For they are simply versions of men for the purposes of uniting based upon their obviously 'divided understandings' of theology/doctrine as you point out with the Filioque.

Even though my theology is intensely Trinitarian where I walk amongst those who are also Trinitarian, I know full well that most of my card-carrying Trinitarian friends and peers are often really only Binitarian where our Evangelical brothers and sisters may very well often fall into the camp of Christomonism.

You're kinda speaking in tongues like a fundamentalist here IMO. Binitarian, Christomoism aren't familiar terms, and I'm not inclined to go look them up to respond 'correctly'. I do find it odd that I am intensely trinitarian concerning the make up of man being spirit/soul/body as well as intensely trinitarian in the makeup of the creator God, of man, who was Father/Word/Holy Spirit. And yet I'm oneness in your opinion on God and wrong on trinitarian man...oh well, still lovya bro.

Maybe my following question could be a result of my somewhat warped Aussie humour, but could you do me a favour, the next time that you find yourself in a new church/homegroup, could you maybe wear a discrete body camera where you can record the looks on people faces while they are struggling to work out how to reply to your “the Holy Spirit becomes a ‘spirit’” – it would be priceless as very few Trinitarians have spent the time thinking through their beliefs.

Ha ha. Would love to do that, if I was techy enough to do so and actually send it your way. But honestly, the look I get on 'that' subject isn't much different than the one I get on 'many' subjects. Especially depending upon what 'groups' I'm talking to concerning those subjects.

On a more thoughtful note, theologically speaking, there would be a virtual unanimous agreement that at the moment of our conversion/initiation, we each receive the actual presence of the Holy Spirit within us, where the ἐκ τοῦ (of the) refers to how we each share in the Holy Spirit which makes us all a part of the one Body. It is only through this communal reception that we become brothers and sisters in Christ.

As I am a Dichotomist or more properly, a functional Dichotomist,I would say that beside our human body and soul, as the new Christian is made complete by the actual reception of the Holy Spirit, that the Believer is now a trichotomist being.

Whereas I say without a living, energizing spirit to begin with, your ole flesh bucket is just dead meat with no electricity to even run your brain or 'functioning soul'. IOW your spirit is the 'animating' force' for your triune being, and the 'soul' is the 'motivating force' (I WILL do/go/believe). The spirit never died in the Garden IOW (like non spirit theologians first came up with). Hmm you have all those 'smart books' answer me this concerning my parenthetical opinion in the sentence prior; When do you believe the 'Original Pentecost experience' really died off the 'original church'? I've never heard anyone comment on that point.

For the Trichotomist, they of course believe that that the Holy Spirit resides in and empowers the dormant human spirit.

But "dormant" isn't biblical either. Another opinion contrary to the truth, but consistent with orthodoxy which became 'doctrine' how many hundreds of years after 'the truth'? So when Jesus says YOU must be born again, or 'born from above', how does the Holy Spirit's action with the 'dead/dormant spirit', equate to a re-birth instead of what is more correctly a resurrection?

I would go for the liberal church goer who has demonstrated a high degree of competency to a novice charismatic who can do little more than read and write Greek.

I would go to both, and then go to God for 'the answer'. You're saying there's "safety in an abundance of counselors"...Spirit baptized and non. So do I. But ultimately 'Spirit baptized' are so saturated with accepted fundamental truth which, they've never even examined because it is so 'accepted' in orthodoxy, that their ability to produce error is still 'a factor' IMO. So I 'try' to balance my position, even as I balance the scripture above with its corresponding one below;

Isa 30:1 Woe to the rebellious children, saith the LORD, that take counsel, but not of me; and that cover with a covering, but not of my spirit, that they may add sin to sin:

Now, when it comes to Soteriology, Christology and Pneumatology, if I knew that the lecturer was not Born Again then I would not even bother signing up for the class.

And how do you know they aren't? Such is the problem today sending our kids to "Christian colleges". Schools where it is well known that they can come out more screwed up than the pastors with cemetery degrees....right?

This is long enough...no, too long. We are interesting...aren't we.

 

[TGE]

Hmmmm., there are many churches participating in people blurting out unknown tongues during pastor's sermons and causing distractions while causing other believers young and old in the faith to doubt whether they are truly "saved".., who then open themselves up to needing the same....., Kundalini Spirit (not familiar.., google it) perhaps..., writhing on the floor...,violently shaking..., old ladies barking like dogs..., with NO interpreters..., Even some of the pastors participate in this.., speak a few words of English.., blurt out unknown repetitious phrasing..., repeat.., repeat.., Just saying...,

 

[Hillsage]

Hmmmm., there are many churches participating in people blurting out unknown tongues during pastor's sermons and causing distractions while causing other believers young and old in the faith to doubt whether they are truly "saved"..,

Yes, there is abuse of the supernatural things of God today as well as in Paul's day. But there is also an absence of the supernatural things of God in churches like you apparently go to today. And your side is causing distractions and causing many to believe they've truly got the Holy Spirit baptism, when they don't. They've merely got a holy spirit from being born again. Which is a good thing, mind you. But it certainly doesn't make one 'spiritual' as 1Cor 12 defines those who are walking in spiritual power/dunnamis.

REV 3:8 "'I know your works. Behold, I have set before you an open door, which no one is able to shut; I know that you have but little power/dunnamis, and yet you have kept my word and have not denied my name.

So, many a good fundamentalist, like this church above; "keeps his word and does not deny the name" whereby they are saved. But unfortunately they also walk in "little Power". We believe that we walked through that "open door", which was also 'set before us' and you haven't.

who then open themselves up to needing the same....., Kundalini Spirit (not familiar.., google it) perhaps..., writhing on the floor...,violently shaking..., old ladies barking like dogs..., with NO interpreters..., Even some of the pastors participate in this.., speak a few words of English.., blurt out unknown repetitious phrasing..., repeat.., repeat.., Just saying...,

Don't have to Google it, as I have already seen the videos and judged as only a "spiritual man judgeth all things". And I'm already aware of the powers of Satan to imitate "ministers of righteousness" as well as the supernatural manifestations of the Sspirit. But 'without the spiritual discernment' which comes along with those who are "unlearned" (1Cor 14:23) or "ignorant" (1Cor 14:38,39) of these things, I think that people like you are simply throwing the baby with the bathwater.

 

[TGE]

Yes, there is abuse of the supernatural things of God today as well as in Paul's day. But there is also an absence of the supernatural things of God in churches like you apparently go to today. And your side is causing distractions and causing many to believe they've truly got the Holy Spirit baptism, when they don't. They've merely got a holy spirit from being born again. Which is a good thing, mind you. But it certainly doesn't make one 'spiritual' as 1Cor 12 defines those who are walking in spiritual power/dunnamis.

REV 3:8 "'I know your works. Behold, I have set before you an open door, which no one is able to shut; I know that you have but little power/dunnamis, and yet you have kept my word and have not denied my name.

So, many a good fundamentalist, like this church above; "keeps his word and does not deny the name" whereby they are saved. But unfortunately they also walk in "little Power". We believe that we walked through that "open door", which was also 'set before us' and you haven't.

Don't have to Google it, as I have already seen the videos and judged as only a "spiritual man judgeth all things". And I'm already aware of the powers of Satan to imitate "ministers of righteousness" as well as the supernatural manifestations of the Sspirit. But 'without the spiritual discernment' which comes along with those who are "unlearned" (1Cor 14:23) or "ignorant" (1Cor 14:38,39) of these things, I think that people like you are simply throwing the baby with the bathwater.

 

[TGE]

Thanks for your kind Christ like reply and personal attack I see why there is so much of "all things" going around 501(c)3 "churches" today..,

 

[Hillsage]

Thanks for your kind Christ like reply and personal attack I see why there is so much of "all things" going around 501(c)3 "churches" today..,

Did you read your post after you wrote it? It reads more like the left foot of fellowship, than the right hand of fellowship...but that's just a 'spiritual judgment' of mine.

And all the rest which I wrote in RED is bible. So if that feels like an attack you might want to check with the author.

I do agree with your 501(c)3 comment though.

 

[AVBunyan]

Forgive the length...

All right – tongues – easy if you take the Bible as it stands and understand how God deals with Israel as a nation. Most make issue of prayer languages, interpreter or not and never cover what tongues are really for. Let’s get down to the basics. Remember, God deals with Israel as a nation differently than he deals with the body of Christ today.

According to the Bible tongues are for a sign (1 Cor 14:22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign,…). The verse didn’t say tongues were for your personal edification, prayer time, public worship service, etc. Tongues are for a sign. Now, who require signs in the Bible? The Jews require a sign (1 Cor 1:22 For the Jews require a sign,….). Why did the Jews require a sign? It was a part of their history. When God and Moses had their conversation at the burning bush Moses said (and I paraphrase), “They are not going to believe me.” The Lord said, “I will give you some signs to authenticate your ministry.” Moses went to them and did signs and wonders and they believed. When the Lord came to Israel in the gospels he came with signs to authenticate his ministry and some believed. In fact the Pharisees came seeking a sign - Mat 12:38 “Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee.” After Christ arose he gave the apostles the signs to authenticate their ministries they went about doing signs and wonders.

Next, tongues were not for believers but for unbelievers – “not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: - I Cor. 14:22. This is the clincher. Moses went to Jews who were unbelievers of his ministry. Jesus went to an unbelieving Israel with signs. Paul went to unbelieving Israel with signs. Also, the Jews were “unbelievers” in the sense that they did not believe that God would not bless the Gentiles. In Acts 2 where the signs and wonders took place Peter preached to thousands of “unbelieving Jews” and they believed after the message with signs and wonders (Acts 2:43).

Today tongues are used in churches for believers – in other words done for the edification of the speaker or hearer, which is contrary to I Cor. 1:22 and 14:22 (note both verses are 22 – can’t beat the book!)

Now, when you use your “tongues” in your church service are there any unbelieving Jews there? Maybe and maybe not but most likely not. When you are using “tongues” in your private prayer closet are there any unbelieving Jews there?

Let’s wrap it up – When God deals with Israel as a nation he uses signs and wonders as authentication. God is not dealing with Israel as a nation today – God is dealing with individuals. Tongues are for a sign and to unbelievers, not believers. Tongues are a sign of judgment to the unbelieving Jews. Also, unbelievers are “believing “ Jews in Acts who were didn’t believe the Gentiles could get in on the blessings.

Tongue speakers are not following this today one bit. I really don’t care about how good tongues feel to you and how excited you get when you utter your “tongues”. When you pray and speak in tongues are you doing it as a sign to unbelieving Jews? I don’t care if you saw millions at once speaking in tongues. What you saw were millions of deceived people led by an unclean spirit. They may be nice, polite, Bible-quoting people but they were deceived while they were nice, polite and quoting scripture.

I know you have a lot of verses you get from I Cor 14 but remember Paul is rebuking a carnal church of a misuse of a doctrine to the point where he calls them children in malice. Why you think you can find anything positive there to support your tongues beats the fire out of me.

Don’t judge tongues by your experience – judge your experience by the Bible. Anybody can think they speak in tongues. I’ve even seen people “practicing” their tongues so they wouldn’t lose them! Please, people! The great men of God of old wouldn’t and didn’t mess with that stuff for a minute and God used any one of them more then 10,000 tongue speakers today.

But you say, “Yes, but I still know what I know and I speak in tongues and others do so that proves it!” Fine, base your doctrine on feelings and experience and ignore the plain teaching of scripture.

Again, one last time with feeling – UNTILL YOU UNDERSTAND THAT GOD DEALS WITH ISRAEL AS A NATION DIFFERENTLY THAN HE DOES WITH THE BODY OF CHRIST TODAY THEN YOU CAN FORGET UNDERSTANDING THE GIFTS!

 

[Hillsage]

For those seeking the truth some things must be understood. The promise of the/tov Spirit is no more 'the Spirit', than the promise of the/tov father is the 'the Father', but, according to scripture the promise is spiritual POWER from/tov the Spirit on high.

Luke 24:49 And, behold, I send the promise of my/tov Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.

ACT 1:8 But ye shall receive power, AFTER that the Holy Ghost is come upon you:


And the promise of this gift of power which was 'shed forth' was both 'seen and heard' on Pentecost

Acts 2:33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the (FROM) Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

And this power promise was not for ISRAEL, but for 'THE CHURCH'.

Acts 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

So IF you were "called" to be part of 'the church', then this gift is for you. But, IF one is not 'called', then they are not a good source of information concerning 'the truth'.

Paul's letter not only dealt with immaturity of spiritual believers, he also mentions two other groups. Those who were "unlearned/ungifted" and also those who were "unbelievers". The "unlearned or 'ungifted" believers are not a good source of information concerning things those who have been spiritually gifted. And those who are "unbelievers" or 'unsaved' are also obviously not a source of truth concerning this gift.

1 Corinthians 14:23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?

So seek ye the truth and listen not to those who would 'say we are mad'.

 

[Biblicist]

Forgive the length...

All right – tongues – easy if you take the Bible as it stands and understand how God deals with Israel as a nation. Most make issue of prayer languages, interpreter or not and never cover what tongues are really for. Let’s get down to the basics. Remember, God deals with Israel as a nation differently than he deals with the body of Christ today.

According to the Bible tongues are for a sign (1 Cor 14:22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign,…). The verse didn’t say tongues were for your personal edification, prayer time, public worship service, etc. Tongues are for a sign. Now, who require signs in the Bible? The Jews require a sign (1 Cor 1:22 For the Jews require a sign,….). Why did the Jews require a sign? It was a part of their history. When God and Moses had their conversation at the burning bush Moses said (and I paraphrase), “They are not going to believe me.” The Lord said, “I will give you some signs to authenticate your ministry.” Moses went to them and did signs and wonders and they believed. When the Lord came to Israel in the gospels he came with signs to authenticate his ministry and some believed. In fact the Pharisees came seeking a sign - Mat 12:38 “Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee.” After Christ arose he gave the apostles the signs to authenticate their ministries they went about doing signs and wonders.

To keep things brief, Paul was talking about the negative sign value of uninterpreted tongues within the congregational meeting. His legitimate concern was that whenever an unsaved visitor or cessationist (those who do not understand) enter into a meeting where everyone is praying in tongues that they will say "we are out of our minds". As such, uninterpreted tongues becomes a negative sign of judgment where it further isolates those who lack understanding from the Gospel.

Next, tongues were not for believers but for unbelievers – “not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: - I Cor. 14:22. This is the clincher. Moses went to Jews who were unbelievers of his ministry. Jesus went to an unbelieving Israel with signs. Paul went to unbelieving Israel with signs. Also, the Jews were “unbelievers” in the sense that they did not believe that God would not bless the Gentiles. In Acts 2 where the signs and wonders took place Peter preached to thousands of “unbelieving Jews” and they believed after the message with signs and wonders (Acts 2:43).

Wow...how the cessationist mindset is so easily bewildered by 1 Cor 14! This chapter has absolutely nothing to do with Jews, be they believing or unbelieving where Pauls concern is purely with the problem of uninterpreted tongues within the congregational setting.

There is one connection with Israel which is with 1Cor 14:21,22 where Paul tells us that as uninterpreted congregational tongues will only confuse the unsaved and cessationists, that this is similar to the problem where rebellious Israel was unable to understand the instructions that were being given by the new power in Israel - the Assyrians.

Today tongues are used in churches for believers – in other words done for the edification of the speaker or hearer, which is contrary to I Cor. 1:22 and 14:22 (note both verses are 22 – can’t beat the book!)

Would that "book" be by Johnny MacArthur by any chance?

Now, when you use your “tongues” in your church service are there any unbelieving Jews there? Maybe and maybe not but most likely not. When you are using “tongues” in your private prayer closet are there any unbelieving Jews there?

Unbelieving Jews, probably unbelieving Italians, Greeks, Irish, Chinese and who knows who else. You seem to have an incredible fixation with the Jews.

Let’s wrap it up – When God deals with Israel as a nation he uses signs and wonders as authentication. God is not dealing with Israel as a nation today – God is dealing with individuals. Tongues are for a sign and to unbelievers, not believers. Tongues are a sign of judgment to the unbelieving Jews. Also, unbelievers are “believing “ Jews in Acts who were didn’t believe the Gentiles could get in on the blessings.

Not again, please, no more odd references to the Jews - try and keep to the text!

Tongue speakers are not following this today one bit. I really don’t care about how good tongues feel to you and how excited you get when you utter your “tongues”. When you pray and speak in tongues are you doing it as a sign to unbelieving Jews? I don’t care if you saw millions at once speaking in tongues. What you saw were millions of deceived people led by an unclean spirit. They may be nice, polite, Bible-quoting people but they were deceived while they were nice, polite and quoting scripture.

Again, not the Jews, please, what are you on about!

I know you have a lot of verses you get from I Cor 14 but remember Paul is rebuking a carnal church of a misuse of a doctrine to the point where he calls them children in malice. Why you think you can find anything positive there to support your tongues beats the fire out of me.

Wow...from what we can read from both First and Second Corinthians it is abundantely clear that Paul has great faith and confidence in them. He is certainly concerned that this vitally important Christian centre abides by the Word that he left them but that would be it.

Don’t judge tongues by your experience – judge your experience by the Bible. Anybody can think they speak in tongues. I’ve even seen people “practicing” their tongues so they wouldn’t lose them! Please, people! The great men of God of old wouldn’t and didn’t mess with that stuff for a minute and God used any one of them more then 10,000 tongue speakers today.

That's like saying that we should throw away our Bibles simply because some KJVO types regularly try and promote their strange views amongst themselves to maintain their strange-fire views about the KJV.
By the way, who are these "great men of old", I trust that you are not referring to the Apostles.

But you say, “Yes, but I still know what I know and I speak in tongues and others do so that proves it!” Fine, base your doctrine on feelings and experience and ignore the plain teaching of scripture.

I appreciate that for the hard-core cessationist that our ability to rely on both the Word of God and our experiences with the Eschatological Holy Spirit can be a sore point for those who lack such a Pneumatological experiential relationship. To be one of the 'have-nots' can make it rather hard to understand those who 'have'; the old problem where the 'have-nots' decry what the 'haves-have' is always a sticking point for the inexperience of the cessationist worldview.

Again, one last time with feeling – UNTILL YOU UNDERSTAND THAT GOD DEALS WITH ISRAEL AS A NATION DIFFERENTLY THAN HE DOES WITH THE BODY OF CHRIST TODAY THEN YOU CAN FORGET UNDERSTANDING THE GIFTS!

Not another reference to the Jews, now I'm beginning to understand what slow water-torture must be like to experience.

Uninformed hard-core cessationists, it's like playing with kids and puppies!

As you obviously need to do a bit of study and research to catch up on these matters, please feel free to send me a PM and I will forward on a number of book references.

 

[Righttruth]

Hmmmm., there are many churches participating in people blurting out unknown tongues during pastor's sermons and causing distractions while causing other believers young and old in the faith to doubt whether they are truly "saved".., who then open themselves up to needing the same....., Kundalini Spirit (not familiar.., google it) perhaps..., writhing on the floor...,violently shaking..., old ladies barking like dogs..., with NO interpreters..., Even some of the pastors participate in this.., speak a few words of English.., blurt out unknown repetitious phrasing..., repeat.., repeat.., Just saying...,

A Satanic power-play!

 

[willbill]

The Book of Acts clears up his confusion very well: the Apostles spoke in tongues when the Holy Spirit baptized them. And how does speaking in "tonges" look? Well, the Bibles says it is when one speaks in an earthly language known by a group of people/ethnicity that the speaker is not known for speaking, thus converting speakers of that language through one of the many ways the Lord shows His power, that through Him we are not held down with *any restricts when the Lord desires.

Let the Bible speak, not Man.

 

[Righttruth]

The Book of Acts clears up his confusion very well: the Apostles spoke in tongues when the Holy Spirit baptized them. And how does speaking in "tonges" look? Well, the Bibles says it is when one speaks in an earthly language known by a group of people/ethnicity that the speaker is not known for speaking, thus converting speakers of that language through one of the many ways the Lord shows His power, that through Him we are not held down with *any restricts when the Lord desires.

Let the Bible speak, not Man.

Well put! Bible never speaks gibberish. If it did, it would look, like, "dsalk djfdsa ;ldjkf salkjdkje kdf afgf," and so on!

 

[Hillsage]

The Book of Acts clears up his confusion very well: the Apostles spoke in tongues when the Holy Spirit baptized them. And how does speaking in "tonges" look? Well, the Bibles says it is when one speaks in an earthly language known by a group of people/ethnicity that the speaker is not known for speaking, thus converting speakers of that language through one of the many ways the Lord shows His power, that through Him we are not held down with *any restricts when the Lord desires.

Let the Bible speak, not Man.

But will one scripture totally disproving what you say, keep you from speaking?
1 Corinthians 14:2 For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries.

 

[Hillsage]

Well put! Bible never speaks gibberish.

Well done you got this part right.

If it did, it would look, like, "dsalk djfdsa ;ldjkf salkjdkje kdf afgf," and so on!

And 'if it did' at least I'd understand WHY it looked like that, even thought I might not understand WHAT it was saying. You on the other hand would understand neither WHY OR WHAT. Because according to the bible it would just be gibberish to those who were "ungifted" or "unlearned"...but you can change that.

 

[willbill]

But will one scripture totally disproving what you say, keep you from speaking?
1 Corinthians 14:2 For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries.

I have never noticed this topic in which Paul speaks of; chapter 14 clearly testifies that my knowledge was indeed wrong (I assume the word "tongue(s)" thus is not accurate in all its placing, due to the fact that in the Bible it has two meanings: one in the section of Acts which I pointed out - that being simply a language other than what the speaker knows, while the other in what Hillsage pointed out: the ability to speak from your spirit to God, which God alone understands). Very interesting!

*Note: Paul doesn't seem to be speaking in support of tongues in chapter 14 of 1st Corinthians