What do you think about speaking in tongues?

Guojing said:

We have now the completed scriptures, the OT prophets did not.

God speaks Loud and clear in the scriptures.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. I have numerous threads and posts exposing the fallacies in these (oft-kindred) positions:
(1) Cessationism.
(2) Sola Scriptura.
In my proofs, I even have citations from cessationist scholars who concede my fundamental thesis (before trying to backpedal) - that Paul defined spiritual maturity as charismatic maturity, notably mature prophethood.

The definition of spiritual maturity does not change. I would link you to all this material but I don't think you'd bother to read it.

Even on this thread, however, I already provided one solid argument. Here it is again. Paul defined a church as follows:

"And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues" (12:28)

That is the ONLY definition of a church that I accept, because all other definitions of a church are man-made. You are contradicting yourself. You said:

Guojing said:

We have now the completed scriptures, the OT prophets did not.

God speaks Loud and clear in the scriptures.

Click to expand...

But you don't accept the Scriptures! You've already rejected Paul's definition of a church!

JAL said:

Nonsense. I have numerous threads and posts exposing the fallacies in these (oft-kindred) positions:
(1) Cessationism.
(2) Sola Scriptura.
In my proofs, I even have citations from cessationist scholars who concede my fundamental thesis (before trying to backpedal) - that Paul defined spiritual maturity as charismatic maturity, notably mature prophethood.

The definition of spiritual maturity does not change. I would link you to all this material but I don't think you'd bother to read it.

Even on this thread, however, I already provided one solid argument. Here it is again. Paul defined a church as follows:

"And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues" (12:28)

That is the ONLY definition of a church that I accept, because all other definitions of a church are man-made. You are contradicting yourself. You said:


But you don't accept the Scriptures! You've already rejected Paul's definition of a church!

Click to expand...

Just because you disagree with a view does not mean it is nonsense. The world does not revolve around you.

Guojing said:

Just because you disagree with a view does not mean it is nonsense. The world does not revolve around you.

Click to expand...

"Nonsense" is my designation for views logically absurd, internally inconsistent, and exegetically unsustainable. I call'em as I see'em.

And when even cessationist scholars concede my fundamental thesis, as I noted twice, it seems pretty clear their position is nonsense.

You repudiate prophecy (Direct Revelation) while conveniently ignoring every rebuttal sent in your direction - rebuttals that demonstrate your position to be nonsense. And then you have the gall to react indignantly when I call it nonsense? Please.

(1) You want cessationism to be treated with dignity? Fine. Rebut the arguments against it.
(2) What you do not seem to understand is that 'Sola Scriptura' is potentially the church's greatest adversary because it repudiates what we need most - Direct Revelation. The whole point of the Galatian epistle was to rebuke the Galatians for gravitating back toward Jewish exegetical tradition (Sola Scriptura) instead of pressing for Direct Revelation. Paul was furious with them, and called them fools for it.

Jesus arrived on the scene as The Prophet on a mission to repudiate all the Sola Scriptura parties of his day (Pharisees, Sadducees, and the teachers of the law). He made it clear that His teaching came from the Father - not from seminaries - and thereby avoided the myriad errors made by the Sola Scriptura scholars.

And yet 2,000 years later, the church is still largely a Sola Scriptura organization. Even in charismatic circles, biblical exegesis is usually presumed to be the highest possible authority on religious matters.

Guojing said:

Impression most certainly, audible voice no.

Click to expand...

So how do you know that the "impression" you perceive is not a demon?

Guojing said:

We have now the completed scriptures, the OT prophets did not.

God speaks Loud and clear in the scriptures.

Click to expand...

Even John tells us that there is a far greater story to be told than recorded in scripture.-
John21v25Now there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if every one should be written, I suppose not even the world itself to have space for the books to be written.

The scriptures speak loud and clear within a very limited area, outside of that, they are silent.

Most of the things that the Lord has spoken to me about have had nothing to do with scripture or doctrine, but to do with real life situations he has guided me through.

The teaching that God ceased speaking to his children once the bible was completed, is nothing less than a doctrine of demons.

JAL said:

"Nonsense" is my designation for views logically absurd, internally inconsistent, and exegetically unsustainable. I call'em as I see'em.

And when even cessationist scholars concede my fundamental thesis, as I noted twice, it seems pretty clear their position is nonsense.

You repudiate prophecy (Direct Revelation) while conveniently ignoring every rebuttal sent in your direction - rebuttals that demonstrate your position to be nonsense. And then you have the gall to react indignantly when I call it nonsense? Please.

(1) You want cessationism to be treated with dignity? Fine. Rebut the arguments against it.
(2) What you do not seem to understand is that 'Sola Scriptura' is potentially the church's greatest adversary because it repudiates what we need most - Direct Revelation. The whole point of the Galatian epistle was to rebuke the Galatians for gravitating back toward Jewish exegetical tradition (Sola Scriptura) instead of pressing for Direct Revelation. Paul was furious with them, and called them fools for it.

Jesus arrived on the scene as The Prophet on a mission to repudiate all the Sola Scriptura parties of his day (Pharisees, Sadducees, and the teachers of the law). He made it clear that His teaching came from the Father - not from seminaries - and thereby avoided the myriad errors made by the Sola Scriptura scholars.

And yet 2,000 years later, the church is still largely a Sola Scriptura organization. Even in charismatic circles, biblical exegesis is usually presumed to be the highest possible authority on religious matters.

Click to expand...

We are always the protagonist in our perception of the world, so its naturally to think that those who disagree with us are the antagonists.

So by definition, they are the ones with views that are "logically absurd, internally inconsistent, and exegetically unsustainable".

Francis Drake said:

So how do you know that the "impression" you perceive is not a demon?

Click to expand...

You like to argue using false dilemmas.

ImAllLikeOkWaitWat said:

I wonder of those who have a negative view of tongues if they know people who speak in tongues. Or if they just avoid people who claim to.

Click to expand...

Not going to say that speaking in tongues is not possible but, what I've seen and heard sure don't seem real.
M

Guojing said:

We are always the protagonist in our perception of the world, so its naturally to think that those who disagree with us are the antagonists.

So by definition, they are the ones with views that are "logically absurd, internally inconsistent, and exegetically unsustainable".

Click to expand...

Case in point.

Guojing said:

You like to argue using false dilemmas.

Click to expand...

False dilemma, you've got to be joking. Its a very simple question, not rocket science!

Try the same question again.-
How do you know that the "impression" you perceive is not a demon?

Or alternatively.-
How do you know your "impressions" are from the Holy Spirit.

Francis Drake said:

False dilemma, you've got to be joking. Its a very simple question, not rocket science!

Try the same question again.-
How do you know that the "impression" you perceive is not a demon?

Or alternatively.-
How do you know your "impressions" are from the Holy Spirit.

Click to expand...

That is why I like to read Scriptures, instead of relying on impressions.

Guojing said:

That is why I like to read Scriptures, instead of relying on impressions.

Click to expand...

You say you like the scriptures, but those scriptures demonstrate God always spoke to those who would seek and listen.
Maybe it's your church doctrines which have gagged God or blocked your ears?

Reading scripture is obviously essential, but it clearly doesn't have all the answers, whereas the voice of your loving God does.
I love the scriptures, and many times the Lord has used it to direct my life, but more often to confirm stuff he has already revealed directly.
I have been hearing the voice of God directing my life for nearly 60 years, and I am a nobody. In fact I started hearing God speak directly to me around 10 years before I ever heard read a bible!

Since that time, there are countless occasions where God has spoken very important things that could never be found in scripture.
I would recommend you explore that area of faith before dismissing it as unimportant.

Guojing said:

That is why I like to read Scriptures, instead of relying on impressions.

Click to expand...

How do you know "the Scriptures" are true?

Theologians on all sides of the debate have this in common - they agree that the Holy Spirit (daily) convicts (convinces us), leaving an impression that causes us to feel certain:
(1) That Jesus is God
(2) That He inspired the Bible
(3) That He died for our sins.

This Direct Revelation - technically known as the Inward Witness of the Holy Spirit - is the Rock on which your faith stands. ALL your primary conclusions stand on Direct Revelation, NOT from "reading the Scriptures".

Otherwise you'd be in big trouble. You'd be in danger of losing your saving faith if you had to rely on your own fallible analysis of scripture for answers to the big questions (and think of children, mentally handicapped, alzheimers, etc).

Therefore "Sola Scriptura" is a complete lie. You've been duped.

NerdGirl123 said:

No? That's an assumption, and I don't see any basis for it. He spent his life preaching, teaching, and ministering to people, not being isolated and alone. It makes far more sense to say that he was speaking in tongues while ministering to people of other lands.

Which seems more feasible?

Click to expand...

I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. 19 But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue.

1Cor14:18&19

Wouldn't the above suggest otherwise?

Francis Drake said:

You say you like the scriptures, but those scriptures demonstrate God always spoke to those who would seek and listen.
Maybe it's your church doctrines which have gagged God or blocked your ears?

Reading scripture is obviously essential, but it clearly doesn't have all the answers, whereas the voice of your loving God does.
I love the scriptures, and many times the Lord has used it to direct my life, but more often to confirm stuff he has already revealed directly.
I have been hearing the voice of God directing my life for nearly 60 years, and I am a nobody. In fact I started hearing God speak directly to me around 10 years before I ever heard read a bible!

Since that time, there are countless occasions where God has spoken very important things that could never be found in scripture.
I would recommend you explore that area of faith before dismissing it as unimportant.

Click to expand...

I am not dismissing as unimportant, but you kept going at me with false dilemmas.

You seem very confident that the impressions you get are definitely from God, but you implied that mine is of the devil, which I thought was a case "You can say things to others but not to yourself".

Guojing said:

I am not dismissing as unimportant, but you kept going at me with false dilemmas.

You seem very confident that the impressions you get are definitely from God, but you implied that mine is of the devil, which I thought was a case "You can say things to others but not to yourself".

Click to expand...

The both of you seem concerned about counterfeit impressions. You expressed distrust of impressions:

That is why I like to read Scriptures, instead of relying on impressions.

Click to expand...

Turns out there is only one moral rule devoid of exceptions.

"If I feel certain that action A is evil, and B is good, I should opt for B"

I like to call it the "rule of conscience" (but since it doesn't actually use the word "conscience", any reservations about "conscience" do not qualify as a rebuttal).

A few things to note here:
(1) Direct Revelation honors the rule. If an impression elevates your felt certainty to a degree seemingly morally obligatory, you are indeed obligated. Otherwise not. Thus it is the Spirit's job to convince/convict you (cause you to feel certain).
(2) This rule devastates Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is the position that, if we receive an impression, we must first "check it out with Scripture." Baloney. In fact if the impression raises your certainty to 100%, you definitely won't check it out with Scripture. Why would you investigate something you are already 100% certain of? Nobody does that.

Guojing said:

I am not dismissing as unimportant, but you kept going at me with false dilemmas.

You seem very confident that the impressions you get are definitely from God, but you implied that mine is of the devil, which I thought was a case "You can say things to others but not to yourself".

Click to expand...

Hehe, touche.
I only replied like I did because you appeared to be saying that my experience was of the devil and were not asking the same question of yourself. But lets move on.

I don't agree with everything @JAL says, but he is absolutely right in that it is not the bible that should have the last word, but our consciences. The reason being that our conscience is directly linked to our human spirit, which is the only part of our make up that communes with the Spirit of God, and can interpret the meaning of those scriptures.

So learning to discern the reaction of our human spirit, over our intellect, is the first step in hearing God. In my view your "impressions" are a significant part of that experience and just need to be refined.

Search the scriptures as long as you like, but as the disciples discovered, the scriptures didn't give them any answers till their spirit was enlightened by the HS.
And for that to happen it first requires an intellectual surrender.

Here's the two very depressed disciples walking on the road to Emmaus, when suddenly, Jesus joins them. They describe their woes and failed hopes for this Jesus character.-

Lk24v25Then He said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!
Slow to believe the prophets, means they intellectually knew what the prophets said, but it never got past their heads to their hearts.
26Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?” 27And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.

The Disciples’ Eyes Opened
28Then they drew near to the village where they were going, and He indicated that He would have gone farther. 29But they constrained Him, saying, “Abide with us, for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent.” And He went in to stay with them.

30Now it came to pass, as He sat at the table with them, that He took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them. 31Then their eyes were opened and they knew Him; and He vanished from their sight.

32And they said to one another, “Did not our heart burn within us while He talked with us on the road, and while He opened the Scriptures to us?”
And there we see the key, "Did not our hearts burn within us?"
That has absolutely nothing, nil zilch, nada, to do with the intellect. It's a heart/conscience/spirit issue, and that alone reveals the truth of scripture. And whether its a burning fire, or just a gentle flutter, we need to discern what's going on down there, rather than up top in our brain.

That's why you need far more than just the bible itself.

Francis Drake said:

Hehe, touche.
I only replied like I did because you appeared to be saying that my experience was of the devil and were not asking the same question of yourself. But lets move on.

I don't agree with everything @JAL says, but he is absolutely right in that it is not the bible that should have the last word, but our consciences. The reason being that our conscience is directly linked to our human spirit, which is the only part of our make up that communes with the Spirit of God, and can interpret the meaning of those scriptures.

So learning to discern the reaction of our human spirit, over our intellect, is the first step in hearing God. In my view your "impressions" are a significant part of that experience and just need to be refined.

Search the scriptures as long as you like, but as the disciples discovered, the scriptures didn't give them any answers till their spirit was enlightened by the HS.
And for that to happen it first requires an intellectual surrender.

Here's the two very depressed disciples walking on the road to Emmaus, when suddenly, Jesus joins them. They describe their woes and failed hopes for this Jesus character.-

Lk24v25Then He said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!
Slow to believe the prophets, means they intellectually knew what the prophets said, but it never got past their heads to their hearts.
26Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?” 27And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.

The Disciples’ Eyes Opened
28Then they drew near to the village where they were going, and He indicated that He would have gone farther. 29But they constrained Him, saying, “Abide with us, for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent.” And He went in to stay with them.

30Now it came to pass, as He sat at the table with them, that He took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them. 31Then their eyes were opened and they knew Him; and He vanished from their sight.

32And they said to one another, “Did not our heart burn within us while He talked with us on the road, and while He opened the Scriptures to us?”
And there we see the key, "Did not our hearts burn within us?"
That has absolutely nothing, nil zilch, nada, to do with the intellect. It's a heart/conscience/spirit issue, and that alone reveals the truth of scripture. And whether its a burning fire, or just a gentle flutter, we need to discern what's going on down there, rather than up top in our brain.

That's why you need far more than just the bible itself.

Click to expand...

Did I ever say or imply your tongues are from the devil?

JAL said:

This rule devastates Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is the position that, if we receive an impression, we must first "check it out with Scripture." Baloney.

Click to expand...

Yeh, baloney. That description has nothing to do with the meaning of Sola Scriptura (which, for sure, does not deal in "received impressions").

Guojing said:

Did I ever say or imply your tongues are from the devil?

Click to expand...

Yes, you did imply that very thing, but I thought we'd moved on from that, which is why I tried to be conciliatory in my last post.

Hehe, touche.
I only replied like I did because you appeared to be saying that my experience was of the devil and were not asking the same question of yourself. But lets move on.

Click to expand...

Do you want to discuss the peaceful points I made, or keep resurrecting old arguments, because I don't.
Would you please look at the rest of that post, and see what you think.