Speaking in Tongues Volume 4...

The Charismatics have their own view of history, sometimes revised according to their own liking. But to be fair, as you know when discussing things with the Catholics the Church Fathers were confused on many things. Sometimes they seemed to be saying one thing, and sometimes another. I posted a link previously which gave plenty of evidence, and quotes from the church fathers which indicated that they were totally against speaking in tongues. So who to believe? I am not prone to believe the Charismatics version of history because of all the outlandish claims they make and false claims they are already caught up in. False prophets such as Benny Hinn abound in the Charismatic movement.
DHK

 

DHK,

You said, 'The Charismatics have their own view of history, sometimes revised according to their own liking.'

.

 

Someone said, 'so that you come short in no gift, eagerly waiting for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ.'

.

 

Less my own addenda the two question I wrote are floating. I'll repeat:

" One was a statement, to the effect that, 'Paul was more spiritual than some (or the) others. - whatever that means, in this thread. Outta' curiosity, where does Paul (or Luke or Peter, writing about him) ever make any claim to be 'more spiritual' than anyone?

Second, when speaking of I Cor.14:4, I noticed that text says that that "...he who speaks... edifies himself...". Someone wrote to the effect of self-edifying is important. Where is that found in Scripture? I checked my concordance, but am not able to figure out from whence this arises. I see where the active sense is used that we are to edify the church and other individuals. I see where the passive sense is used and we are edified. Aside from stretching I Cor.14:4 like a rubber band around the aforementioned barrel, I see nothing that implies edify self, and in fact I would suggest that Scripture seems to warn against exactly that."
Ed

 

Less my own addenda the two question I wrote are floating. I'll repeat:

" One was a statement, to the effect that, 'Paul was more spiritual than some (or the) others. - whatever that means, in this thread. Outta' curiosity, where does Paul (or Luke or Peter, writing about him) ever make any claim to be 'more spiritual' than anyone?

Second, when speaking of I Cor.14:4, I noticed that text says that that "...he who speaks... edifies himself...". Someone wrote to the effect of self-edifying is important. Where is that found in Scripture? I checked my concordance, but am not able to figure out from whence this arises. I see where the active sense is used that we are to edify the church and other individuals. I see where the passive sense is used and we are edified. Aside from stretching I Cor.14:4 like a rubber band around the aforementioned barrel, I see nothing that implies edify self, and in fact I would suggest that Scripture seems to warn against exactly that."
Ed

 

Sorry, Double entry and posting. That was not intentional.

The word addenda was intentional and correct. I DID NOT mean agenda.
Ed

 

As I said: Back to Apostolic times.

And was the Philippian jailor a Pharisee or a Sadducee? How about the Ethiopian Eunuch, the woman possessed with a spirit in Acts 16? Lydia, the seller of purple? These were all Pharisees in your mind? Baptizing in a font is not a Baptist distinctive. Either learn about the Baptist faith first and then post intelligently or don't post at all.
It is not that you can't post. You just show your lack of knowledge and embarass yourself in public.

Proverbs 29:11 A fool uttereth all his mind: but a wise man keepeth it in till afterwards.

When "Pharisees" like Saul got saved, they left their Judaism and their old religious system behind and became a Christian. They were no longer bound to what was clean and unclean. Do you not remeber Peter and John and the disciples walking through the corn fields plucking corn on the Sabbath day with unwashen hands? There they had violated two of the levitical laws. They also were Jews.

I have baptized converts in rivers. There is nothing that constrains us to use baptismal tanks.

Many churches, yes; but not Baptist churches--not churches that held to those distinctives which we hold to be Baptistic.

And so they do. Roman Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Church of Christ, are all among them.
DHK

 

DHK,

I did not think I would have to explain to you that Pharisees and Sadducees were groups that evolved out of Judaism and were not aligned with Jesus' beliefs and teachings.

The Jewish leadership tried at every point to stop Jesus' new teaching and sect, as they viewed it. I was saying they would not allow for new Christians to be immersed in their public fountains. It just would not have happened.

So where did all these converts get all their water for immersion? Most usually they immediately were baptised in water.

So Baptists trace their faith back to Apostolic times as you said.

This is no better than Assembly of God churches and Pentecostal churches tracing their start back to the Day of Pentecost.

In both cases this is error and is ascribing teachings about denominationalism back to first century Christianity.

Nevertheless, there are good Christians within Baptist churches as well as the Assembly of God churches.

 

How do you disallow someone from being saved?
How do you disallow the spread of Christianity?
Please read Church history, and your Bible!

Acts 8:3-4 As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison. Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word.

Some of the greatest revivals taking place today are taking place in third world countries that are either under communist rule, like in China, or under Islamic nations. You may not read about them often. But many are turning to Christ in these nations. And yet for a Muslim to turn to Christ in an Islamic republic such as Pakistan, they face the death penalty for converting to Christ as is often evidenced by their baptism. Even before that time their own families may take it upon themselves to murder them because of the reproach that they have brought upon the family name.
Such was the case in the time of the Apostles. A new convert was not only persecuted by their own family, the Jewish nation, but also by the Roman government. So what! You cannot prevent the salvation of a soul. You cannot prevent the spread of Christianity! Neither could the Pharisees and Sadducees prevent the resurrection of Christ!

Did you read about John and Jesus baptizing in the Jordan River? It flows "deep and wide."

I do not believe in "apostolic succession." I believe that in every age there were believers of like faith and order such as we are--those that held to the basic tenets of the same faith that Baptists hold today. God has never left himself without a witness.

The Assembly of God churches didn't come into existence until the 20th century. Their history can be well documented.

No it is not error. Pentecostalism had its beginnings in the first part of the 20th century. That is a fact. The Assemblies of God grew out of that movement. Look it up in encyclopedias and other church history books. Look the facts up for yourself. Get an education.

There may be good and bad within both. No church is perfect. But the Assembly of God holds to aberrant error. the error of speaking in tongues and their position of the gifts of the Spirit, is contrary to the Word of God, and puts them dangerously close to becoming a cult, like Oneness Pentecostal have become.
DHK

 

DHK,

.

You said, 'Did you read about John and Jesus baptizing in the Jordan River? It flows "deep and wide."

You said, 'I believe that in every age there were believers of like faith and order such as we are--those that held to the basic tenets of the same faith that Baptists hold today.'

.

You said, 'The Assembly of God churches didn't come into existence until the 20th century. Their history can be well documented.'

.

You said, 'No it is not error. Pentecostalism had its beginnings in the first part of the 20th century. That is a fact. The Assemblies of God grew out of that movement. Look it up in encyclopedias and other church history books. Look the facts up for yourself. Get an education.'

.

Berrian, Th.D.

 

Dude, stop bolding the parts you like, and bold the whole thing.

That "and" conjunction means "both," as in "I'll do both of the things mentioned."

One other thing: You started quoting at verse 15; take a look at verse 14 to put verse 15 in context:

-----

You honestly don't see the rebuke in Chapter 14? It's pretty obvious from all of 1 Cor 14 that they're being chastised for doing something incorrectly. I mean, look at verse 1:

Then there's verse 3:

Rather that ye may prophesy...to provide edification, and exhortation, and comfort. Looks like we're supposed to be thinking about our fellow men, not ourselves.

Hey, there's that emphasis on thinking about our fellow men rather than ourselves again.

Whoa, there it is again.

Wow, yet another emphasis on others instead of ourselves.

And yet another.

Shucks, let me throw just a few at you:
Matthew 22:36-39 Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Romans 15:1 We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves.

James 1:27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

Remember, that's just a few. With all this scripture that emphasizes we should be concerned about others, I have to wonder where all this justification for a "personal" prayer language came from.

 

'I have to wonder where all this justification for a "personal" prayer language came from.'

.

 

Ray, read the post and then the question again.

The emphasis is on doing something for others; the question is then, why are you encouraging people to seek a "personal experience" and therefore emphasizing doing something for the self?

Do I want to be part of a church where tongues is spoken, and not be able to partake of that gift? On the contrary; I'd feel left out, and would examine myself to find out why I'm not "being blessed." I would be seeking that gift, possibly to the exclusion of all else.

Don't you see? Encouraging someone to seek a gift for individual fulfillment is contrary to what 1 Corinthians 14 is all about.

Do I forbid speaking in tongues? Nope. Do I encourage people to seek a blessing for themselves? Rather, I encourage them to be a blessing to others, for in this manner will they receive blessings.

 

.
Israel isn't even as big as Minnesota!!

I don't think people would have a problem finding a place to be baptized between the Dead Sea, the Sea of Galilee, the Jordan River, and the Mediterranean Sea, as well as many other water outlets and bodies of water in this tiny land.

The Ethiopian Eunoch was immersed in the desert while on his way back to Egypt. So?
If you want to start a thread on baptism so be it. Go ahead. But this thread is on tongues. Why the red herring?

Go the C/A forum and see. You will find Baptists in both camps, and some in neither.

No, not as the Pentecostals do today. The Pentecostal movement began in the beginning of the 20th century. You might call it the advent of the "Gibberish Movement." Paul never spoke in gibberish. He spoke in actual foreign langauges--national languages.

Yes, you are partly right there. Methodism began with Charles Wesley, who was very "methodic" in his theology, in his study, in his devotions, etc. Wesley required discipline in the Christian life, as their should be.
Out of the Methodist movement came the holiness movement, with their belief in entire sanctification. But by the time the holiness movement was born, Methodism was well established. In other words, the holiness movement is relatively recent compared to Methodism. Out of the Holiness Movement came the Pentecostal Movement as you say (which began near the beginning of the first century). The progressive thinking was that to gain sanctification, or to get to that stage of greater spirituality one had to speak in tongues to do it. And thus the Pentecostal Movement was eventually born when it all climaxed around the beginning of the 20th century. Again, Pentecostal history is not that old.

AOG is a denomination with a definite beginning. There are varying views on the beginning of Baptists. Under the Baptist name there are many kinds, some denominational (SBC) and some not. I do not belong to a denomination. I never have since I have been saved. The Apostle Paul didn't establish denominations. He didn't establish AOG churches nor Pentecostal churches. The first distinctive of the Baptist faith is that the Bible is our sole authority of faith and practice; not our experieences as most Charismatics believe. You yourself have demonstrated the same thing. "It must be true because I have experienced it," is your basic theology, or because they are good people who have exerienced it. The experience has more authority than the Word of God in your mind.

The Waldenses existed long before the Lutherans and long before the Reformation ever took place, possibly as far back as the Apostle's themselves, and up until the 12th century. They have absolutely nothing to do with Luther's religion. Luther was a Catholic, who tried to reform the Catholic Church from within. It was the Catholic Church that kicked him out, but he never completely divested himself of all Catholic doctrine. He "protested" against much of it, but still retained some of it, like infant baptism, and a form of transubstantiation.
Yet your one stattement is true. There has always been, in every age, true believers, faithful to the Word of God. Those believers have been the Baptist forefathers. A Baptist is simply a Bible-believing Christian, when you get right down to basics. We add nothing to the Bible; we take nothing away.

As long as one is open to the truth.
DHK

 

Man, I did not mean to get caught up in this discussion.

Mike (D28), check out my response to Ray Berrian, page 13.

 

Always a pleasure to see one take the bait someone tossed out. But I got two observations/questions. What does the length and/or direction of the flow of the Jordan have to do with any 'question of "tongues'"?
What does the size of the font used have top do with whether or not someone answered the question or correctly cited something? FTR, I would suggest that "'proper internet protocol'" has absolutely nothing to do with Scripture, or its interpretation.
What does the citing about the place of and what was the law in Matthew 32 (uh, excuse me I think I musta' mislocated this- I mean Mat.39:36-22 or something like that anyway)have to do with a question about 'tongues'? Certainly the passage in Matthew 22: 22-39 (should include verse 40 for the context, and yes, I could find and cite correctly to start with, but did that for effect) has an awful lot to do with loving God and loving your neighbor, but nothing to do with the original premise, as far as I can see.

My feeling are not hurt, and I'm not upset, but I still would like an answer to the questions I now pose for the third time:

" Less my own addenda the two question I wrote are floating. I'll repeat:

" One was a statement, to the effect that, 'Paul was more spiritual than some (or the) others. - whatever that means, in this thread. Outta' curiosity, where does Paul (or Luke or Peter, writing about him) ever make any claim to be 'more spiritual' than anyone?

Second, when speaking of I Cor.14:4, I noticed that text says that that "...he who speaks... edifies himself...". Someone wrote to the effect of self-edifying is important. Where is that found in Scripture? I checked my concordance, but am not able to figure out from whence this arises. I see where the active sense is used that we are to edify the church and other individuals. I see where the passive sense is used and we are edified. Aside from stretching I Cor.14:4 like a rubber band around the aforementioned barrel, I see nothing that implies edify self, and in fact I would suggest that Scripture seems to warn against exactly that.""

I submit that these are (still) fair questions and germane to the topic.
Ed

 

Ed
Jude 20 talks about building up yourself in your most holy faith, Praying in the Holy Ghost.