Do you attend a "Full Gospel" Church?

[Thinkingstuff]

Biblicist, I truelly enjoy reading your posts as they can be more humorous than the funnies in the newspaper! You are also very consistent. But let me start with your last statement first.

Pure semantics!

You say this after after having said

Neither you, nor any penetcostal theologian can deny that Paul inserts the word "no" in each phrase in 1 Cor. 12:29-30

BTW I don't think that is what you meant as the passage actually says

29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? 31 But earnestly desire the higher gifts.

Do you mean Paul wants the reader to assume the word No is placed after each question? As a response to your question a Pentecostal will say that not all Christians speak in tongues as not all Christian are baptized in the Holy Spirit. Again Let me quote your statement again

Pure semantics!

Too Funny.

I freely admitted that they do assert it or did you read what I said? Apparently not!

You did say they asserted it. But to what authority do you appeal to; to suggest they are wrong about the passage.

I don't want to start an exchange of insults

Good because I didn't start my post to be antagonistic to you. If any one claims antagonism let Evangelist7 claim that of me since I dispute his position. But you started off swinging so to speak.

so let me say this as careful as I can. - that is indisputable! If you can dispute it, do so but stop making unprovable charges against me or my interpetation that you cannot defend rationally, reasonably or exegetically - be honest.

I am being honest. I haven't made an unprovable charge against you. And as for disputing it why as it isn't being disputed by Pentecostals. Not all Christians speak in tongues as tongues are evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. Thats what they will tell you.

Second, the repeated negative means exactly what it says. God did NOT give tongues to all Christians - that is a FACT of this repeated "no" phrases.

Accordingly, not all Christians are Baptized in the Holy Spirit according to Pentecostals.

Third, that means tongues cannot be essential for salvation as salvation is essential to be a Christian. Thus the UPC doctrine that tongues are the "seal" of salvation is false.

The UPC aren't the only Pentecostals. Both CoG and AoG don't believe tongues are required for salvation but that they are the initial evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit which empoweres the christian for ministry. Oneness Pentecostals which the UPC is a part of don't even believe in the Trinity.

Fourth, that means tongues cannot be essential for progressive sanctification as progressive sanctification is a reality for all Christians and prayer, worship are essentials of progressive sanctification

Again there are difference among Pentecostals about this but it is held that Baptism in the Holy Spirit comes subsiquent to sanctification. At least with the International CoG.

I started in this movement. I have tons of family in this movement.

Ok.

I have read every major Pentecostal book defending this movement. I have conversed, studied and immersed myself for nearly 40 years with this movement. I have exegetically studied every single passage in scripture that is used by this movement. That does not mean some other non-Pentecostal may have more experience/background than I do, but don't tell me that I lack hands on, exegetical based, long term experience with this subject.

do you want an applause? I studied theology under CoG theologians at their University. I think I also have some insites into their perspective.

If it did not provide everything necessary to arrive at doctrine, iinstruction, correction and reproof than to relate the man of God to that statement in this context would be pure foolishness.

the context is that both oral instructions and scriptures provided Timothy with everything. Not scripture alone. So no its not foolishness. You've supplied a view that wasn't originally intended by Paul.

 

[The Biblicist]

Biblicist, I truelly enjoy reading your posts as they can be more humorous than the funnies in the newspaper! You are also very consistent.

You know the same can be said about your posts. You have many ways of communicating sarcasism.

You were the first to boast of your Pentecostal experience and knowledge not I. I simply responded that you were not the only one with vast and deep experience in this matter. Did I sarcastically suggest you were looking for an applause? Your biting sarcism permeates your posts.

The Greek text itself has "no" in every clause - that is fact. The KJV translators chose to interpret it in rhetorical fashion so that it obviously called for "no" and I think that is probably the intent of Paul but his was much more obvious so that it could not be missed. Those who interpret the KJV translation often miss it or ignore it. I appeal to the passage itself as proof they are wrong - just read it - it is obvious what it says and it obviously contradicts the very heart of pentecostalism and their interpretation of the baptism in the spirit and speaking in tongues. I thought you were knowlegable of their system. This is a general truth that permeates the whole pentecostal/charismatic movement that every single solitary writer among them emphasizes. If you fail to miss that you certainly demonstrate a very superficial understanding.

The fact is that Pentecostalism denies spirituality apart from either baptism in the spirt and speaking in tongues while these text totally anhilates that unbiblical speculative theology.

The UPC aren't the only Pentecostals. Both CoG and AoG don't believe tongues are required for salvation but that they are the initial evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit which empoweres the christian for ministry. Oneness Pentecostals which the UPC is a part of don't even believe in the Trinity.

I specfically limited that accusation to the UPC. Try reading what I said.

the context is that both oral instructions and scriptures provided Timothy with everything. Not scripture alone. So no its not foolishness. You've supplied a view that wasn't originally intended by Paul.

No, you are implying what the text neither suggests or says. Timothy was in DIRECT contact with the apostolic oral teaching and thus responsible for hearing audibly inspired teaching. You and I are not in direct AUDIBLE hearing of any inspired man of God. The only responsibility we have is the DIRECT contact we have with inspiration and that is the Word of God. It is to that view that verse 17 speaks in regard to those not in DIRECT AUDIBLE hearing of inspired men of God but in direct contact with the INSPIRED WORD of God. Paul says the inspired Word of God is provided for these reasons (v. 16) in order to produce this result (v. 17) in the man of God. The result is that they will be completely SUFFICIENT in the things of God in connection with the inspired Word and its purpose as its purpose makes this total SUFFICIENCY possible apart from direct contact with the AUDIBLE inspired authors.

However, you can't accept this and neither can charismania/pentecostalism.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You know the same can be said about your posts. You have many ways of communicating sarcasism.

It is true. I can be sarcastic and I have many ways of expressing it. However, I wasn't being sarcastic. I honestly do enjoy reading your posts though I do find some humor in how you respond to people at times. This happens to be one of them.

You were the first to boast of your Pentecostal experience and knowledge not I. I simply responded that you were not the only one with vast and deep experience in this matter. Did I sarcastically suggest you were looking for an applause? Your biting sarcism permeates your posts

Maybe so. Its a fact and its a good base upon which to build as to why I disagree with certain aspects of their theology. My intent on showing this background wasn't to "boast" as much as to show some authority on the subject. However, this wasn't what I found to be funny in your response. You answer my exegete of 2 Tim 3:16 as "pure semantics" Yet this method of disputation with Evangelist7 is the very method you complained to me for my use. I found that incongruous. Which is the very base upon which humor is built. And with my sarcasm I try not be be so much biting as humorous. But in this case all I was doing was pointing out the incongruity of your accusation.

The Greek text itself has "no" in every clause - that is fact. The KJV translators chose to interpret it in rhetorical fashion so that it obviously called for "no" and I think that is probably the intent of Paul but his was much more obvious so that it could not be missed. Those who interpret the KJV translation often miss it or ignore it. I appeal to the passage itself as proof they are wrong - just read it - it is obvious what it says and it obviously contradicts the very heart of pentecostalism and their interpretation of the baptism in the spirit and speaking in tongues. I thought you were knowlegable of their system. This is a general truth that permeates the whole pentecostal/charismatic movement that every single solitary writer among them emphasizes. If you fail to miss that you certainly demonstrate a very superficial understanding.

I understand your appeal and why you did it. But among most pentecostals its a irrelevant point as they are not arguing that every Christian does in fact speak in tongues. However, to add another point to one which you haven't touched but I will reveal about Pentecostals is that they differenciate between tongues that are for Ministry manifested in the Church and personal prayer in tongues. They will then say that Pauls is speaking specifically to the manifested church ministry in tongues but not your personal prayer life in tongues. They will then claim that vs. 10

various kinds of tongues

Means there are differing types and uses to which Paul is referring to one kind in vs. 29.

The fact is that Pentecostalism denies spirituality apart from either baptism in the spirt and speaking in tongues while these text totally anhilates that unbiblical speculative theology.

Pentecostals don't deny spirituality apart from Baptism in the spirit only a limited one.

No, you are implying what the text neither suggests or says.

I'm not implying anything. I just show what the passage says which doesn't mean what you've implied. As the text never says Everything or Complete Sufficieny and Paul does indicate oral teaching with scripture use.

 

[Yeshua1]

Biblicist, I truelly enjoy reading your posts as they can be more humorous than the funnies in the newspaper! You are also very consistent. But let me start with your last statement first. You say this after after having said
BTW I don't think that is what you meant as the passage actually says Do you mean Paul wants the reader to assume the word No is placed after each question? As a response to your question a Pentecostal will say that not all Christians speak in tongues as not all Christian are baptized in the Holy Spirit. Again Let me quote your statement again Too Funny.

You did say they asserted it. But to what authority do you appeal to; to suggest they are wrong about the passage.

Good because I didn't start my post to be antagonistic to you. If any one claims antagonism let Evangelist7 claim that of me since I dispute his position. But you started off swinging so to speak.
I am being honest. I haven't made an unprovable charge against you. And as for disputing it why as it isn't being disputed by Pentecostals. Not all Christians speak in tongues as tongues are evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. Thats what they will tell you.

Accordingly, not all Christians are Baptized in the Holy Spirit according to Pentecostals.


The UPC aren't the only Pentecostals. Both CoG and AoG don't believe tongues are required for salvation but that they are the initial evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit which empoweres the christian for ministry. Oneness Pentecostals which the UPC is a part of don't even believe in the Trinity.

Again there are difference among Pentecostals about this but it is held that Baptism in the Holy Spirit comes subsiquent to sanctification. At least with the International CoG.



Ok.


do you want an applause? I studied theology under CoG theologians at their University. I think I also have some insites into their perspective.

the context is that both oral instructions and scriptures provided Timothy with everything. Not scripture alone. So no its not foolishness. You've supplied a view that wasn't originally intended by Paul.

the BIG difference between say AOG and the heretical word of faith/health/wealth etc crowd is that while the AOG has a misunderstanding of the workings of the Holy Spirit as their take on tongues/Baptism in him etc, would see them as being christians, while those other like UPC Oneness Word of faith etc are NOT Christian , but hold and teach a false Gospel and Christ!

 

[The Biblicist]

My intent on showing this background wasn't to "boast" as much as to show some authority on the subject.

I took it that way too and that is precisely how I meant it when I responded with my past experience in this matter. However, you chose to view my response differently than I intended it or how I took yours. Your response was sarcasim when I could have just as easily chose to respond to your experience with sacrasim. However, I realized what you were saying and therefore I wrote to assure you that I am not talking out of an experiential vacuum.

I understand your appeal and why you did it. But among most pentecostals its a irrelevant point as they are not arguing that every Christian does in fact speak in tongues.

Again, you misunderstood my point and what I said. I never sn.aid they believe every Christian speaks in tongues - where do you get the idea I said that???

When I addressed Pentecostalism in connection with this text I applied it to their idea of sanctification and they do believe every child of God should be sanctififed. They believe the baptism in the Spirit has to do with sanctification not salvation. They believe that the baptism in the Spirit is the key to becoming more spiritual. They believe that the "prayer tongue" is the ability to pray more SPIRITUALLY or to pray "in the Spirit."

However, to add another point to one which you haven't touched but I will reveal about Pentecostals is that they differenciate between tongues that are for Ministry manifested in the Church and personal prayer in tongues. They will then say that Pauls is speaking specifically to the manifested church ministry in tongues but not your personal prayer life in tongues. They will then claim that vs. 10
Means there are differing types and uses to which Paul is referring to one kind in vs. 29.

I understand their responses but what I said is that they have no exegetical response. They have no scripture that provides an exegetical basis to distinguish between "prayer" tongue versus worship tongues or any other kind of tongues. The term "tongues" is contextually defined according to first usage in Acts 2:6-11 in the Pentecostal context. The plurality does not refer to different kinds of tongues in the sense of "prayer" versus "worhip" versus etc., but different KNOWN HUMAN LANGUAGES and the context makes that patently obvious and clear and it is the same plural term used as in 1 Cor. 12:29-30.

Secondly, note that 1 Cor. 12:28 introduces verses 29 or "in the church." Third, the same praying in tongues in 1 Cor. 14:16-19 is also in the "church" context. Notice also that 1 Cor. 12:1-11 is a further extension of a church context first introduced in 1 Cor. 11:3 that is continued right up to the last verse in 1 Cor. 11. There simply is no sound exegetical basis for their ABRITRARY distinction!

Pentecostals don't deny spirituality apart from Baptism in the spirit only a limited one.

The scriptures declare you are either walking "AFTER the flesh" or AFTER the Spirit there is no MIDDLE ground. They teach the necessity of the baptism in the Spirit to walk or live "in the Spirit." The Scriptures teach you are either putting on the new man or you are walking after the old man - there is no middle ground. Just another ABRITRARY distinction to suit their psuedo theology without any exegetical basis.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I took it that way too and that is precisely how I meant it when I responded with my past experience in this matter. However, you chose to view my response differently than I intended it or how I took yours.

Well then I offer up my apology for not taking you correctly.

 

[The Biblicist]

Well then I offer up my apology for not taking you correctly.

I accept your apology and move on. Thank you.

 

[Yeshua1]

I took it that way too and that is precisely how I meant it when I responded with my past experience in this matter. However, you chose to view my response differently than I intended it or how I took yours. Your response was sarcasim when I could have just as easily chose to respond to your experience with sacrasim. However, I realized what you were saying and therefore I wrote to assure you that I am not talking out of an experiential vacuum.





Again, you misunderstood my point and what I said. I never sn.aid they believe every Christian speaks in tongues - where do you get the idea I said that???

When I addressed Pentecostalism in connection with this text I applied it to their idea of sanctification and they do believe every child of God should be sanctififed. They believe the baptism in the Spirit has to do with sanctification not salvation. They believe that the baptism in the Spirit is the key to becoming more spiritual. They believe that the "prayer tongue" is the ability to pray more SPIRITUALLY or to pray "in the Spirit."






I understand their responses but what I said is that they have no exegetical response. They have no scripture that provides an exegetical basis to distinguish between "prayer" tongue versus worship tongues or any other kind of tongues. The term "tongues" is contextually defined according to first usage in Acts 2:6-11 in the Pentecostal context. The plurality does not refer to different kinds of tongues in the sense of "prayer" versus "worhip" versus etc., but different KNOWN HUMAN LANGUAGES and the context makes that patently obvious and clear and it is the same plural term used as in 1 Cor. 12:29-30.

Secondly, note that 1 Cor. 12:28 introduces verses 29 or "in the church." Third, the same praying in tongues in 1 Cor. 14:16-19 is also in the "church" context. Notice also that 1 Cor. 12:1-11 is a further extension of a church context first introduced in 1 Cor. 11:3 that is continued right up to the last verse in 1 Cor. 11. There simply is no sound exegetical basis for their ABRITRARY distinction!





The scriptures declare you are either walking "AFTER the flesh" or AFTER the Spirit there is no MIDDLE ground. They teach the necessity of the baptism in the Spirit to walk or live "in the Spirit." The Scriptures teach you are either putting on the new man or you are walking after the old man - there is no middle ground. Just another ABRITRARY distinction to suit their psuedo theology without any exegetical basis.

Was an elder in the AOG, trained at their school, would say that the Bible NEVER coomands us to seek the "Baptism in holy Ghost", so either ALL already received that when saved, or its not for today!

Also, even IF tongues were still today, bible states that the Spirit himself As HE wills distributes the gifts, so ho0w could tongues prove anything as a sign, as it would be based upon what He decided to allocate?

 

[The Biblicist]

Was an elder in the AOG, trained at their school, would say that the Bible NEVER coomands us to seek the "Baptism in holy Ghost", so either ALL already received that when saved, or its not for today!

Also, even IF tongues were still today, bible states that the Spirit himself As HE wills distributes the gifts, so ho0w could tongues prove anything as a sign, as it would be based upon what He decided to allocate?

Yes, that is true. A careful study of 1 Cor. 12:7-11 teaches that every child of God receives a spiritual gift but it is according to the will and design of the Spirit of God rather than our choice. 1 Cor. 12:12-30 teaches that each member is gifted differently in regard to his service in the body with some whose gifts make them more prominent than others but no Christian gets all the gifts.

I don't believe that he is commanding them to "seek after" the better gifts in 1 Cor. 12:31. The verb can be translated indicative as much as imperative as the suffix ending is the same and context must decide which is the case. I think he is rather rebuking them - "You are seeking after the better gifts but I will show you a more excellent way- the way of love - and love "seeketh not her own." It is the way of love that they are to seek to use their spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 14:1).

 

[evangelist-7]

'Tis no wonder at all dat Yeshua left da Pentecostals ... because he obviously never was baptized in the Holy Spirit.

So, he's definitely in da right place now. Congrats to him.

No one who has received dis baptism talks the way he does.

If one doesn't have this baptism, he/she really is a second-class member in any Pentecostal/Charismatic assembly.
'Dis is why he gave up and left any and all of dese types of assemblies.

He may be born-again, but he hasn't been baptized with the Spirit.

Just to set da record straight about him.
.

 

[Yeshua1]

'Tis no wonder at all dat Yeshua left da Pentecostals ... because he obviously never was baptized in the Holy Spirit.

So, he's definitely in da right place now. Congrats to him.

No one who has received dis baptism talks the way he does.

If one doesn't have this baptism, he/she really is a second-class member in any Pentecostal/Charismatic assembly.
'Dis is why he gave up and left any and all of dese types of assemblies.

He may be born-again, but he hasn't been baptized with the Spirit.

Just to set da record straight about him.
.

I spoke in those "other tongues" first 10 yeras of being saved, had prophesy and words of knowledge that came to pass, BUT

Jesus finally got thru to me, and showed me that all of that was due to being around believers whose "hype" produced a mindset condusive to do all of those things, NOT Based upon the word of God!

One final time , do you see the hagins/Copelands/price/Hinn etc as being of/from God or satan than?

 

[plain_n_simple]

I spoke in those "other tongues" first 10 yeras of being saved, had prophesy and words of knowledge that came to pass,

Could you give an example of a word of knowledge you received?

What was it's purpose in your opinion?

 

[Yeshua1]

Could you give an example of a word of knowledge you received?

What was it's purpose in your opinion?

twice it happened to me...

First time, in mid week prayer meeting at church, and believed was given words to pray to the father to thank Him for healing a daughter and baby at that time, and shortly afterwards, a mother said that she just got the call that her daughter was with first child and went into diabetic shock, and was sky high heart beat and other things, but was totally calmed down by time made Hospital...

Only other time, was in Sun morning service, and prayed to God thanking him for saving a man from tryingto kill himself now, and person in children church said that very morning her ex had tried to kill himself by cutting his wrists, but the blade was too dull and would not cut deep enough...