• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Featured Assembly of God and Tongues

Discussion in 'Denomination Specific Theology' started by IAMANOBODY2015, Jul 9, 2016.

  1. Bob Carabbio

    Bob Carabbio Old guy -

    +196
    Charismatic
    Married
    Not responsive to ANYTHING I said in my post - Ignored.
     
  2. Biblicist

    Biblicist Full Gospel believer

    +939
    Australia
    Pentecostal
    Married
    Oops...it seems that I may have hit a nerve.
    You are certainly free to hold to your own opinion, in fact some of the theologians and commentors that I quoted do not agree that Paul is connecting 1Cor 13:1 with angelic or heavenly tongues. My post with the commentaries was merely provided to point out that for well over 40 years that this has been a strong and well debated question, where I could hardly imagine a commentary that has been published over the past 40 years ignoring this point.

    From a Pentecostal perspective which also has the support of a number of what we would deem to be cessationist scholars, they also agree that Paul was referring to angelic or heavenly languages or at least that that this is what the Corinthians themselves thought, where some are not prepared to offer their own views.

    For those of us who can pray in the Spirit (tongues), it is hard to imagine when the Holy Spirit prays on our behalf to the Father that he would be forced to speak a frail mortal language; do people actually believe that the Godhead and the Angelic hosts do not communicate via a heavenly tongue/communication?
     
  3. Major1

    Major1 Well-Known Member

    +2,176
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    That is your opinion and it is pretty much the same as your theology on this subject, YOUR denominational opinion and not Biblical truth.
     
  4. Major1

    Major1 Well-Known Member

    +2,176
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    The same as the Bible explains to us in the Word of God. We are baptized in the Holy Spirit at the moment we accept Christ.

    God bless you my friend but as a Pentecostal you make all references to the “baptism of the Spirit” refer to a postconversion (after conversion) pouring forth of the Spirit. You talk about the “baptism of the Spirit” as being a “second experience” following salvation.

    I am sure that you are convinced in the theology of the AOG teaching, I however am going to stick with the Biblical evidence which is: 1 Corinthians 12:13 where Paul says that all of the Corinthians became members of Christ’s body when they were baptized by the Spirit.

    Acts 1 & 2 tell us that "baptism with the Spirit” ----1:5
    “Holy Spirit comes on you” -----1:8
    filled with the Holy Spirit” ----2:4
    “pour out my Spirit” ----2:17
    “poured out” ----2:33

    The best understanding of the baptism of the Spirit is, in my humble opinion, that it is an outpouring of God’s Spirit which can occur many times. So should we seek a “second experience?” Absolutely. And a third, and a fourth and . . . . We need special outpourings of God’s Spirit many times in our lives.
     
  5. Major1

    Major1 Well-Known Member

    +2,176
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    Personally I am glad I do not have to read all of those chaps.

    I only have to read ONE copy and it is the bible itself.

    1 Corth. 13:8....
    "Love never fails but where there be prophecies they will fail; where there be tongues THEY WILL CEASE; where there be knowledge it shal vanish away".

    Simple enough to me!
     
  6. Major1

    Major1 Well-Known Member

    +2,176
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    The informed answer is that the expression “heavenly language” is nowhere found in Scripture.

    It is a Pentecostal denominational teaching hence it is un-Biblical.
     
  7. swordsman1

    swordsman1 Well-Known Member

    +632
    Christian
    So, Pentecostalism's foremost theologian Gordon Fee has to rely on an extra-biblical Jewish fairy tale, the Testament of Job, for evidence of tongues being a heavenly language. Talk about grasping at straws. That's rather like saying there is proof that lions can talk because one appears in the Wizard of Oz. And these people call themselves scholars?

    When it comes to biblical evidence their entire doctrine hinges on a highly dubious interpretation of a single verse, which is easy to refute. When Paul said that even if he spoke in the tongues of angels, but not have love,.... he was obviously speaking hypothetically. None of the 5 parallel statements in 1 Cor 13:1-3 are clearly meant to be taken literally.
     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2016
  8. Bob Carabbio

    Bob Carabbio Old guy -

    +196
    Charismatic
    Married
    Who???
     
  9. Biblicist

    Biblicist Full Gospel believer

    +939
    Australia
    Pentecostal
    Married
    If you were to have carefully read the excerpt that I provided by Fee, you would have noticed where he said "Such an understanding of heavenly speech . . ." which refers to the possiblity that the Corinthians could have been pre-conditioned to their way of thinking by their own Jewish traditions; this is how a respectable scholar tackles any question, where he will include all possible factors that may effect the beliefs of any individual or group.

    I did notice in an earlier post that you said that you have "undertaken extensive research" into First Corinthians, which came as a bit of a surprise as by your own admission you seem to be totally unaware of the research sources that any serious student of First Corinthians (let alone Full Gospel theology) would be familiar with - very strange indeed.

    You would undoubtedly find it advantageous to undertake a course on study principles and techniques, though these courses can be a bit hard to track down.
     
  10. Biblicist

    Biblicist Full Gospel believer

    +939
    Australia
    Pentecostal
    Married
    Gordon D. Fee was the first Pentecostal (AoG) to obtain an accredited theological doctoral degree, though by his own recognition he is not so much a theologian but an exegetical scholar, they're the chappies who the theologians refer to.

    His book on First Corinthians (1987) was considered to set the benchmark for commentaries on First Corinthians where I would expect that every theologian or scholar worth their salt would have a copy of his 1986 edition or his 2014 edition of their shelves. Fee, along with D.A. Carson and Wayne Grudem who each released their books within two years of each other are accredited with changing the theological focus of the church from one of cessationism to that of Continuism, where Continuist theology seized the so called theological high ground during the 1990's.
     
  11. Biblicist

    Biblicist Full Gospel believer

    +939
    Australia
    Pentecostal
    Married
    If you head back to my post 279 and check the credentials of the 17 scholars and commentators that I quoted, you will discover that the majority of them are neither Pentecostal or charismatic, where some are even outright hardcore cessationists (remember John MacArthur), where others are deemed to be open-but-cautious (see post 269).

    It is always a good idea to approach the Scriptures not through a given preconceived agenda but where we are each open to the leading of the Spirit.
     
  12. Biblicist

    Biblicist Full Gospel believer

    +939
    Australia
    Pentecostal
    Married
    Oh, so you understand that the Ministry of the Holy Spirit (healings, prophecy, tongues etc) throughout the Church Age will only be completed when the Lord returns with the future Kingdom of God, which we refer to as the Perousia!
     
  13. Biblicist

    Biblicist Full Gospel believer

    +939
    Australia
    Pentecostal
    Married
    As I have never said any such thing then I will have to ask you where you got your information? As you said that you have spent years within a Pentecostal congregation, I am surprised that you have not understood that I do not hold to the position of subsequence which I explained in post 269 and probably on a number of other occassions on this particular thread; which I grant is a position that I only discarded maybe three or so years back.

    As the classic-Pentecostal position of subsequence is based completely on (a misreading of) Luke's writings, where most contemporary AoG scholars now recognise that Paul does not speak of subsequence, then I realised that I had succumbed to tradition and my own 'experience' which is why I now understand that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is soterical and not one of subsequence.
     
  14. swordsman1

    swordsman1 Well-Known Member

    +632
    Christian
    And if that is his principle piece of evidence for tongues being the language of angels it just shows how weak the Pentecostal position is. He can clearly offer no biblical proof.

    That is rather hypocritical coming from someone who has demonstrably and repeatedly failed to adhere to the principles of bible interpretation when attempting to justify their position. And the principles of hermeneutics are certainly not hard to track down.
     
  15. swordsman1

    swordsman1 Well-Known Member

    +632
    Christian
    MacArthur didn't say tongues was a heavenly language. Instead he rightly pointed out that the only description of the gift in scripture was given in Acts 2.
     
  16. Biblicist

    Biblicist Full Gospel believer

    +939
    Australia
    Pentecostal
    Married
    Oops . . . for a minute there I thought that I had inadvertantly stated in my original post with the 17 scholars and commentators that MacArthur was saying that he realised that the tongues of 1Cor 13:1 were rightfully angelic tongues, where originally I only included him in the list to demonstrate to those who did not already know that any scholar or commentator (MacArthur is a commentator and not a scholar) worth his salt understood that this was a key point of discussion with this particular verse. Why I pointed out MacArthur to Major1 in a subsequent post is beyond me as I should have point to others such as Dan Wallace.
     
  17. Biblicist

    Biblicist Full Gospel believer

    +939
    Australia
    Pentecostal
    Married
    Actually I did not recommend a course on the Principles of Hermeneutics but with one that is aimed toward study principles and techniques, where the two differing courses are not one and the same.

    There are of course many fine courses on hermeneutics available but there are very few courses that will show people how to use the various technical books such as commentaries and lexicons, they are about as common as hen's teeth. Sadly, there are few (if any) structured hermeneutical courses that will even begin to show people how to use these important tools. It is debatable if someone should first undertake a module on hermeneutics before one that is based on the various technical aids or vice-versa, but as study aids courses are rare then the question is probably moot.

    Edit: It is one of those unfortunate things that most people do not know the difference between courses that are based on hermeneutics and those (rare courses) that are based on using the various technical aids, where this also applies to advanced courses for software packages such as BibleWorks10 and Logos; I doubt that many salaried church staffers would even know the difference.
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2016
  18. swordsman1

    swordsman1 Well-Known Member

    +632
    Christian
    You didn't quote Wallace in your claim that 1 Cor 13:1 is saying tongues is a heavenly language. If you had you would have found this:

    The fourfold condition is used in a broad way. Paul builds his argument from the actual (he does have prophetic powers) to the hypothetical (he does not understand all mysteries or have all knowledge [otherwise, he would be omniscient!]). This is his pattern for the first three verses of 1 Cor 13: to argue from the actual to the hypothetical. It is therefore probably that Paul could speak in the tongues of human beings, but not in the tongues of angels (v1). 1 Cor 13:1 then, offers no comfort for those who view tongues as a heavenly language.

    Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament By Daniel B. Wallace p471
     
  19. Biblicist

    Biblicist Full Gospel believer

    +939
    Australia
    Pentecostal
    Married
    I think that you are right. My reference to Wallace went from memory (big mistake when I'm tired), where I quoted Wallace in post 240 point 13 in relation to 1Cor 13:1 and not 13:10. This is why I sat back in the office today and said, right, I'm going home, as the brain cells are failing to line up side by side; so after a good nights sleep all should be well. It's not a good thing to try and keep track of so many lines of thought all at once when your (I'm) tired as ditzy errors can easily creep in, even at the best of times.

    Your reference to Wallace's Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics p.471 has me intrigued, where if he were speaking as a theologian then I would put his summary down to his need to protect his worldview, but as he is speaking as an exegetical scholar then I want to spend some time going through a few things that I am surprised that he has said - and being tired means that I will be going ssloooww.
     
  20. Uber Genius

    Uber Genius "Super Genius"

    +1,018
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    So it seems you have a rich experience of people "faking" tongues and a small experience of people actually speaking in tongues. Point is you could tell the difference between an actual language, even if you didn't have a clue what language it was, and babbling gibberish.

    I used to challenge my ceasationist friends to just fake tongues as they supposed I did. They had no different phonemes than there base language. After a couple tries everyone in the group could distinguish the broad range of sounds, and pitch changes, inflections, guttural patterns that differentiated my genuine speaking in tongues from their babble.

    So point is so could you. And so tongues seem to still exist.

    Another point, fake money exists, but that doesn't reduce or eliminate the existence of real money does it?
     
Loading...