Featured manifestation vs gift

Read the testimonies of Charles Taze Russel, and Joseph Smith. You might find some striking similarities in their testimonies.

 

Basically the Charismatic movement is a movement that wants something more than just faith. They are tired of just listening to the same old truths of the Bible, 20-50 years of the same thing. Maybe their spiritual walk with God has gone dead. Or maybe their are looking for a new experience. Who knows the real motivation.
But what they are actually looking for is something tangible; something that they can hang their hat on; a real experience. That is where tongues comes in. It gives this emotional high, a euphoria that they claim is from the Holy Spirit but they are deceived for it has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit, and nothing to do with any kind of languages whatsoever. It is simply an emotional high.
In some cases it is demon possession, or oppression depending on whether or not the person is saved.

When one reads the testimonies of various cult leaders, they were fed up with the teachings of mainline denominations--often Presbyterian or Baptist. They were looking for something new. Some made up their own theology, something different, something different, and began to attract followers. Of course this is what happened in 1905 with the Kansas City Prophets and other early day Faith Healers and tongue-speakers. It is where and when the movement started. It wasn't known before that time.

One of the early Faith Healers of the movement was William Branham (1909-1965). Supposedly electricity flowed through his hands as he healed others. He attracted quite a following. He believed that original sin was a result of a sexual union between the serpent and Eve, denied the trinity, denominationalism is the Mark of the Beast, and other odd beliefs. His followers today gather in small groups and listen to tapes of his sermons. This is where the Charismatic movement, in part, originated from. Look well to your roots!!

 

Do you heal the sick DHK?

How many attempts?

 

No. I pray "in the Spirit" often, but never in tongues. They are not the same. Furthermore Paul condemns all praying that is without understanding. I always know what I am praying about. You don't.

He didn't. He commanded that if one was praying in public in the church in another language, he had to have an interpreter. Otherwise how would the people know when to say "Amen."
He never advocates for any person to pray privately in an unknown language.

Paul went on 3 missionary journey and established over 100 churches in Asia minor and in Europe. Those nations had different languages. God gave him the use of languages for a vehicle of revelation, for authentication that he was an apostle, as a sign to the Jew, all of which we don't have or need for this day.

In the first century, is the context.

Paul forbids praying in tongues outside of the local church for it is a gift given to the local church to be used in the local church, and it always needed an interpreter. If you didn't have an interpreter you were to shut up and keep quiet.

Public prayer in the local church. You don't remember the verse "Or how shall they know when to say "Amen." It had to be interpreted.

Pray in private, but not in other languages. Why would you do that? What languages do you pray in? Cree? Maori? Hindi? Creole? What languages do you pray in? A tongue is a language, and if you don't know then you are deceived.
James 5:17 Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months.
18 And he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit.
The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.
--Elijah prayed in his own language so that all could understand him.
I am sure he had more of the Spirit than you do.

Then what are the languages that you speak in?[/quote]

Christ was crucified ca. 29 A.D. Pentecost was no later than 30 A.D. if not in 29. Paul's letter to the Corinthians was in 55 A.D.

No it wasn't. You misinterpret this verse every time.

1 Corinthians 14:4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
1 Corinthians 14:4 He who speaks in another language edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the assembly. (WEB)
It is a rebuke. The gift is not just to edify yourself; it is to edify the entire assembly, therefore do not speak in other languages but rather prophesy. That is the message there. You cannot take permission from a rebuke.

You are quoting only a part of the prophecy.
The Spirit was not poured out on all flesh, not even in the first century. If it was then over 100,000 would have been saved, and not just 3,000.
If it was they would not have been calling the disciples drunk. That is not a result of the outpouring of the Spirit on all flesh.
If it was then all would be saved today; but they are not.
Your interpretation does not fit the context.

The phrase is only used once in the Bible, and is used as a gift of the Spirit, and as a revelatory gift. It would be God revealing special knowledge yet unknown to NT believers because the NT is not yet complete.

No, I said your definition of "word of knowledge" is wrong. Why are you accusing me of things I never said?

I wasn't desperate at all. But if you didn't understand what I said, that is ok. Just leave it.

No, I am correcting your definition of the "word of knowledge."
What makes you the authority on Biblical terminology and gives you the authority to change it after 20 centuries of standard usage. That is what cults do--change the meanings of words.

And so??
That doesn't mean it was one of the gifts of the Spirit. It doesn't make them operational. God uses different people in different ways.

 

No, brother. God heals the sick. He heals as many as are in his will to heal.

 

I am asking how many you have layed hands on and prayed, then recovered?

 

Here is an interesting testimony by a person who went from a tongues-speaking church (a practice which both awed and disgusted him) to atheism and then back to Christianity: http://knowitstrue.com/an-extra-biblical-examination-on-the-gift-of-tongues/

He points out that "Gnostic, Coptic, Hindu, pagan, shaman, and Sufi (a type of Islam) have been all known or have been reported to practice ecstatic utterances." So even the Sufi Muslim mystics apparently speak in tongues!

 

But that is where your theology came from. You said you started thinking about Charismatic doctrines when you wanted to defend your own doctrine. And all along on the BB, your doctrines have dovetailed with major Charismatic doctrines. So you have linked yourself inextricably with the heretics of the Charismatic movement. And you have so far refused to condemn any Charismatic doctrine or practice, just said that you disagree. That you are ignorant of the roots of the movement doesn't change that.

As for us Baptists, I defy you to find any Baptist doctrine anywhere near as heretical as the Charismatic heresies DHK and I have delineated. What Baptists have ever said we are incarnations of God just like Christ is? And once again, that is a doctrine you refuse to oppose. Just disagreeing with such an egregious heresy doesn't cut it.

If you would simply condemn Charismatic doctrine I would like link you rather with the old line Pentecostals rather than the Charismatics. But you refuse to condemn terrible heresy.

 

Let me explain this to so you will understand it better. Remember I am a missionary to: more than one nation, and especially one nation that speaks many different languages all of which I don't know.

Secondly remember that Paul had the gift of languages for he spoke in languages more than them all. Why? He went to foreign nations, as Spain, where he would not have known the language. God would have given him that language to communicate NT revelation to them: for the gospel and for further revelation from God in teaching.

Thirdly, if God were to give me the language of Spanish would I understand the language I was speaking in (i.e. Spanish)? I would have to! I would have to be able to think in that language, use the grammar of that language, be able to know exactly what I am saying so that I can teach the people properly. I would even have to know the local idioms of the area. Definitely, I would have to know the language that I was speaking. That is what is supernatural about the gift of languages/tongues. It was supernatural; a gift given by God to communicate revelation to others, that they might understand. Understanding is the key word in all of chapter 14. If there is no understanding sit down and keep quiet. That is the command.

Why then, was an interpreter needed in the first century when the gift of tongues or languages was in effect? I am not entirely sure, but it is my opinion that it was translated back into the common language for others, or perhaps the Hebrew language for the Jews, as a sign for them. Either way it was a sign for the Jews, the second reason that other languages were spoken. When judgment came upon the Jews the sign was taken away. That happened near the end of the first century (70 A.D.)

All the gifts of the Spirit, collectively, were given to the Apostles, as a sign that they were apostles. This was not done for others as 1Cor.12 points out. Some had one gift; some another. The gifts of the Spirit were a sign to authenticate the message of the Apostle and the Apostle himself.

Paul said that no more than two or three could speak in languages, and even then they had to speak in order--turn by turn. Then he stipulated that each one had to have an interpreter. If there was no interpreter "let him keep silence in the church." He is very clear on that point. It is also clear that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are given to the local church and the local church only. There is the gift of administration. Do you go home and administer yourself?
Your entire post still "manifests" that you don't understand the word "manifestation." You give an existential, esoteric, mystical, metaphysical meaning to it. It is ambiguous so you can change the meaning at will.

If my mother tongue is English and God had given me the ability to speak in Spanish why would I pray in Spanish when my mother tongue is English and I can much better pray and communicate my inner most thoughts to God in English. Prayer is communication with understanding. Tongues does not do that.

Paul went on three missionary journeys, and then came back and said: "I thank God that I speak in tongues more than you all." Find out why. Do some study.

The Bible says to rightly divide the Word of truth; not to wrongly butcher it. It all fits together nicely, harmonizes so that there are no contradictions. My interpretation is correct so that it doesn't contradict any other portion of Scripture. Tongues ceased at the end of the first century.

It was a gift given to the local church to be used in the local church as were all the gifts of the Spirit. It demanded interpretation. The tongues and interpretation thereof were both for the edification of the church and for the Jews. You can't do that privately. There is an example of prayer in 1Cor.14. It is public, not private.

The only kind of praying in another language is in a local church. There is no such thing as a private prayer language. You cannot prove that from Scripture.
Nowhere does he command infant baptism either.
Nowhere does he command driving to church either.
By that logic you can read anything you want into the Bible.

Praying in another language is not scriptural, nor is it a gift of the Spirit today. If it were you would give evidence of it. Not even you have that gift.
As far as Manifestation" is concerned, you don't even know how to define it in your own words properly.

 

Nice put down of Elijah. I am sure he will appreciate it. Can you call down fire from heaven?
God hasn't called you to do any of the ministries of the apostles and never will because the gifts of the Spirit has ceased. You are simply being hypocritical. You say they are operational out of one side of your mouth, and then say that God has not called you to perform them out of the other side of your mouth. Do you know what people call that??

I already have. Read the post.

Obviously if you speak in Spanish to an English only congregation no one will understand you. But you can understand yourself. What kind of nonsense is that? If there were Jews present then you would need some interpretation.

And that is what I said. About 25 years after Pentecost.

Jude doesn't say anything about tongues. Other Scripture taken out of context here. You like to do that. If you edify yourself it is wrong. The gifts were given to edify all.

Show me in Scripture where he forbids anyone to stand on their head while praying. It is not what he forbids, but what he commands. He commands that the gifts be used for the local church. They are gifts for the local church, for the edification of the local church, and not for the sole purpose of the individual. Chapter 12 makes that clear and chapter 14 the entire context is the local church.

That is all moot. Speaking in another language does not edify you. It brings you confusion. If you are praying to God, the way to pray is in your own language where you can communicate to God your innermost thoughts, petitions, supplications, and travail with him in prayer. You cannot do that in another language.

You are adding to the Word of God. That is not what it says. It says the Holy Spirit was poured out on all flesh. Period. That did not happen. It also speaks of great signs in the heavens. That did not happen.

Again you are adding to the Word of God. It simply says that His Spirit was poured out on all flesh. It wasn't.

He didn't say it was completely fulfilled. It was a partial fulfillment.

Knowledge will never end. Else we will be mindless zombies. The context clearly shows that it is revelatory knowledge that ceased.

God is finished giving revelation.

God led me. He didn't give me special revelation. To say that he did is of Satan.

I simply said that "word of knowledge" has to do with revelation being given in the NT. It has nothing to do with ongoing revelation today, or nothing to do with the unique way that you are defining it.
You ridiculously accuse me of saying that I don't believe in the Holy Spirit.

That is because God communicated directly to the prophets and apostles directly during those times. He does not do that today. We have the NT. Every thing we need to know is in the pages of the Bible. Use it.

No I am not. I said the Holy Spirit still works today. He simply does not work through the same way as he did in the first century. He does not work through the gifts of the Holy Spirit. For example there is no one today that can demonstrate the gift of healing.
He does not work in the same way he did with Israel.
He does not lead you with a pillar of fire by night does He?
He works in different ways in different times.
Is that so hard a principle to accept?

 

I was an Elder in the Assemblies of God, trained and educated by them at their school, so know what pentacostalists believe and what scriptures they use!

My MAIN/primary concern is with the modern Charasmatics such as the hagin/Copelands/price/Hinn etc heretics all!

 

You have to realise that we are now under a different operation of the Spirit, as He worked in the transistion time in Acts in order to get the Church "off the ground" by His spiritual Gifts and Apostles/prophets, but not in that Age any more!