PENTECOSTALISM VS INTELLECTUAL CHRISTIANITY

[swordsman1]

Dude, it's not an insult, it's the truth, you are wrong. Funny thing is you don't even know what about cause you've automatically turned it into a debate to be won or lost again.

Maybe you ought to heed your own signature and debate scripture without with all the derogatory personal remarks.

 

[topher694]

Maybe you ought to heed your own signature and debate scripture without with all the derogatory personal remarks.

There have been no derogatory personal remarks. That's just deflection.

You've completely missed the point. Of my remarks, of others remarks, of my signature.

 

[Saint Steven]

I still see them as receiving 'the gift of healing' FROM the Holy Spirit. If it was my gift, I'd control it use. But since it is from Him I can only control 'by faith' whether or not, The Holy Spirit's POWER/gift is allowed to flow through me to them.

That's good. It reminds me of this.

1 Corinthians 14:32
The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets.

 

[swordsman1]

There have been no derogatory personal remarks. That's just deflection.

You've completely missed the point. Of my remarks, of others remarks, of my signature.

Really? Maybe you ought to read your own posts.

So far you have agreed with the accusation of Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit again me; then accused ME of playing a card; accused ME of "poor behavior"; goading me by saying that "I am good at being wrong"; belittling me by saying you "feel truly bad for" me; and I am "able to see through the eyes of debate and can't see the compassion in others"

And then you claim you have made no derogatory personal remarks!!!!

 

[topher694]

Really? Maybe you ought to read your own posts.

So far you have agreed with the accusation of Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit again me; then accused ME of playing a card; accused ME of "poor behavior"; goading me by saying that "I am good at being wrong"; belittling me by saying you "feel truly bad for" me; and I am "able to see through the eyes of debate and can't see the compassion in others"

And then you claim you have made no derogatory personal remarks!!!!

You are just illustrating my point. You are the one who keeps reading the worst possible intentions into people's posts.

A) I did not accuse you of, or agree that you were blaspheming the Holy Spirit, I said I agreed it was a legitimate concern that comes from a place of compassion not arguing.

B) You are the one that first used the language of, and accused Alex of "playing a card" I responded to that language. Then pointed out a second time that YOU were the one pushing the narrative that it was a card to be played. To put it another way, I (and I think Alex) do not see it as playing a card, only you do.

C) When I say I "feel truly bad for you" did you ever consider taking the words at face value? It wasn't meant to be or written as a derogatory comment, it was meant exactly how it sounds. I honestly have a compassionate concern. And here is why:

D) "Good at being wrong" and "able to see through the eyes of compassion". Here's what this all really boils down to: I have not been trying to debate the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit with you. I have been talking about your treatment of Alex this entire time and your characterization of his post which happened to be about blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. I feel like you were being very unfair to him and treating him poorly, hence the "poor behavior". You never even acknowledged that one way or the other, your immediate response was to argue about the blasphemy part. Then a second time. And a third... Alex posted a comment confirming what I had said, so, you were wrong. Wrong about him and his intentions, and yet, you kept at it. So, you continued to be wrong. Hence my remarks. Unless you think you know his heart and intentions better than he does. My other points were directed towards the fact that you refused to see that even if you disagreed with Alex and others that they could have good, compassionate intentions. I truly do feel bad when people see the world that way, I've come across it in ministry many times and it is very sad... and not in a demeaning way whatsoever.

 

[Hillsage]

I think we agree there are two uses of the gifts of tongues, corporate and personal/prayer. Corporate provides edification to the body of Christ and personal provides edification unto the individual.

Here is a rundown of my opinion.

There are TWO SOURCES of tongues.
1. MY SPIRIT (1Co 14:14)
2. THE HOLY SPIRIT (1Co 12:11)

There are THREE PURPOSSES of tongues.

1. Self edification. (1Cor 14:4)
2. Church edification. (1Cor 14:4, 5)
3. World edification. (Acts 2:8)

There are three categories of tongues with three purposes.

1. Prayer tongues, FROM MY SPIRIT (1Cor 14:14) PRAYING to God, as I will, for SELF- EDIFICATION (1Cor 14:4) (angelic/spiritual/heavenly language).

2. Tongues WITH interpretation FROM THE Holy Spirit and manifested individually, as HE wills, for CHURCH EDIFICATION (unknown language to giver AND interpreter, but MAY be a known tongue of man). Tongues with interpretation is 2 gifts equal to prophecy (1Cor 14:5). (Spiritual/heavenly but also tongues of man/earthly)

3. Tongues WITHOUT interpretation FROM THE Holy Spirit for ministry of the gospel for WORLD EDIFICATION. Known languages of man, unknown to giver, known to receiver (Acts 2:8).

The corporate tongue is when The Holy Spirit utters an inspirational message through a Spirit-filled believer in the assembly, and then another believer will utter by The Holy Spirit the interpretation of that message. Both messages edify the assembly of believers and will have a tangible witness of edification inside their spirit when each is spoken. The edification happens because it originates from The Holy Spirit operating the gifts.

I agree and that's in my 1 Cor 14:5 bible supported 'opinion' above.

The personal/prayer tongue is for each Spirit-filled believer to operate for their own edification. It is not operated by The Holy Spirit but by the individual's human spirit. This operation of the gift will only provide edification to the individual and not the assembly. It is a highly elevated form of prayer that is between GOD and that individual.

With one caveat. Your definition of "Spirit-filled".
But I won't go there in an attempt to keep the post short...like you did.

Both operations of the gift of tongues are in an unknown language, as The Holy Spirit spoke through Paul about it,...

This point doesn't agree with my #3 point above concerning world edification.

But the corporate tongue with interpretation is considered equal to prophecy in the assembly,..

Yep, that's bible too in my #2 point above backed by 1 Cor 14:5.

That should be a start for us. I've listed the corporate tongue and well as the prayer tongue and provided some scripture so you can see where I'm making my determinations.

I think we're pretty close to each other, and way closer to and understanding of the totality of scripture than the "ungifted/unlearned" are even capable of comprehending, as well as being experientially qualified to judge accurately. IMO anyway.

How about we discuss the point I made earlier about singing in tongues to each other along with psalms and hymms?

RSV EPH 5:18 And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery/asotia; but be filled with the Spirit, 19 addressing/laleo one another/heautou in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with all your heart,

The interesting Greek definition for the word "excess/debauchery" is asotia: properly unsavedness, i.e. (by implication) profligacy.
So, do you believe in eternal security, I do? If so, then what do you do with the "unsavedness" definition above?

2980 laleo: to talk, i.e. utter words
1438 heautou: him- (her-, it-, them-, also [in conjunction with the personal pronoun of the other persons] my-, thy-, our-, your-) self (selves), etc.

Your thoughts?

 

[swordsman1]

You are the one who keeps reading the worst possible intentions into people's posts.

There you go again with the derogatory personal remarks.

A) I did not accuse you of, or agree that you were blaspheming the Holy Spirit, I said I agreed it was a legitimate concern that comes from a place of compassion not arguing.

B) You are the one that first used the language of, and accused Alex of "playing a card" I responded to that language. Then pointed out a second time that YOU were the one pushing the narrative that it was a card to be played. To put it another way, I (and I think Alex) do not see it as playing a card, only you do.

He said it was a "warning" against me, Dave L, and "all others who deny the gift of speaking in tongues" - that I was in danger of blaspheming the Spirit. That is the all too common scare tactic card, not an act of compassion. And you agreed with it, and then you accused me of being at fault!!

C) When I say I "feel truly bad for you" did you ever consider taking the words at face value? It wasn't meant to be or written as a derogatory comment, it was meant exactly how it sounds. I honestly have a compassionate concern.

Come off it. This is nothing but a barbed personal insult, not a compassionate post of concern....

"That's ok, you can be wrong. You seem to be good at it. I truly feel bad for you that you only seem to be able to see through the eyes of debate and can't see the compassion in others."​

D) "Good at being wrong" and "able to see through the eyes of compassion". Here's what this all really boils down to: I have not been trying to debate the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit with you. I have been talking about your treatment of Alex this entire time and your characterization of his post which happened to be about blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. I feel like you were being very unfair to him and treating him poorly, hence the "poor behavior". You never even acknowledged that one way or the other, your immediate response was to argue about the blasphemy part. Then a second time. And a third... Alex posted a comment confirming what I had said, so, you were wrong. Wrong about him and his intentions, and yet, you kept at it. So, you continued to be wrong. Hence my remarks. Unless you think you know his heart and intentions better than he does. My other points were directed towards the fact that you refused to see that even if you disagreed with Alex and others that they could have good, compassionate intentions. I truly do feel bad when people see the world that way, I've come across it in ministry many times and it is very sad... and not in a demeaning way whatsoever.

I suggest you look again at Alex's post. There was no compassion there that I could see. It was the standard "I am warning you not to blaspheme the Holy Spirit". If you think I was at fault by dismissing this oft used scare tactic against cessationists you ought to have reported me. Not broken the forum rules yourself by launching a personal attack on me.

 

[topher694]

You are the one who keeps reading the worst possible intentions into people's posts.

There you go again with the derogatory personal remarks.

This is not a derogatory personal remark. You have misread my comments and my intentions multiple times spinning them to mean things negative things I did not say. You keep reading bad intentions into my posts. I should know, I wrote them. Unless you are saying you know what I meant better than me.......

Come off it. This is nothing but a barbed personal insult, not a compassionate post of concern....

Oh I guess you DO think you know my mind better than me.

btw, according to your own vague definition this would clearly be a derogatory personal remark directed at me.

I suggest you look again at Alex's post. There was no compassionate there that I could see. It was the standard "I am warning you not to blaspheme the Holy Spirit".

This is EXACTLY why I said, "That's ok, you can be wrong. You seem to be good at it. I truly feel bad for you that you only seem to be able to see through the eyes of debate and can't see the compassion in others."
You were wrong on this statement. And you continue to be. I did see it as compassion. I said exactly that in my first post on the subject, that's why I took the time to write in the first place. Alex then posted in agreement with that sentiment. And even now you refuse to accept either of us at our word, or even consider the possibility.



Now all of this IS what my signature is about. About refusing to debate with pride and arrogance. You can consider that another personal attack if you like, but it isn't a personal attack when you keep insisting you know people's intentions better than they themselves do... that's textbook pride and arrogance. So, goodbye. I'll use the ignore button and be on my way.

 

[Saint Steven]

Here is a rundown of my opinion.

There are TWO SOURCES of tongues.
1. MY SPIRIT (1Co 14:14)
2. THE HOLY SPIRIT (1Co 12:11)

There are THREE PURPOSSES of tongues.

1. Self edification. (1Cor 14:4)
2. Church edification. (1Cor 14:4, 5)
3. World edification. (Acts 2:8)

There are three categories of tongues with three purposes.

1. Prayer tongues, FROM MY SPIRIT (1Cor 14:14) PRAYING to God, as I will, for SELF- EDIFICATION (1Cor 14:4) (angelic/spiritual/heavenly language).

2. Tongues WITH interpretation FROM THE Holy Spirit and manifested individually, as HE wills, for CHURCH EDIFICATION (unknown language to giver AND interpreter, but MAY be a known tongue of man). Tongues with interpretation is 2 gifts equal to prophecy (1Cor 14:5). (Spiritual/heavenly but also tongues of man/earthly)

3. Tongues WITHOUT interpretation FROM THE Holy Spirit for ministry of the gospel for WORLD EDIFICATION. Known languages of man, unknown to giver, known to receiver (Acts 2:8).


I agree and that's in my 1 Cor 14:5 bible supported 'opinion' above.


With one caveat. Your definition of "Spirit-filled".
But I won't go there in an attempt to keep the post short...like you did.



This point doesn't agree with my #3 point above concerning world edification.


Yep, that's bible too in my #2 point above backed by 1 Cor 14:5.



I think we're pretty close to each other, and way closer to and understanding of the totality of scripture than the "ungifted/unlearned" are even capable of comprehending, as well as being experientially qualified to judge accurately. IMO anyway.

How about we discuss the point I made earlier about singing in tongues to each other along with psalms and hymms?

RSV EPH 5:18 And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery/asotia; but be filled with the Spirit, 19 addressing/laleo one another/heautou in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with all your heart,

The interesting Greek definition for the word "excess/debauchery" is asotia: properly unsavedness, i.e. (by implication) profligacy.
So, do you believe in eternal security, I do? If so, then what do you do with the "unsavedness" definition above?

2980 laleo: to talk, i.e. utter words
1438 heautou: him- (her-, it-, them-, also [in conjunction with the personal pronoun of the other persons] my-, thy-, our-, your-) self (selves), etc.

Your thoughts?

Wow. Awesome presentation.
Do ministry tongues (intercession/healing/deliverance) and warfare tongues fit in here somewhere?

 

[swordsman1]

This is not a derogatory personal remark. You have misread my comments and my intentions multiple times spinning them to mean things negative things I did not say. You keep reading bad intentions into my posts. I should know, I wrote them. Unless you are saying you know what I meant better than me.......

It is a personal remark. And it is derogatory. You are now accusing me of "reading the worst possible intentions into others posts". Can I suggest you lay off the personal remarks completely.

This is EXACTLY why I said, "That's ok, you can be wrong. You seem to be good at it. I truly feel bad for you that you only seem to be able to see through the eyes of debate and can't see the compassion in others."
You were wrong on this statement. And you continue to be. I did see it as compassion. I said exactly that in my first post on the subject, that's why I took the time to write in the first place. Alex then posted in agreement with that sentiment. And even now you refuse to accept either of us at our word, or even consider the possibility.

You honestly think it is polite and compassionate to say to someone that they are good at being wrong? (wrong being your own opinion)...and how bad you feel for me...as well as all the other derogatory personal remarks in that post?

Now all of this IS what my signature is about. About refusing to debate with pride and arrogance. You can consider that another personal attack if you like, but it isn't a personal attack when you keep insisting you know people's intentions better than they themselves do... that's textbook pride and arrogance. So, goodbye. I'll use the ignore button and be on my way.

I can only read people's intentions by what they write. If you think I am mis-reading you then I suggest you review your posts before you submit them, because they appear very demeaning.

 

[St. Helens]

ADMIN HAT ON
Closed permanently:
Multiple flaming and goading violations.
ADMIN HAT OFF​