Tongues & the cessationists.

[Butch5]

Nothing youve said here changes the validity of the OP point.
And everthing else you say here..is not written in scripture.it is someones opinion passed on to you from out side of scripture.

I will just stick to what IS written.

I gave you what is written, you ignored it. Instead you took the passage out of context, supplied "your" interpretation to it and claimed it's what the Scriptures said. It doesn't work that way.

 

[GingerBeer]

In Almost all (if not all) threads on this topic it will invariably come down to the claim (usually spoken irreverantly) that Tongues today are just babble and not tongues at all.

Yet tongues, when analysed by competent linguists, is just babble. It's gibberish. People can type it and the typed messages are also gibberish. And I type what I did with all due reverence.

For example:

mashinga yamma tanga bushandi miyama miyama kalla kanda sudakai tikka tikka konti bashami tona tona mi tona.​

That is a message in "tongues" if you like. Ask a linguist to analyse it and see what conclusion is reached. The spelling is phonetic.

If it looks like the tongues of angels to you then all I can say is that angels apparently talk gibberish - and why would angels talk in heaven unless heaven has air or something similar to carry sound waves. I know that scripture has passages about angels and God having conversations (like, for example, the beginning of the book of Job) and that maybe something akin to spoken words are used in heaven but this notion that angels have languages (more than one presumably) and that people talking in tongues are speaking one or more than one angelic language seems contrived.

And there is the coincidence that some (perhaps many) tongue speaking televangelists turn out to be frauds and charlatans yet many "spirit gifted" viewers of their TV shows do not discern the fakery until after very human fake busters get involved and expose it. It is odd that people who claim to have spiritual gifts - among which is the gift of discerning of spirits - do not detect the fraud until after people who do not claim to have supernatural abilities manage to expose it.

So I am inclined to regard tongues as gibberish and the available recordings and analyses of them point to the "languages" being gibberish.

It would be much more persuasive if people who did not know some specific earthly languages started to speak in them fluently and coherently without ever learning them. That would lend some credibility to the claims about tongues. But so far I've not come across a credible example of that happening.

 

[Alithis]

Yet tongues, when analysed by competent linguists, is just babble. It's gibberish. People can type it and the typed messages are also gibberish. And I type what I did with all due reverence.

For example:

mashinga yamma tanga bushandi miyama miyama kalla kanda sudakai tikka tikka konti bashami tona tona mi tona.​

That is a message in "tongues" if you like. Ask a linguist to analyse it and see what conclusion is reached. The spelling is phonetic.

If it looks like the tongues of angels to you then all I can say is that angels apparently talk gibberish - and why would angels talk in heaven unless heaven has air or something similar to carry sound waves. I know that scripture has passages about angels and God having conversations (like, for example, the beginning of the book of Job) and that maybe something akin to spoken words are used in heaven but this notion that angels have languages (more than one presumably) and that people talking in tongues are speaking one or more than one angelic language seems contrived.

And there is the coincidence that some (perhaps many) tongue speaking televangelists turn out to be frauds and charlatans yet many "spirit gifted" viewers of their TV shows do not discern the fakery until after very human fake busters get involved and expose it. It is odd that people who claim to have spiritual gifts - among which is the gift of discerning of spirits - do not detect the fraud until after people who do not claim to have supernatural abilities manage to expose it.

So I am inclined to regard tongues as gibberish and the available recordings and analyses of them point to the "languages" being gibberish.

It would be much more persuasive if people who did not know some specific earthly languages started to speak in them fluently and coherently without ever learning them. That would lend some credibility to the claims about tongues. But so far I've not come across a credible example of that happening.

I encourage you to go back and read the OP.
As it appears you did not.
You leaped directly to "name calling"
Not of me but of the topic..
Its the last step after ad hominem

 

[Alithis]

I gave you what is written, you ignored it. Instead you took the passage out of context, supplied "your" interpretation to it and claimed it's what the Scriptures said. It doesn't work that way.

actually you gave me what YOU wrote. Not scripture.
Allow any reader to trace back and see it is so

 

[Butch5]

actually you gave me what YOU wrote. Not scripture.
Allow any reader to trace back and see it is so

I gave you Scripture. Paul said that tongues was a sign for unbelievers. Not believers, but unbelievers. Speaking of tongues he said, "it is written". If you go back to the place where "it is written" in Isaiah, you'll find that the unbelievers were the Jewish leadership.

1 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe. (1 Cor. 14:21-22 KJV)

It was a sign to the leadership of Israel.

11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
14 Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem. (Isa. 28:11-14 KJV)

It was a sign for a specific purpose. We can't just pull a sentence from Scripture and impose our beliefs on it. Context is important. It's also the enemy of quite a few modern doctrines.

 

[GingerBeer]

I encourage you to go back and read the OP.
As it appears you did not.
You leaped directly to "name calling"
Not of me but of the topic..
Its the last step after ad hominem

What is evident in your reply is that you chose not to respond to what was in my post and instead decided to pretend that you had inside information on how much of the OP I read. It would be better if you dealt with what I wrote instead of writing about your assumptions which were incorrect anyway.

Tongues is gibberish according to the people who have systematically studied it in recordings taken from meetings in which it was used.

It would be much more persuasive if people who did not know some specific earthly languages started to speak in them fluently and coherently without ever learning them. That would lend some credibility to the claims about tongues. But so far I've not come across a credible example of that happening.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Paul also cautions against speaking in tongues:

1Co 14:23 Therefore if the whole church comes together in one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those who are uninformed or unbelievers, will they not say that you are out of your mind?

But anyway, the problem I have with the modern idea of speaking in tongues is not the speaking in tongues, but the claim by some that baptism isn't valid unless a person speaks in tongues. That claim is nonsense.

But anyway, I would much rather that if someone claims to have some supernatural gift, that gift be something useful. When I had cancer last year I certainly could have benefitted from someone with the gift of healing rather than the gift of speaking in a language I don't understand.

You need to read the Scripture carefully. Paul says that it is not advisable to speak out in tongues in church meetings because it is more edifying to speak in a language that everyone present can understand.

I heard a true story about a family that had a curse on their home and family and asked the church for help. So the pastor got all 400 people in his church to go to that house and occupy every room in the house and pray in tongues for one hour without stopping. As a result the whole family got saved and healed, many people in the church got healed, backsliders came back to the Lord, and a large number of the unsaved community around the church turned to Christ.

Not long after that, the family got a knock on the door and there was a stranger who told them that she was considering suicide by driving her car into the side of a motorway overpass, when she saw a light in the distance and so she drove to the light and that was the house. She was invited in, led to the Lord and completely healed of her depression and suicidal thoughts. After that over a hundred people knocked at their door requiring ministry and they got it.

So, you saying that tongues does not have any effect seems a bit wet to me in the of true stories like that.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Apart from the two outpourings, the gift of tongues always came through an apostle's hands. The gift ceased when the last of the Apostles died. Scripture replaces the gift which only gave piecemeal information, with the complete revelation. Today's "tongues" are nothing like the originals.

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.” (2 Timothy 2:15–16) (KJV 1900)

Paul was not speaking about the gift of tongues in that reference. The devil can quote Scripture and he does it by quoting it out of its proper context.

I have come to the belief that those who do not embrace the gifts of the Spirit, including the gift of tongues are rejecting the Holy Spirit and insulting Him. He is God and He has given gifts to the church and the Scripture says that the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. Therefore God the Holy Spirit has not withdrawn His gifts from the church in accordance with His promise.

So a person who is dictating to God the Holy Spirit in how He should move through people with His gifts, including tongues, is insulting God, and rejecting Jesus who sent the Holy Spirit with His gifts to the church to support the great commission until Jesus comes again.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Here is the problem with that... That's often the last ditch argument/effort to bring up in order to defend tongues as real. When those who claim tongues real, never prove the different language type tongues, the type that IS understandable, is not babble, it causes some, like me, think "How convenient that they can only speak in the type tongues that is not provable".

I'd have to looked into it again for the sources, but I have read that they have gotten interpreters to interpret the different language type of tongues, and they verified it was babble.

If you reject the gift of tongues which has been given by Jesus when He sent the Holy Spirit to indwell believers and empower them to build up the church, then you are rejecting something that is part of the endowment of the Spirit. A person doesn't have to speak in tongues to embrace the Spirit and His gifts, but to say that a gift that God the Holy Spirit has given to the church is mere babble, then you are insulting the Holy Spirit and Jesus who sent Him.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

You said this in context with how you would have rather had someone with the gift of healing visit you, while you had cancer, rather than someone speaking what you could not understand. I offer that I understand this point you are making. And I am sure our Apostle Paul agrees with you

About if speaking in an unknown language can be useful. If the Holy Spirit has someone do something, it is useful . . . whether people understand what God is doing or saying, or not. I think a number of us have done things with God, but we did not understand at the time what we were doing. So, whether we understand actions or words is not necessarily relevant, I consider.

But our Apostle Paul does say it is better if a tongue speaking is interpreted, of course. But even if someone is simply praying in another language and no one gets the words, still the Holy Spirit can be ministering grace deeper than words >

"As each one has received a gift, minister it to one another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God." (1 Peter 4:10)

True speaking in tongues is a gift; it does minister God's own grace. My opinion is there can be times when tongue speaking is not meant to be interpreted, but it is a prayer thing. And Paul does talk about how it can be praying well. And prayer does minister God's grace, even to ones not present with the praying person. So, we do not have to hear and understand what a person is praying for us.

But I understand that there can be faked speaking in tongues. I do not believe it is possible to control a gift of the Holy Spirit to do things in a wrong way. On the other hand, it seems there are people who simply don't buy tongues and so they will find ways to criticize it and misrepresent it and argue against what isn't even what the Bible says about tongues.

Why would people have such a problem with any sort of real speaking in tongues? Because humans are antagonistic against being submissive to God. And tongues . . . real tongues . . . is the Holy Spirit having a human speak a language the human does not even know. So, this takes submissiveness to the Holy Spirit, in every detail of what the Holy Spirit has the person saying. And ones do not want this, their spirit is against this. And the grace of this can change us so we more and more submit in every detail in all we do, because the Holy Spirit having one so speak can also have the person more and more submitting to all else which the Holy Spirit has us doing. This could be part of why Paul says someone speaking to oneself edifies one's own self. But others in spiritual connection with this can also deeply so benefit, though they are not having an interpretation.

There is the true story of a minister who sought the Lord for a healing ministry and he was guided by the Holy Spirit to spend as much time as he could praying in tongues. After a number of weeks, he was called to pray for a person with an injured arm. When he looked at the arm, he saw an xray of it showing the exact injury and this gave particular focus to his prayer and the arm was healed. This does not happen to everyone, but it happened to him on a regular basis as part of his healing ministry and the miraculous ability came as a result of applying himself with God to spend time praying in tongues.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I gave you Scripture. Paul said that tongues was a sign for unbelievers. Not believers, but unbelievers. Speaking of tongues he said, "it is written". If you go back to the place where "it is written" in Isaiah, you'll find that the unbelievers were the Jewish leadership.

1 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe. (1 Cor. 14:21-22 KJV)

It was a sign to the leadership of Israel.

11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
14 Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem. (Isa. 28:11-14 KJV)

It was a sign for a specific purpose. We can't just pull a sentence from Scripture and impose our beliefs on it. Context is important. It's also the enemy of quite a few modern doctrines.

You are correct. Context is important. And the context is the whole chapter of 1 Corinthians 14. So we can't take one verse out of 1 Corinthians 14 and say that is what tongues is all about.

Actually, tongues being a sign to unbelievers is comparable to the Isaiah reference in that when pagans heard the believers speaking in tongues it was a sign to them that judgment is impending if they don't repent and turn to Christ.

But there are quite a number of verses in the chapter that describe the correct use of tongues and where (in a public church meeting) where it is not advisable.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Here are my biblical reasons why I believe miraculous gifts have ceased.

Cessationism: Tongues, Prophecy, and the Gift of Miracles Have Ceased.

Did God say that they have ceased? Where?
What about the Scripture: "The gifts and calling of God are without repentance"? Doesn't that mean that when God gives gifts, He doesn't take them back? So, if God the Holy Spirit is involved with a church, and God the Holy Spirit does not take His gifts back, then how come the gifts ceased? Do you think that God the Holy Spirit walked away from the church and took His gifts with Him? What would make Him do that? Perhaps church members were dropping their standards of holiness and accepting pagan ideas into the church. If a church become full of heresy and paganism, do you think God the Holy Spirit, being the absolute Holy Spirit who He is, would want to stick around while there is unconfessed sin, unholiness and paganism in the church?

But if we study church history, we discover that there were movements that stood for holiness and anti-paganism, and then the gifts of the Spirit came back into those movements with tongues and healing. Then they were brutally suppressed and slandered and its members tortured and killed by the established church of the time.

So those who respect and revere God the Holy Spirit and Jesus who sent Him into the church, will happily embrace the gifts that He brings.

So, if there are no gifts evident in a church, then is there any proof that the Holy Spirit, rather than just a religious spirit is active in that church?

I wonder if those who think that the Holy Spirit is active in their church where there are no gifts, are actually deceived and don't know what spirit they are of?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Please share the verses that says exactly what yoiu said.

1 Corinthians 14 is dealing with speaking in tongues via public prayer (which must include an interpreter).

Side Note:

Again, there is no reason to believe that this was a kind of language that NOBODY could understand. The fact that an interpreter was needed and it makes a difference to the unbeliever shows that it was a real language of some kind. Unbelievers are not going to be impressed by some gibberish noise that they cannot understand.

Side Note 2:

I noticed that you do not post in the other threads on your denomination or favored teacher or teachers. Hiding truth like that does not bode well so as to convince any readers here unless they are already Charismatic.

What about where Paul says about speaking in tongues to himself and to God? Doesn't Paul's own words contradict you?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Paul is also criticizing the improper use of tongues in 1 Corinthians 14. His point is not that tongues is some unknown language (verse 2), but his point is that if somebody does speak in an unknown tongue, it cannot be without an interpreter.

For Paul says that if one does speak in that way they are like a barbarian.

"Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian," (1 Corinthians 14:11).

Paul says,

"Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue." (1 Corinthians 14:19).

So Paul is not endorsing speaking in an unknown tongue without an interpreter present to give meaning.

Tongues were also for unbelievers.

"Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not" (1 Corinthians 14:22).

This is why there is no such thing as private prayer in tongues. With the exception of Pentecost, tongues are always public prayer to God and it is for the benefit of the unbeliever.

Seeing that tongues are for unbelievers, we have to conclude that they will help the unbeliever to be amazed in some way so as to help them to believe.

In other words, these tongues have to be as a miracle to them in some way.

Side Note:

Oh, and again, the words, "no man understands him" in 1 Corinthians 14:2 is not in reference to all men in the world. It is a generalized statement that tongues would not be understood because many do not always speak certain languages. Paul's point with tongues is that no man understands him.

For Paul says:
"how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air." (1 Corinthians 14:9).

An interesting general point: When the devil quotes Scripture in order to deceive, he quotes the parts that encourage the deception and leaves out others within the context that might give a more full picture of what is actually meant by the whole passage or chapter.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I am only referring to the different versions of tongue speaking that I have witnessed today that I and other Charismatics do not agree with. For example: The shaking of heads, the making of animal noises, being thrown back on the ground, screaming on the ground, etc. is something that I and other Charismatic friends of mine do not agree with.

I don't have a problem with what Scripture says. I do accept that there was foreign tongue speaking at one time. It is true that in the spirit they spoke mysteries and they spoke unto God by tongues, but these mysteries were shortly revealed by the interpreter. The benefit was for the unbeliever (1 Corinthians 14:22) and not themselves.

"If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?" (1 Corinthians 14:23).

So Paul is criticizing the improper use of tongues.
He is criticizing tongues without an interpreter.

You have to think that Paul is writing to the Corinthians to correct their error on their improper use of tongues. So every word must be read with this thought in mind because the whole chapter is a condemnation on their wrong use of tongues.



My apologies if you felt hurt by what I said.
But it was never my intention to personally attack you.
While I was pointing out the strength of your argument (again, my apologies), my primarily focus was on getting you to reveal more about your belief so I can truly know what you feel is correct. If you don't want to share that information, I am totally fine with that now. But again, my apologies if you felt I said hurtful things to you. It was never my ultimate true heart's intention. Ultimately I care and love you in Jesus Christ.



I don't share your view. I believe a person's denomination does play a very important role in understanding their view on tongues. Not all Charismatics believe the same things in regards to tongues and when it comes to other important doctrine.

For example:
There are non-Trinitarian Oneness Pentecostals.

I have talked with another Charismatic here on the forums, and she does not believe that all tongues speaking is genuine. She does not believe in the shaking of heads, and those screaming on the ground. Another online Charismatic friend of mine was actually thrown out of one of the churches for warning them against their improper use of tongues. There is a Christian friend I work with who is Charismatic, too. Again, I consider them to be my brothers and sisters in Christ. For me: It is a mystery. They seem like genuine good brethren with their hearts honestly seeking to follow the Lord. Yet, on the other hand, the Bible tells me that tongue speaking and some of the gifts of the Spirit (and not all) have ceased. I know in God's timing, He will reveal all things. But it is my mission to love all the brethren regardless.



I disagree respectfully in love. Hiding truth is not the same as lying. Even Jesus hid the truth from certain people. For Jesus did not openly go around declaring to all that He was GOD and then used His ability as GOD to make that fact known to them.

I see lying is when a person bears false witness or say something that is not true (Especially when they know the truth). I am merely trying to find out what version of tongue speaking you believe in. Some Charismatics believe that all Christians MUST speak in tongues as a way to show that they received the Holy Spirit. Other Charismatics don't believe that.



Again, my apologies if you felt I offended you.
It was not my intention to hurt you in any way. I am only speaking what I believe to be good and right in the sight of GOD.

In any event, may God bless you.

The truth of Scripture viewed in context is more valid than observances of how people practice the gifts of the Spirit. Just because certain groups practice the gifts in certain ways does not deny the Scripture in its description of the gifts.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Try watching the Kundalini Warning video by Andrew Strom at YouTube.
This video really opened my eyes to the truth big time.

May God bless you.

The words of men do not invalidate Scripture.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

It's not a dishonest approach. If you had read the entire section you'd see that he is talking about what happens in the church. Thus my statement, no one in the church understands him.

Yes, he said, will cease, future tense. It was future tense from his point in time. They did end after Paul wrote 1 Corinthians so it was in the future that it happened.

It doesn't matter that 100's of thousands speak in tongues today, that doesn't mean it's from God.
The argument that tongues are always real languages isn't negated simply because you misunderstand what Paul said. He's talking about what happens in their church. I someone speaks in a foreign language and no one there understands the language, then it's like Paul said, no understands him and he speaks to God. God is the only in their church that understand the foreign language. The gift of interpretation is given to interpret the language for the congregation. If you go into a church and someone starts speaking Spanish, if you don't speak Spanish, you'll need an interpreter.

Yes, one can come to the conclusion that the gifts have ceased from studying the Bible. The key is "studying" not pulling a sentence from here and there and claiming the Bible teaches xyz. The gift of Tongues in the Scriptures had a specific purpose. That purpose was served long ago.

That doctrine is based on half an obscure verse which most good commentators believe is what happens after the Second Coming of Christ. It says that prophecy will pass away. If Paul is including the preaching of God's Word in church as an important part of his definition of prophecy, then it means that the preaching of the Word of God in all churches is in vain, and the Holy Spirit has never spoken through it since the time you say that prophecy has passed away.

But the reality is that the Holy Spirit has regularly been involved in the preaching of the Word of God, so in Paul's definition prophecy did not pass away from the church at all!

My definition of prophecy is just as sound as anyone's because Paul said that prophecy edified the church and that has to include the preaching and teaching of God's Word in the church meetings. So there is half of the obscure verse that falls away from your assertion that the gifts have ceased after Paul wrote 1 Corinthians. To say that, you would have to say that there has and is no preaching of God's Word in the churches today, because it has ceased.

But the preaching of God's word has not ceased, so the view that the prophecy as well as tongues, mentioned in the exact same verse has not ceased, otherwise one part of the verse contradicts the other!

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I gave you what is written, you ignored it. Instead you took the passage out of context, supplied "your" interpretation to it and claimed it's what the Scriptures said. It doesn't work that way.

But you took the verse about tongues ceasing and prophecy passing away out of context, and I have shown that prophecy in Paul's view consisted in the preaching and teaching of God's Word as well as "giving prophecies", and that has definitely not passed away. So in that light to use that verse to support the Cessationist theory does not make logical sense, in fact it is a deceptive twist and stretch of Scripture to try and prove an unproveable theory.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Yet tongues, when analysed by competent linguists, is just babble. It's gibberish. People can type it and the typed messages are also gibberish. And I type what I did with all due reverence.

For example:

mashinga yamma tanga bushandi miyama miyama kalla kanda sudakai tikka tikka konti bashami tona tona mi tona.​

That is a message in "tongues" if you like. Ask a linguist to analyse it and see what conclusion is reached. The spelling is phonetic.

If it looks like the tongues of angels to you then all I can say is that angels apparently talk gibberish - and why would angels talk in heaven unless heaven has air or something similar to carry sound waves. I know that scripture has passages about angels and God having conversations (like, for example, the beginning of the book of Job) and that maybe something akin to spoken words are used in heaven but this notion that angels have languages (more than one presumably) and that people talking in tongues are speaking one or more than one angelic language seems contrived.

And there is the coincidence that some (perhaps many) tongue speaking televangelists turn out to be frauds and charlatans yet many "spirit gifted" viewers of their TV shows do not discern the fakery until after very human fake busters get involved and expose it. It is odd that people who claim to have spiritual gifts - among which is the gift of discerning of spirits - do not detect the fraud until after people who do not claim to have supernatural abilities manage to expose it.

So I am inclined to regard tongues as gibberish and the available recordings and analyses of them point to the "languages" being gibberish.

It would be much more persuasive if people who did not know some specific earthly languages started to speak in them fluently and coherently without ever learning them. That would lend some credibility to the claims about tongues. But so far I've not come across a credible example of that happening.

What you are doing here is providing an example of false tongues, used out of the proper context and not used to pray and worship God. So, it is quite true that a linguist would not make sense of it, because it is, used in this way, gibberish, because it is not inspired by the Holy Spirit.

In fact, to do this is an absolute insult to the Holy Spirit and to Jesus who sent the Holy Spirit to the church.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

actually you gave me what YOU wrote. Not scripture.
Allow any reader to trace back and see it is so

In writing that he is insulting the Holy Spirit and I told him so plainly so that his blood will not be on my hands in the judgement.