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.
In which case it is quite possible for people to be commissioned by Christ today... and impart the gift(s) in the same way as these did.Paul and Ananias were both commissioned by Christ. This was a mark of an Apostle.
Not a very good answer since the question is whether or not the sounds are actually the same as the tongues referred to in the New Testament. If they cannot be shown to be so, all that is left is wishful thinking and a doctrine that is not Bible-based .Neither is listening to someone else making sounds and convincing oneself that it is not a supernatural gift.
Not a very good answer since the question is whether or not the sounds are actually the same as the tongues referred to in the New Testament. If they cannot be shown to be so, all that is left is wishful thinking and a doctrine that is not Bible-based .
In principle, that probably is so. However, that would mean that the charismatic Christian would have no evidence that it is so, but just that he believes it to be so.My apologies for misunderstanding you.
On the other hand we can have a doctrine that is Bible-based,
In principle, that probably is so. However, that would mean that the charismatic Christian would have no evidence that it is so, but just that he believes it to be so.
I think that much of the friction between the two sides comes from the insistence on the part of most charismatics that they CAN prove it--as well (in the case of some people) that the original tongues never ceased--although they cannot.
Personally, I don't think this fact means much. As you know, the movements founded by Ellen G. White, Joseph Smith, Jr. and Charles Taze Russell date back to about the same time period but that doesn't make their teachings true.On the other hands, tongues can be traced back to at least Edward Irving in the early 19th century and before that many comments might suggest other occurrences, though it is too easy to read tongues into vague comments.
Well, I am of the impression that it matters a lot to Pentecostals and Charismatics that their practices be thought to be the same as described in the New Testament. It is the critics who say that it is just an imitation of something we read about in the Bible.We now have evidence 200 years of people speaking in other languages, whether it is like the NT experiences or not.
Did it never occur to Cessationists that the decline, if any, was due to their teaching that it was a demonic practice? Lay the blame where it belongs.Just a minute. That doesn't mean that they did not cease.
The historic record shows that tongues gradually became less and less in evidence and then ceased -- for centuries on end. The fact that some people in rather recent times were moved to restart the use of tongues does not mean that they had not ceased prior to that.
In principle, that probably is so. However, that would mean that the charismatic Christian would have no evidence that it is so, but just that he believes it to be so.
Personally, I don't think this fact means much. As you know, the movements founded by Ellen G. White, Joseph Smith, Jr. and Charles Taze Russell date back to about the same time period but that doesn't make their teachings true.
Well, I am of the impression that it matters a lot to Pentecostals and Charismatics that their practices be thought to be the same as described in the New Testament.
It is the critics who say that it is just an imitation of something we read about in the Bible.
I have already done that many times.If you could prove your position from scripture we would not be dragging this out as long as we have.
In every good church there are a few goofballs. My church has only 30 people in it, so I might the the only goofball there!Thanks, Oscarr.
This raises a general question I have about the forum. And, I'll admit that I didn't handle this well. However...
Even though this place is by name a "Christian Forum", I have encountered some strange and dangerous characters here. Especially in this Controversial Christian Theology section. What I would consider a "bad neighborhood". I think one of them was put on involuntary vacation, while I being the new guy, was given a wrist slap. (clarification of the rules)
Therefore, I am not comfortable with someone I can identify only by username, showing up and calling me brother while they squat on the door mat of my church. (claiming my practice is of pagan origin) I find this quite offensive. (I know, I know... all up in my flesh, admittedly...)
So, here's the question.
Is there any reason why I should embrace an unknown poster as a "brother" simply because they showed up on a "Christian Forum"? Personally, I think someone should earn that honor through familiarity and trust. I believe it dilutes the richness of the title to throw it to any dog that shows up at your door. (pardon the rough analogy)
Is the term "brother" a meaningless greeting, or should it stand for something?
The question is for anyone to answer. Anyone...
Here are the apostles according to Dave L.The line as you call it must be and can only be the qualifications which are listed in the Bible for an apostle as they are...……
A witness of Jesus Christ, (Jn 15:27).
Chosen personally by Christ(Lk 6:13),.
A Personal Student of Christ(Lk. 6:13).
It is also duly noted as a matter of fact that all of Jesus’ apostles were Jews and men. No woman or Gentile was ever considered for an apostleship. The apostles were a special group of carefully selected messengers. Only those who meet the qualifications given in the New Testament can rightly serve as apostles of Christ. No one today meets those qualifications. No not one! Therefore, let us guard against those whom Paul warns are “false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ” (2 Cor. 11:13).
Cessationists ordinarily do not think that glossolalia is demonic. Most simply think it is an emotional overreaction or else that the practitioner has been told by some church or pastor that a real Christian (not a baby Christian!) will do it, sometimes even being coached in how to do it, and that it is a gift from the Holy Spirit. So they make the sounds.Did it never occur to Cessationists that the decline, if any, was due to their teaching that it was a demonic practice? Lay the blame where it belongs.
Just curious. Have you ever spoken in tongues?Cessationists ordinarily do not think that glossolalia is demonic. Most simply think it is an emotional overreaction or else that the practitioner has been told by some church or pastor that a real Christian (not a baby Christian!) will do it, sometimes even being coached in how to do it, and that it is a gift from the Holy Spirit. So they make the sounds.
As for the decline in antiquity, there is good reason for thinking that the reason the gifts were a feature of the early church was so that the believers could spread the faith. Today's charismatics attest to this too. Naturally, when the purpose was mainly accomplished, the gifts became progressively less in evidence.
If there is no real thing, they certainly are not going to be making comparisons. But many studies and my own experience has shown that pastors coach people about how to talk in tongues. That right there proves that is it phony because a gift is just that...a gift, not something learned.And how do the critics know that it is an imitation... presumably they have experienced the real thing and can therefore judge that the Pentecostal/Charismatic tongues are really an imitation.
The error here, which I believe is also not understood by even Charismatics is this. The gift OF the Holy Spirit or the Promise OF the Holy Spirit is NOT the Holy Spirit. The promise is power from/OF the Spirit being manifested through disciples. That is the contextual understanding of verse 33I have already done that many times.
No response from you yet. You need to address this.
Acts 2:38-39
Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- You (the believers at Pentecost)
- Your children (children of the believers at Pentecost)
- All who are far off (still available to EVERYONE in the future)
- All the Lord our God will call (are we still being called today?)
Great minds think alike.The error here, which I believe is also not understood by even Charismatics is this. The gift OF the Holy Spirit or the Promise OF the Holy Spirit is NOT the Holy Spirit. The promise is power from/OF the Spirit being manifested through disciples. That is the contextual understanding of verse 33
ACT 2:33 Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this which you see and hear.
What was 'seen and heard' was supernatural power being manifested from the Holy Spirit and 'through' the disciples. The PROMISE FROM the Father and Holy Spirit was always holy spirit power not the Holy Spirit person.
Jesus prophesied what would be received FROM the Holy Spirit in Luke with no mention of 'the Holy Spirit' from which it would come.
LUK 24:49 And behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you; but stay in the city, until you are clothed with power from on high."
The promise of the Father wasn't 'the Father', it was a promise of 'power' which would be poured out FROM the Holy Spirit on His church, on the day of Pentecost.
Jesus confirmed this promise issue again.
ACT 1:4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.
Were these apostles saved/born again when Jesus was talking to them? YES! Had they probably been baptized 'correctly' in accordance to the mandate from Jesus at His accession by this time, if not before? I'm going to assume so. If that's what gets people the Holy Spirit living in them, as most or all believe here (both 'haves' and have nots') then why didn't the disciples have HIM?
Agreed.Dave,
I find it odd that you would quote from Paul, when Paul clearly disagrees with you: two verses earlier he says: "One who speaks in tongues speaks not to men, but to God... no one understands him..."
And yet in that not understanding somehow the tongues speaker is edified. Paul clearly does not use the word as requiring understanding. So your desire that tongues requires understanding does not agree with Paul.
The error here, which I believe is also not understood by even Charismatics is this. The gift OF the Holy Spirit or the Promise OF the Holy Spirit is NOT the Holy Spirit. The promise is power from/OF the Spirit being manifested through disciples. That is the contextual understanding of verse 33
ACT 2:33 Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this which you see and hear.
What was 'seen and heard' was supernatural power being manifested from the Holy Spirit and 'through' the disciples. The PROMISE FROM the Father and Holy Spirit was always holy spirit power not the Holy Spirit person.
Jesus prophesied what would be received FROM the Holy Spirit in Luke with no mention of 'the Holy Spirit' from which it would come.
LUK 24:49 And behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you; but stay in the city, until you are clothed with power from on high."
The promise of the Father wasn't 'the Father', it was a promise of 'power' which would be poured out FROM the Holy Spirit on His church, on the day of Pentecost.
Jesus confirmed this promise issue again.
ACT 1:4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.
Were these apostles saved/born again when Jesus was talking to them? YES! Had they probably been baptized 'correctly' in accordance to the mandate from Jesus at His accession by this time, if not before? I'm going to assume so. If that's what gets people the Holy Spirit living in them, as most or all believe here (both 'haves' and have nots') then why didn't the disciples have HIM?
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?