Tongues, NOT in the bible. (3)

[simonthezealot]

This thread was split automatically after 1000 replies and this thread has been automatically created.
The old thread automatically closed is here: "Tongues, NOT in the bible. (2)"

 

[sunlover1]

Woot.
I did it lol.
Neener

 

[Standing Up]

We know who's breathing a sigh of relief.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Here is a sermon by a "reformed" chap who believes in the continuation of the various gifts of the Spirit in today's Christian fellowships.

The Baptism of The Spirit ,Pastor John Piper - YouTube

 

[NorrinRadd]

Shaka, when the walls fell.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Shaka, when the walls fell.

Darmok and Jalad... at Tanagra

Gilgamesh and Enkidu at Uruk

PS: this is not tongues

 

[Rev Randy]

Here is a sermon by a "reformed" chap who believes in the continuation of the various gifts of the Spirit in today's Christian fellowships.

The Baptism of The Spirit ,Pastor John Piper - YouTube

So what did you think of the chaps teaching?

 

[sunlover1]

Darmok and Jalad... at Tanagra

Gilgamesh and Enkidu at Uruk

PS: this is not tongues

Never heard of Darmok

So what did you think of the chaps teaching?

Yeah MC, what did you think?
I didn't watch it, did you?

 

[MoreCoffee]

So what did you think of the chaps teaching?

I thought it was muddy; not clear, relied too much on vagaries.

However, he does attempt to deal with a passage of scripture and that is more than can be said of many who preach a similar doctrine.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Yeah MC, what did you think?
I didn't watch it, did you?

Yes, I watched it. I watch the videos I post before posting them. It would be a little unsafe to post without checking.

 

[NorrinRadd]

Darmok and Jalad... at Tanagra

Gilgamesh and Enkidu at Uruk

PS: this is not tongues

No, but it is relevant, and expresses my sentiments on the matter.

 

[MoreCoffee]

No, but it is relevant, and expresses my sentiments on the matter.

Only if you wanted your thoughts to be unclear.

As it happened I knew the episode to which you referred. So I had an idea that you were either attempting to illustrate that we speak undecipherable words to each other or that you thought some glimmers of understanding may be shining.

You'd need to explain which you intended.

 

[sunlover1]

I thought it was muddy; not clear, relied too much on vagaries.

However, he does attempt to deal with a passage of scripture and that is more than can be said of many who preach a similar doctrine.

Which passage of Scripture do these many not deal with?

 

[NorrinRadd]

Never heard of Darmok

It's my favorite ST:TNG episode.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Which passage of Scripture do these many not deal with?

They do not deal with any passages seriously. An occasional partial quote or a phrase here and there or even repeated invocation of the name of Jesus do not constitute dealing with scripture.

In my parish we chant psalms in various places in our worship but chanting a psalm is not an attempt to deal with the psalm; it is singing it.

A sermon ought to do more than chant a few words. It can't be a pleasant conversation about what transpired when you had such and such an experience it has to be about what the scripture is teaching.

Do you understand what I'm saying?

 

[The realist]

Here is a sermon by a "reformed" chap who believes in the continuation of the various gifts of the Spirit in today's Christian fellowships.

The Baptism of The Spirit ,Pastor John Piper - YouTube

Have you heard of a book written by George T. Montague and killian Mcdonnell called "Christian Initiation and Baptism in the Holy Spirit: Evidence from the First Eight Centuries"
Some are calling it the best book on the historicity of the baptism of the holy spirit ever written.

By the way I love John Piper! He's well respected by both P/C for his sound doctrine on biblical gifts of the Spirit. He's even friends with Johnny Mac. Which is strange because John mac obviously condemns his practice of tongues as only being gibberish while condenming almost the rest of the P/C community as being demonized. I think friendship could play a part in that.

 

[MoreCoffee]

thought to consider when next people around you speak or shout about glory

The word “glory” is used basically in two different ways. There is the intrinsic glory of God and there is ascribed glory. The intrinsic glory of God is the sum and the substance of all the divine perfections. It is all of God’s attributes, it is the fullness of His eternal being. And there is nothing that we can do to add to the intrinsic glory of God nor take away from the intrinsic glory of God. He is the God who was and who is and who shall be forever. He is immutably the same from age to age. And it is the sum of His holiness, His transcendence, His independence is antonymous--autonomy is sovereignty, His righteousness is truth, His love is grace, His mercy, His omniscience, His omnipresence…all of the attributes of God comprise His intrinsic glory.

There is ascribed glory which is the glory we give to God which is to render to Him the praise and the worship that belongs to Him alone. And the more we understand of His intrinsic glory, the more we will ascribe to Him glory. And so, a low view of God leads to low worship. And a high view of God leads to high worship and high and holy living. ...
​

-- Steve Lawson​

 

[MoreCoffee]

Have you heard of a book written by George T. Montague and killian Mcdonnell called "Christian Initiation and Baptism in the Holy Spirit: Evidence from the First Eight Centuries"
Some are calling it the best book on the historicity of the baptism of the holy spirit ever written.

By the way I love John Piper! He's well respected by both P/C for his sound doctrine on biblical gifts of the Spirit. He's even friends with Johnny Mac. Which is strange because John mac obviously condemns his practice of tongues as only being gibberish while condenming almost the rest of the P/C community as being demonized. I think friendship could play a part in that.

As far as I know John Piper does not "speak in tongues".
What Is Speaking in Tongues? on Vimeo

 

[sunlover1]

Have you heard of a book written by George T. Montague and killian Mcdonnell called "Christian Initiation and Baptism in the Holy Spirit: Evidence from the First Eight Centuries"
Some are calling it the best book on the historicity of the baptism of the holy spirit ever written.

Goodread's blurb:

Up to now the teaching on baptism in the Holy Spirit has been based on a few scriptural texts, whose interpretation was disputed. This doubt cast its shadow on those who promote baptism in the Holy Spirit.

Now new evidence has been found in early post-biblical authors (Tertullian, Hilary of Poitiers, Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, Philoxenus, and the Syrians) which demonstrates that what is called baptism in the Holy Spirit was integral to Christian initiation (baptism, confirmation, Eucharist). Because it was part of initiation into the Church, it was not a matter of private piety, but of public worship. Therefore it was and remains normative.

This is an intriguing ground-breaking study of value to RCIA teams, pastors, theology teachers and students, and Church offices.(less)

 

[The realist]

As far as I know John Piper does not "speak in tongues".
What Is Speaking in Tongues? on Vimeo

That's my mistake, but he does believe in the gift of tongues.
And often times prophecy which johnny mac condenms.