Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Don't worry. I got one too! I didn't mean to flame anyone, but I guess my choice of words made the person who complained think that I was flaming him.Since Oscarr didn't seem to get, or follow, the direction I was asking for, but you 'kinda' did, I am more than willing to pursue this subject with you. BUT first, before I would do so, I have a question to ask of you. Was it you who complained to moderators about me on our last thread together, which resulted in the moderating team giving me a warning, based upon 'Flaming and Goading'?
I'm sorry, and a bit shocked, at your being 'warned' also. Do you know it was a "him"? I suppose it hurt me for more than one reason. It's only the 4th warning I'd had since coming to CF 9 years ago. And now, with the 'new regime' I've already received 2. I mainly stay in UNORTHODOX, because I AM and that's for sure. But because I am 'so much so', I've 'feel' I've had plenty of opportunities to report others for much worse than I've been 'warned' for. But I refuse 'to do so', for my own reasons. The thread was heated for sure, but I'll wait to hear a response from Jennifer before saying more. Thank you for this post Oscarr, and your 'gift' here as well.Don't worry. I got one too! I didn't mean to flame anyone, but I guess my choice of words made the person who complained think that I was flaming him.
Hi brother! At these various services you attended who interprets? I’m not a cessationist. I have witnessed too much to be one. However, every Pentecostal prayer group, Bible study and service save one (where the pastor told everyone if they could not interpret to keep to themselves and God) not a one interpreter.So, Dave L - you say I only think I speak in Tongues? Do you say, like Mal'ak, that I along with all charismatics only do this for a "high" that it is a fleshly pleasure to be likened unto sex? That I am inviting demons into my life by praying in the Holy Spirit?
This is incredible -- there are not only entire denominations which use Tongues, but many within all denominations are charismatic -- there are Charismatic Episcopal churches (I used to attend one) there are charismatic Catholic services I have attended.
Eh there’s a difference. Jesus said that because He was standing there and the unbelieving Jews witnessed His works. Even seeing they did not believe.That's not a fear tactic. Read the context.
Jesus was accused of casting out demons by the power of Satan. His response was to inform them that this action was blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. (attributing the work of God to Satan) That is what we see here when someone claims that speaking in tongues is from Satan. No difference.
There’s a couple of take aways there. First there must be an interpreter and second if there is a need for an interpreter then not everyone is gifted with tongues. Something to consider.Paul said what our Bible says, which is plain.
1 Corinthians 14:27-28 (NIV2011)
If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret.
If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and to God.
If you choose not to follow the above instruction specially made for the tongue dispute, you are not from Christ. Period!
That’s a very good one. Lol.If they are going to speak about tongues this way, there should at least be some interpretation to make it edifying. lol
Never heard of this but have prayed with people and some in the group knew the prayer requests of those who were not moving their lips or making any sounds.Has anyone ever heard of 'tongues' manifesting non verbally? For example you can communicate a message via flash light and morse code. So not all communication is verbal, or transmitted through air compression. If there was a heavenly lanugage it would not be based on human vocal cord patterns and air compression. It might not even require a semantic structure and just be an emantion of pure meaning and intent. Has anyone ever heard of praying in a tongue without sound or semantic structure?
While I concur with the rest of your post, I feel I need to make a comment about this paragraph. It was not the common people who disbelieved Jesus. The record says that the common people heard Him gladly.Eh there’s a difference. Jesus said that because He was standing there and the unbelieving Jews witnessed His works. Even seeing they did not believe.
With #3 that is not a preference but a requirement.This might help you to understand what you saw going on in your friend's church.
Five Different kinds of tongues
1) Personal prayer language - Speaking to/with God
2) Intercessory prayer language - Praying for others in the Spirit
3) Prophetic prayer language - Addressing the whole church/preferably with interpretation
4) Singing in the Spirit - Singing in tongues/worship activity
5) Evangelistic language - Speaking the message of God to a people in their own language (not yours)
Have to ask...where did you get the BDAG info from. Curious if you found an online source or is it from LOGOS?
Strong's Concordance
Definition: adv. (a) of time: just now, even now; just at hand, immediately, (b) of logical connection: now then, (c) in commands and appeals: at this instant.
Thayer's Greek Lexicon
νυνί; (νῦν with iota demonstrative (Krüger, § 25, 6, 4f; Kühner, § 180, e. (Jelf, § 160, e.); Alexander Buttmann (1873) Gram. § 80, 2)), in Attic note, at this very moment (precisely now, neither before nor after; Latinnunc ipsum), and only of Time, almost always with the present, very rarely with the future (cf. Lob. ad Phryn., p. 19). Not found in the N. T. except in the writings of Paul and in a few places in Acts and the Epistle to the Hebrews; and it differs here in no respect from the simple νῦν; cf. Fritzsche, Romans, i., p. 182; (Winer's Grammar, 23);
1. of Time: with a present (Job 30:9), Acts 24:13 L T Tr WH; Romans 15:23, 25; 1 Corinthians 13:13 (ἄρτι ... τότε δέ ... νυνί δέ); 2 Corinthians 8:11, 22; Philemon 1:9, 11 (namely, ὄντα); with a perfect indicating continuance, Romans 3:21 (others refer this to 2); with a preterite (Psalm 16:11 ()), Romans 6:22 (opposed to τότε); Romans 7:6; Ephesians 2:13 (opposed to 1, τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ); Colossians 1:22 () (and Colossians 3:8; also Romans 11:30 WH marginal reading) (opposed to πότε); Colossians 1:26 (R G L marginal reading; cf. Winers Grammar, § 63 I. 2 b.; Buttmann, 382 (328)) (opposed to ἀπό τῶν αἰώνων); with a future, Job 7:21; Baruch 6:4 (Epistle Jeremiah 3); 2 Macc. 10:10; τῆς πρός ὑμᾶς νυνί ἀπολογίας, Acts 22:1.
2. contrary to Greek usage, in stating a conclusion (see νῦν, 2), but since the case stands thus (as it is): 1 Cor. ( R G T L marginal reading); R G (i. e. since ὁ γλώσσῃ λαλῶν without an interpretation cannot edify the church); but now (German so aber), Hebrews 9:26 L T Tr WH; after a conditional statement with εἰ (see νῦν, at the end), Romans 7:17; 1 Corinthians 12:18 (R G T WH marginal reading); ; Hebrews 8:6 (here L Tr marginal reading WH text νῦν), cf. ; Rec., cf. ; (Buttmann, § 151, 26).
BDAG Lexicon:
νυνί
νυνί adv. of time (Hdt. 7, 229 al.; SIG 259, 11 [338/337 B.C.]; PPetr III, 42 H [8] f, 4 [III B.C.]; POxy 490, 5 [124 A.D.]; 506, 25; 908, 5; LXX [Thackeray 191]; TestJob; JosAs cod. A 12, 7; 13, 5 [p. 55, 15; 57, 12 Bat.]; Joseph.; Ar. 13, 7; Just., D. 11, 2; Tat. 28, 1) an emphatic form of νῦν made by adding to it the demonstrative suffix ι (Kühner-Bl. I 620; B-D-F §64, 2; Rob. 296; 523) without alteration of mng. (Mayser 456). Except for Ac 22:1 v.l.; 24:13; Hb 8:6;9:26; 11:16 v.l.; ἐπεὶ δὲ ν̣υ̣ν̣ί̣ AcPt Ox 849; 1 Cl 47:5; 2 Cl 2:3, only in the Pauline writings and there always ν. δέ (the ms. tradition oft. varies betw. νῦν and νυνί)
① temporal marker with focus on the moment as such, now
ⓐ w. the pres. (Job 30:9; Jos., Ant. 14, 404) Ac 24:13; Ro 15:23, 25; 2 Cor 8:22; Phlm 9; cp.11; perh. also AcPt Ox 849.
ⓑ w. the perf. in pres. sense ν. δὲ … πεφανέρωται but now … has been revealed Ro 3:21.
ⓒ w. aor. (Job 30:1; Just., D. 11, 2) Ro 6:22; 7:6; 11:30 v.l.; Eph 2:13; Col 1:22; 2 Cl 2:3. Impv.: 2 Cor 8:11; Col 3:8; 1 Cl 47:5.
ⓓ w. a subst. (PRyl 111, 4 [161 A.D.] τὴν νυνεὶ γυναῖκά μου) ἡ πρὸς ὑμᾶς ν. ἀπολογία the defense which I now make before you Ac 22:1.
② temporal marker with focus on a prevailing situation, w. the idea of time weakened or entirely absent, now, as it is
ⓐ ν. δέ but now, as the situation is Ro 7:17; 1 Cor 13:13; 14:6 v.l. (Tat. 28, 1).
ⓑ introducing the real situation after an unreal conditional clause or sentence but, as a matter of fact 1 Cor 5:11 v.l.; 12:18; 15:20; Hb 8:6; 9:26; 11:16 v.l.—DELG s.v. νυ. M-M.
First Corinthians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary
By Joseph A. Fitzmyer
13. And now faith, hope, love remain, these three. So Paul draws his description of love to a close, with a verse that has many problems, not the least of which is the connection of the threesome to what has immediately preceded in vv. 10-12 and the addition of faith and hope to a discussion that has involved so far only love. It is a formula that is meant to terminate the discussion of love and its relation to the pneumatika, but it introduces a further discussion of two of them; and its wording raises a number of questions.
One thing is clear, however, pistis is not the same as that in v. 2, "faith to move mountains"; rather it now denotes the full sense of saving and justifying "faith," the response to the Christian gospel, as in other Pauline passages (Rom 10:6-10: belief in the death and resurrection of Christ Jesus), and especially in those in which the triad further occurs (l Thess 1:3; 5:8; Gal 5:5—6; cf. Col 1:4-5). Note also the linking of love to faith in 1 Cor 16:13-14; Thess 3:6; Phlm 5. The triad, however, is meant to replace the threesome of tongues, prophecy, and knowledge of vv. 1-2 and 8.
The first difficulty is the meaning of the adv. nyni, "now." It is scarcely to be understood as the equivalent of the temporal adv. arti (v. 12a), which was contrasted with tole, "then," another adv. of time. It is rather expressing a logical conclusion, as in Rom 7:17: “but now,” i.e., as the situation is (BDAC, 682). Cf. also il Cor 12:18; 15:20; 2 Cor 8:11, l2.
While I fully agree that tongues along with interpretation is required when there are meetings where the public are invited to attend. And teaching meetings need normal language teaching, because if someone got up and tried to teach them with tongues, the people wouldn't get anything out of it.There’s a couple of take aways there. First there must be an interpreter and second if there is a need for an interpreter then not everyone is gifted with tongues. Something to consider.
You left out most of chapter 14 where the concern is the edification of the church. Paul concluded with what you posted above.
Don't claim for yourself what was written to what is arguably the most charismatic church known to man. A church where Paul said every one of them 'could' speak in tongues. You want to call it hyperbole....of course you would.
I'm not saying you haven't received the baptism FROM THE SPIRIT which gave us all a 'born again spirit' making us ALL a Charismatically 'ungifted, unlearned' Christian. I'm saying you never received the baptism OF THE SPIRIT which comes from Jesus the baptizer (Matt 3:11, Mar 1:8, Luk 3:16).
1CO 14:23 If, therefore, the whole church (of Corinth) assembles and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad?
Aren't you just still denying you are in the group that Paul was wanting the Charismatic church to not offend. Differing translations call you guys different things. But it all boils down to 'those without' coming into a Charismatic church full of 'those that have'. The RSV above calls you 'outsiders' other translations call you "unlearned, ungifted". And the verse ends with you guys calling us mad....or basically "babblers or gibberish speakers".
There's no reason to even go there.Eh there’s a difference. Jesus said that because He was standing there and the unbelieving Jews witnessed His works. Even seeing they did not believe.
I don’t think you can apply your personal experiences with God whether in that tongues or claimed gifts no one has personally witnessed as akin to Jesus performing the very works of God.
So the claim is a way to stifle debate because everyone here is speaking of terms and actions in general. Plus how would we be able to discern someone is trying to deceive if we cannot test spirits?
So on the one hand it is disingenuous to label all Pentecostals as fruits of the devil, as it is to claim all those challenging claims as cursed for even making the challenge.
If you cannot trust scripture you have zero faith and are lost.Whereas I'm going to say still WAFFLING and I will now leave off dealing with you like you threatened to do with me, because I don't believe in bibliolotry. Hopefullly if you've learned nothing else of me, you know that I know scripture well enough and love 'the bible' more than any other book.
The context says that the violators were attributing the work of the Holy Spirit to Satan. The most rabid Anti-tongues folks attribute speaking in tongues to Satan. So obviously, they are skating on thin ice to make such a claim. Risking blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
This is your interpretation. But only the Apostles distributed the charismatic gifts after the two outpourings. So today's claims of having the charismatic gifts are false.The whole of scripture was completed before the last Apostle (John) died. So demanding that there be scriptures talking about the use of tongues post-Apostle is rather silly. And scripture never states that tongues "must" be passed via one of the original Apostles or by any apostle at all.
However, there is scriptural proof that tongues still continues as a gift the Holy Spirit may give:
"Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known." I Cor 13:8-12
It's very clear that tongues and prophecy continue as gifts the Holy Spirit may give until we "see face to face" and "know fully" - i.e. until we come face to face with Christ at His second coming.
"They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads." Rev 22:4
If scripture does not say it, you have no basis for your claims.No, I don't. You're shifting the burden of proof to others, when it is up to you to show that scripture definitely makes 'distinction' between charismatic gifts and other gifts, or states specifically that gifts can 'only' be given by the laying on of hands.
But scripture does not make such a distinction, nor does it put restrictions on how the Spirit can give gifts. That scripture gives some examples of how various gifts were used and when, such as large public displays in the early church, doesn't mean that all 'other ways' not specifically mentioned are excluded.
Imagine Sally has a fruit basket and gives fruit to her friends as she pleases. Tim tells Jim, "Yesterday I saw Sally give some raspberries to Toby to pass on to his mother, and I saw her give blueberries to Toby to pass on to Jasmine. John has some bananas Sally gave him, and Letisha has some apples. Do you think she'll give me some raspberries if I ask?"
Jim replies: "Oh no. Obviously she only passes on berries through Toby, and Toby is out of town right now."
Such logic would be nonsensical. There is no reason for Jim to assume that Sally fundamentally treats berries differently than other fruit, or that because she used an intermediary a couple times she must always use an intermediary or that same intermediary.
Apostles were directly appointed by Christ. This includes Paul and Ananias.How many times do I have to tell you? Here it is one more time.
From my list below. Ananias of Damascus (not an Apostle) lays hands on Paul (Saul) to receive the Holy Spirit, followed by water baptism. (Acts 9:17-18)
1) Pentecost: Water baptism followed by receiving the "promised Holy Spirit"
2) Samaria: The Apostles were sent to lay hands on the new believers who had ONLY been baptized in water. (Acts 8:14-16)
3) Saul: Ananias of Damascus (not an Apostle) lays hands on Paul (Saul) to receive the Holy Spirit, followed by water baptism. (Acts 9:17-18)
4) Cornelius: The gentiles were filled with the Spirit prior to water baptism. (Acts 10 and 11)
5) Ephesus: The Apostle Paul encounters disciples of John the Baptist. They are water baptized in Jesus' name and Paul lays hands on them to receive the Holy Spirit. (Acts 19:1-7)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There was a third outpouring as well.
Acts 4:31
After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?