How do you figure that was "the Revelation" spoken of by Paul?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
1689Dave
Well-Known Member
They both use exactly the same Greek words (Apocalypse). And Paul elsewhere speaks of the end time event as the Parousia of Christ and his epiphany.
That's a far, far stretch. Where does this theory first surface in Church history?
1689Dave
Well-Known Member
Think of it this way. Paul says the apocalypse will also confirm them to the end. Meaning it was not the end. Plus, do you "speak in tongues"?
The tongues we see in churches today is not biblical tongues. It was always tied to the gospel, it was not for self serving Christians.
There is nothing in scripture declaring tongues finished. Its not even necessary.
There is nothing in scripture declaring tongues finished. Its not even necessary.
I totally disagree with the apocalypse theory.
Yes, and according to the present and immediate past SBC presidents I can still be a good Baptist.
There are most obviously different gifts of tongues we see in scripture.
I will readily agree with you, MOST of what is seen today is an abuse. Many of the gifts are even outright counterfeited.
1689Dave
Well-Known Member
Five reasons why tongues are not valid today. 1) The speaker was edified and needed to interpret so the others could understand and be edified. Understanding what was being said edified. So the speaker knew what they were saying. Today's tongue speakers haven't a clue about what they are saying. 2) Tongues only came through an apostle's hands apart from the two outpourings. The Last apostle died in the first century. 3) Tongues were unexpected and spontaneous. Today people coach each other as they learn to mimic the gift. 4) If tongues were genuine they would involve the church. Not just a few seedy sects dogged by scandal whose originators were also dogged by scandal. 5) The early Christians who had experience with the original gift condemned the Montanist sect for heresy after they claimed to have the gift.
37818
Well-Known Member
Repeating error does not make a false teaching true. The only-begotten Son as He is commonly called, was not begotten nor made to be the eternal Son of God. The false notion that the Son was caused by the Father being eternally begotten is not Biblical. The LORD God is wholly without being caused. The Father, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are uncaused, period.
You contradict yourself on point 1.
Scriptural proof of point 2?
3. If tongues were unexpected and spontaneous, how did Paul establish rules for usage, amount of usage, and appropriate time for usage?
Not from God, not HG inspired
1689Dave
Well-Known Member
Sorry, but a closer reading of what I said will show zero contradiction. It only proves today's claim of tongues show a lack of understanding Biblical tongues. Point 2 demands you provide from scripture a third way tongues came (which does not exist). Tongues came without any idea about what was going on. But you need to learn and practice because you do not have the original gifts.
Point 1 is contradictory. You said :"The speaker was edified and needed to interpret so the others could understand and be edified. Understanding what was being said edified. So the speaker knew what they were saying. Today's tongue speakers haven't a clue about what they are saying."
Paul was plain that one spoke in tongues and another interpreted.I I have no clue where you came up with your point 1.
The premise tongues requires apostolic transfer is yours to prove. It is my contention scripture does not state nor does it imply that.
Last edited:
1689Dave
Well-Known Member
Here's how it worked. Understanding what was said = edification. The tongue speaker was edified and therefore understood what they were saying. = fraudulent gifts today because the speaker does not know what they are saying.
What you say does not align with scripture. The interpretation was always by a different person. The messenger did not understand the tongue. The interpreter understood it. The two gifts work together. When the messenger knows the meaning, he does not speak in tongues, he prophesies. You really need to clear yourself up on I Corinthians.
1689Dave
Well-Known Member
Tongues edified the speakers as Paul says. But he also said understanding was the basis for edification = phony gifts today because they could be cussing God out and not know it.
The gift of tongues as given from God always has the telling of the gospel tied to it (I Cor 14:22). The other discussion using the word tongues is not a gift from God. In the early church they were multi-cultural. They spoke a common language but their home language was preferable to them. Paul said if you are going to give testimony in your home language have someone interpret in the common language so as to have everyone understand. All of this having to have an interpreter has nothing to to with the God given gift of tongues.
The understanding comes from the interpretation. Read I Cor.
Ch 14 is plain that a person speaking in tongues May or may not have understanding.
Last edited:
That's about the most unscriptural thing I have ever heard.
That does not even remotely harmonize with I Cor 14.
Because you are a-millennial you miss the time of cessation by about 1000 years.
The gift of learning and speaking in earthy languages and to be able to bring the desires of the heart to the presence of God as the Holy Spirit expresses such in heavenly language and we mutter will only cease at the time there will be no mysteries, no unknown,
As one who is premillennial such happens at the point of the millennial reign.
Please do not consider the charismatic gibberish is of God, but there are still modern accounts of God miraculously transforming the language so both the speaker and listeners hear and are understood. Preachers, teachers, evangelists, believers still present the Word to a people that need to hear but stop their ears.
More often in disgust over fakery, the person’s reaction is hostile and disregarding. The same is true with unfamiliarity. What one doesn’t know more often frightens and defensiveness takes over heard in the words, “I don’t like ...”
My ideal church has never existed. Even in the earliest formation the early church had both weeds and wheat. But isn’t that what my Savior loved and died for. So, my ideal church is found in the final chapters of the revelation. That wonderful place prepared for me in which there is no temple, no sun, for the whole is illuminated by the Son as we continually dwell in His presence.