Assembly of God and Tongues

[swordsman1]

As I have around 20 books on Hermeneutics, this means that I would love to see you providing a reputable source that would come even close to supporting the very strange "principle" that you have presented. I could not imagine any serious commentator moving anywhere along the lines that you have suggested. It seems that in your desperation to find an escape clause that you have maybe delved too far down into the basket of strange ideas.

Well then you clearly either haven't read them, or they are not very good books.

It is widely acknowledged that the immediate context takes priority over any earlier or wider context. For example one of the standard textbooks on hermeneutics, "An Introduction to Biblical Interpretation: Revised and Expanded" by William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg, Robert L. Hubbard, Jr. (all respected seminary professors and authors in their own right) states:

"The immediate context exerts the most important control over the meaning of a specific passage. We define the immediate context as the material presented immediately before and after the passage under study. In some instances this will be the preceding and succeeding sentences and paragraphs; in others it may be a subsection in the author's presentation, or possibly a major division of a book. The tactic of outlining a book helps the interpreter to discern its natural divisions and to establish the specific immediate context in which a passage occurs. The proximity of the materials to each other and the correlation of the materials with each other makes the immediate context a more critical indicator of meaning than either the whole book or the whole Bible."​

The immediate context of 1 Cor 12:27-30 is without doubt, the body of Christ - the universal church. It explicitly says so in v27. Not local meetings, which are nowhere mentioned in Chapter 12. In fact the body of Christ is the clear context from v12 onwards. So Paul asks "Do all speak in tongues" in the body of Christ? The answer is No.

And if that wasn't clear enough Paul reiterates the point in 1 Cor 12:8-11:

"To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, 10 to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues,[a] and to still another the interpretation of tongues. "
​

and Rom 12:6:

"For just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, 5 so in Christ we, though many, form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. 6 We have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us. If your gift is prophesying, "
​

The biblical evidence stands in complete contrast to your unwarranted assertion that it means all can speak in tongues but in meetings some choose not to do so.

 

[Biblicist]

Well then you clearly either haven't read them, or they are not very good books.

It is widely acknowledged that the immediate context takes priority over any earlier or wider context. For example one of the standard textbooks on hermeneutics, "An Introduction to Biblical Interpretation: Revised and Expanded" by William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg, Robert L. Hubbard, Jr. (all respected seminary professors and authors in their own right) states:

"The immediate context exerts the most important control over the meaning of a specific passage. We define the immediate context as the material presented immediately before and after the passage under study. In some instances this will be the preceding and succeeding sentences and paragraphs; in others it may be a subsection in the author's presentation, or possibly a major division of a book. The tactic of outlining a book helps the interpreter to discern its natural divisions and to establish the specific immediate context in which a passage occurs. The proximity of the materials to each other and the correlation of the materials with each other makes the immediate context a more critical indicator of meaning than either the whole book or the whole Bible."​

Fascinating indeed! I am at a loss as to how you can try and defend your following statement from your post #197 which said;

"It it a basic hermeneutic principle, that when determining the context of a particular passage you look at the immediate context. Not apply the context from over a chapter and a half earlier when Paul was dealing with something completely different'.
​

Where you then quote Hubbard who thoroughly refutes your position.

 

[swordsman1]

Fascinating indeed! I am at a loss as to how you can try and defend your following statement from your post #197 which said;

"It it a basic hermeneutic principle, that when determining the context of a particular passage you look at the immediate context. Not apply the context from over a chapter and a half earlier when Paul was dealing with something completely different'.
​

Where you then quote Hubbard who thoroughly refutes your position.

I suggest you read them both again. The hermeneutical rule book fully agrees with my statement that you look at the immediate context when interpreting a passage, not an earlier or a wider context as you want to do in order to try to justify your theory.

 

[Biblicist]

I suggest you read them both again. The hermeneutical rule book fully agrees with my statement that you look at the immediate context when interpreting a passage, not an earlier or a wider context as you want to do in order to try to justify your theory.

It's discussions such as this that make me wonder if Christian public forums do more harm than good, from this point of time I will leave you to your thoughts.

 

[swordsman1]

It's discussions such as this that make me wonder if Christian public forums do more harm than good, from this point of time I will leave you to your thoughts.

Judging by the number of times that people blatantly disregard the rules of hermeneutics, in order to twist scripture to say something it doesn't, I would agree!

 

[Job8]

Assembly of God believes that speaking in tongues is the evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Are they right?

No. Many in Scripture were filled with the Holy Spirit but did not speak in tongues. That should be sufficient proof.

 

[Deadworm]

No. Many in Scripture were filled with the Holy Spirit but did not speak in tongues. That should be sufficient proof.

There are at least 3 reasons to dismiss your claim on the grounds that it fallaciously begs the question:
(1) How do you know that NT missionaries who were filled with the Spirit lacked the initial experience of being baptized with the Spirit? Sadly, you illustrate the banal but wise principle that absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. Name even one NT figure who never spoke in tongues and then explain how you know this.
(2) Paul regularly thanks God that he speaks in tongues more than all the Corinthians and wants everyone to speak in tongues and prophesy (1 Corinthians 14:5, 18) and, in doing so, echoes Moses' wish in Numbers 11:29 that all the Lord's people would be prophets. So are you challenging Paul's authority?
(3) Paul's interpretation of Scripture fits nicely with Jesus' identification of speaking in tongues as a sign of the true believer (Mark 16:17). .

 

[Major1]

Assembly of God believes that speaking in tongues is the evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Are they right?

NO!

Tongues that are seen today are not the tongues seen in the Scriptures.

Two reasons make that true.

#1. The Bible had not yet been finished and canonized.

#2. Tongues were given as a "Sign Gift" to the Apostles.

Mark 16:14-18................
"Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.
And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."

You are welcome to argue all you want to with me, but your argument is with the Word of God and not me as it clearly describes the APOSTLES.

Since we do not have apostles or prophets today there is no one who is able to speak in tongues. Now tongues can be faked with ease and IMO that is what we see today.

 

[Monk Brendan]

The one that doesn't say tongues was spoken it does indicate that Simon the Sorcerer knew that they did receive the Holy Spirit, so we can deduce that was based on him hearing them speaking in tongues.

What if it was prophecy? A man so moved by the Spirit could have very easily begun by calling out Simon's sins, and telling him that this idea of "buying" the Holy Spirit is impossible. Nobody can put God in a box, and if they try, God will break out of the box, or leave.

 

[Major1]

There are at least 3 reasons to dismiss your claim on the grounds that it fallaciously begs the question:
(1) How do you know that NT missionaries who were filled with the Spirit lacked the initial experience of being baptized with the Spirit? Sadly, you illustrate the banal but wise principle that absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. Name even one NT figure who never spoke in tongues and then explain how you know this.
(2) Paul regularly thanks God that he speaks in tongues more than all the Corinthians and wants everyone to speak in tongues and prophesy (1 Corinthians 14:5, 18) and, in doing so, echoes Moses' wish in Numbers 11:29 that all the Lord's people would be prophets. So are you challenging Paul's authority?
(3) Paul's interpretation of Scripture fits nicely with Jesus' identification of speaking in tongues as a sign of the true believer (Mark 16:17). .

Agreed. And on top of that, there are no Scriptures where Jesus spoke in tongues.

 

[Major1]

What if it was prophecy? A man so moved by the Spirit could have very easily begun by calling out Simon's sins, and telling him that this idea of "buying" the Holy Spirit is impossible. Nobody can put God in a box, and if they try, God will break out of the box, or leave.

We can be sure that there is no prophecy today. We have the completed Word of God with clearly says in two places, Deut. and the Rev. that we are not to add to the Word of God.

Any one giving a prophecy today then would be adding to the Word of God.

 

[Monk Brendan]

Any one giving a prophecy today then would be adding to the Word of God.

Prophecy is a clear word from the Lord to a particular group of people. It does happen, usually when the church needs "spanking."

 

[Major1]

Prophecy is a clear word from the Lord to a particular group of people. It does happen, usually when the church needs "spanking."

I disagree with all due respect to you. What you are referring to is "correction" not prophecy.

James 5:20........"
"Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins."

Rebuking a sinner, exposing corruption, correcting someone in love or disciplining the church is not a word of prophecy.
If so, Jesus and the Apostles who were our example to follow would have been in error.

1 Timothy 5:20.......
"Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear".

Luke 17:3 ..............
"Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him."

2 Timothy 4:2..........
"Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine".

Titus 1:13 ..............
"This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith".

Titus 2:15 .............
"These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee."

 

[Job8]

Name even one NT figure who never spoke in tongues and then explain how you know this.

John the Baptizer and the Lord Jesus Christ never spoke in tongues but were always filled with the Holy Spirit.

Indeed John called Christ the One who would baptize with the Holy Spirit, therefore whenever a sinner receives Christ as his Lord and Savior, he receives the gift of the Holy Ghost. But to be filled with the Spirit is to be always under the under of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Major1]

It's discussions such as this that make me wonder if Christian public forums do more harm than good, from this point of time I will leave you to your thoughts.

I hate to see you leave the thread. I would say to you that it is the Pentecostal denomination that has in fact twisted Scriptures in an effort to make them say what they want them to say instead of accepting them as they are, written to men as they are.

Speaking in tongues or as we see today, unintelligible gibberish did not exist in the Church until the Pentecostal Charismatic denomination came into exi9stance and they made it a part of their faith about 75 to 100 years ago. But speaking in tongues is a falsehood.

The Bible says that the people from other nations HEARD (Acts 2:6-8) in their own native tongue. What they actually experienced that day was HEARING IN TONGUES. Peter never spoke any language other than the Greek he normally spoke. It is IMPOSSIBLE to reconcile the jibber-jabber of Pentecostals today with the miracle of tongues in the Bible.

Acts 2:9-11 mentions sixteen different nations which were present on the Day of Pentecost. Acts 2:8 plainly states that each man HEARD the Gospel in his own native tongue in which he was born. How does this compare with the Charismatic speaking in tongues today that makes NO SENSE TO ANYONE.

 

[Biblicist]

I hate to see you leave the thread. I would say to you that it is the Pentecostal denomination that has in fact twisted Scriptures in an effort to make them say what they want them to say instead of accepting them as they are, written to men as they are.

Yes, I have been away from the forum for about seven weeks and time certainly flies.

Speaking in tongues or as we see today, unintelligible gibberish did not exist in the Church until the Pentecostal Charismatic denomination came into exi9stance and they made it a part of their faith about 75 to 100 years ago. But speaking in tongues is a falsehood.

The Bible says that the people from other nations HEARD (Acts 2:6-8) in their own native tongue. What they actually experienced that day was HEARING IN TONGUES. Peter never spoke any language other than the Greek he normally spoke. It is IMPOSSIBLE to reconcile the jibber-jabber of Pentecostals today with the miracle of tongues in the Bible.

Acts 2:9-11 mentions sixteen different nations which were present on the Day of Pentecost. Acts 2:8 plainly states that each man HEARD the Gospel in his own native tongue in which he was born. How does this compare with the Charismatic speaking in tongues today that makes NO SENSE TO ANYONE.

One of the strangest aspects of reading material by the vast majority of cessationists is with how they will happily quote Acts 2 but where they will make no reference to Pauls indepth treatise on tongues within 1 Corinthians 12, 13 & 14; where I would expect that if we were to pluck maybe a 100 people off the street who had no prior Biblical knowledge, where we were to have them read First Corinthians, then I would expect all of them to recognise that tongues are always spoken to the Father within inarticulate tongues.

This unwillingness or failure to address the key chapters on tongues within First Corinthians is indeed odd, where maybe it goes unoticed within cessationist circles but when such comments are addressed to those of us who are more familiar with the things of the Holy Spirit then it can certainly leave us somewhat bewildered.

Edit: Reworded last line

 

[swordsman1]

One of the strangest aspects of reading material by the vast majority of cessationists is with how they will happily quote Acts 2 but where they will make no reference to Pauls indepth treatise on tongues within 1 Corinthians 12, 13 & 14; where I would expect that if we were to pluck maybe a 100 people off the street who had no prior Biblical knowledge, where we were to have them read First Corinthians, then I would expect all of them to recognise that tongues are always spoken to the Father within inarticulate tongues.

This unwillingness or failure to address the key chapters on tongues within First Corinthians is indeed odd, where maybe it goes unoticed within cessationist circles but when such comments are addressed to those of us who are more familiar with the things of the Holy Spirit then it can certainly leave us somewhat bewildered.

Edit: Reworded last line

I have never been afraid to engage in 1 Cor 12-14. By carefully exegesis of those verses it can be clearly shown that the continuationist reasoning for their brand of tongues is flawed and their 'proof texts' (such as 1 Cor 13:1 and 1 Cor 14:2) are misinterpretations.

 

[Biblicist]

I have never been afraid to engage in 1 Cor 12-14. By carefully exegesis of those verses in can be clearly shown that the continuationist reasoning for their brand of tongues is flawed and their 'proof texts' (such as 1 Cor 13:1 and 1 Cor 14:2) are misinterpretations.

It's one thing not to be afraid I suppose, but it can be another thing to be willing to accept what the text has to say.

 

[Major1]

Yes, I have been away from the forum for about seven weeks and time certainly flies.


One of the strangest aspects of reading material by the vast majority of cessationists is with how they will happily quote Acts 2 but where they will make no reference to Pauls indepth treatise on tongues within 1 Corinthians 12, 13 & 14; where I would expect that if we were to pluck maybe a 100 people off the street who had no prior Biblical knowledge, where we were to have them read First Corinthians, then I would expect all of them to recognise that tongues are always spoken to the Father within inarticulate tongues.

This unwillingness or failure to address the key chapters on tongues within First Corinthians is indeed odd, where maybe it goes unoticed within cessationist circles but when such comments are addressed to those of us who are more familiar with the things of the Holy Spirit then it can certainly leave us somewhat bewildered.

Edit: Reworded last line

It seems to be the case. I am however a "Cessationist". I am of the understanding that tongues were a sign gift given to the apostles to verify their position as an apostle. It was a "sign" to others that they had the authority of Jesus in all that that did and said.

It seems to me that 1 Corth. 12-14 is in fact a correction to the church about tongues and their incorrect usage in the church at Corinth.

Blessing to you and I hope you are well.

 

[Major1]

I have never been afraid to engage in 1 Cor 12-14. By carefully exegesis of those verses it can be clearly shown that the continuationist reasoning for their brand of tongues is flawed and their 'proof texts' (such as 1 Cor 13:1 and 1 Cor 14:2) are misinterpretations.

Agreed.

1 Corth. 13:8 clearly says ..........
"Love never fails, but whether there be prophecies, they shall FAIL, whether they be tongues THEY SHALL CEASE...........".