-
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!
DO YOU BELIEVE IN SPEAKING IN TONGUES
- Thread starter shy one
- Start date
ROBERTGUWAPO
Member
Dear Thomas:
I would rather agree with the likes of John Piper, John Rice (ahhh, my favorite Baptist author), and Martin Lloyd-Jones than agree with cessationists like you. Guess what? The above three also point to the Bible as their source.
Robert!
I would rather agree with the likes of John Piper, John Rice (ahhh, my favorite Baptist author), and Martin Lloyd-Jones than agree with cessationists like you. Guess what? The above three also point to the Bible as their source.
Robert!
ROBERTGUWAPO
Member
Dear Qwerty:
It doesn't surprise me that even learned scholars with zillions of degrees swallow the teachings of Darby and Schofield HOOK, LINE, AND SINKER!
...Just like how they have swallowed the doctrine of the pretrib rapture...
1. A doctrine never taught during the first 1800 years of the church.
2. A doctrine with an occultic background--from the possessed Margaret Macdonald.
3. And of course, a doctrine popularized by Darby! Darby's writings document his meeting with Margaret Macdonald...sighhhhhhhhh.......
It doesn't surprise me that even learned scholars with zillions of degrees swallow the teachings of Darby and Schofield HOOK, LINE, AND SINKER!
...Just like how they have swallowed the doctrine of the pretrib rapture...
1. A doctrine never taught during the first 1800 years of the church.
2. A doctrine with an occultic background--from the possessed Margaret Macdonald.
3. And of course, a doctrine popularized by Darby! Darby's writings document his meeting with Margaret Macdonald...sighhhhhhhhh.......
Christopher
New Member
If the world was experiencing the miracles of the apostolic age, it would be evident. Through experience, I know people who were "commanded" to be healed. They seemed to be fairly well for a season, but the healing seemed to vanish away. Why?
My father knows a man whose sister had a bone disorder in her back. A woman prayed for her, leading her to believe she was healed. The man's sister believed she was healed. A while later, she ended up getting surgery anyway.
Another incident involved one of my friend's friends. The girl was shot in one of her eyes with a BB gun. She went to a church camp, and a man prayed over her "in tongues." She believed she was healed and claimed to see out of her eye that was once damaged. After a while, the vision in her "restored" eye became more and more dim. At the present, she can no longer see out of her eye that was "healed." Why?
The gifts in the early church were truly miraculous. The dead were raised, withered hands were made whole, etc. Those, brethren, were gifts of the Spirit.
(Mark 16:17) And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; (18) They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
Why do Pentecostals insist I speak in tongues, but they do not pick up snakes nor drink poison? Paul picked up a vipor (Acts 28:3-5). If I threw a snake on a Pentecostal, they would faint! Or if I put poison in their food, they would jet to the nearest Poison Control Center!
See the illustration?
Grace be with you, Christopher
My father knows a man whose sister had a bone disorder in her back. A woman prayed for her, leading her to believe she was healed. The man's sister believed she was healed. A while later, she ended up getting surgery anyway.
Another incident involved one of my friend's friends. The girl was shot in one of her eyes with a BB gun. She went to a church camp, and a man prayed over her "in tongues." She believed she was healed and claimed to see out of her eye that was once damaged. After a while, the vision in her "restored" eye became more and more dim. At the present, she can no longer see out of her eye that was "healed." Why?
The gifts in the early church were truly miraculous. The dead were raised, withered hands were made whole, etc. Those, brethren, were gifts of the Spirit.
(Mark 16:17) And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; (18) They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
Why do Pentecostals insist I speak in tongues, but they do not pick up snakes nor drink poison? Paul picked up a vipor (Acts 28:3-5). If I threw a snake on a Pentecostal, they would faint! Or if I put poison in their food, they would jet to the nearest Poison Control Center!
See the illustration?
Grace be with you, Christopher
DocCas
New Member
I have never read Darby, and have no idea who Schofield is, unless you mean Cyrus Scofield, the publisher of a popular reference bible in 1909 and again in 1917. I have no interest in most of what Scofield has to say for I consider his dispensationalism, his ecclesiology, and his soteriology to be hetrodox. Claiming I get my doctrine from either Darby or Scofield is preposterous. I consider both to be obviously mistaken.
Can anyone explain, then, why Charismatic "signs and wonders" seem to be generating a revival that is apparently bringing millions to Christ in Asia, Africa, South America, even Australia, yet nothing close to that is happening in America or Europe? Are we just so caught up in our own "Culture Faith" that we are ignoring God, or is there some kind of cultural connection that a "signs and wonders" religion makes with people in those parts of the world?
Whether you like it or not, Dr. Cassidy is correct in his teaching on the Greek. Others may have opinions, but the Bible is clear.
Consistency in following the Bible is the most glaring omission of the modern charismatic movement. IF they had a biblical basis for the shenanigans of Benny and Swaggert and Bakker, then their off-the-wall interpretations in areas such as tongues might be debated.
Instead, they "pick-and-choose" what to believe or practice. Do believe a few still play with snakes, drink strychnine, but even those extremes fall far short of following the Bible's clear "rules" for controling the tongues gift.
Will let this thread go on, but remind everyone that when it hits 10 pages (nobody goes back and reads anything that long) we will shut it down.
Consistency in following the Bible is the most glaring omission of the modern charismatic movement. IF they had a biblical basis for the shenanigans of Benny and Swaggert and Bakker, then their off-the-wall interpretations in areas such as tongues might be debated.
Instead, they "pick-and-choose" what to believe or practice. Do believe a few still play with snakes, drink strychnine, but even those extremes fall far short of following the Bible's clear "rules" for controling the tongues gift.
Will let this thread go on, but remind everyone that when it hits 10 pages (nobody goes back and reads anything that long) we will shut it down.
Because their pagan culture loves a good show? Many of these people have spoken in tongues long before the charasmatics showed up, so they fit right in. Paul had this concern with the Corinthians..
Then he told them who these false teachers they were listening to really were:
Why is it beyond our comprehension that people are still using the name of Christ falsely today?
~Lorelei
What the modern day Pentecostal/Charismatic movement is doing is irrelevant to the issue. The issue is scripture. Does Scripture say the sign gifts woould disappear?
1 Cor. 13:8-10 is always brought into the discussion. "That which is perfect" is not referring to scripture. "That which is perfect" is referring to the completion of God's purposes in Jesus Christ which reaches it's climax at the Second coming (Romans 8:19) and vs 12 confirms this For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known. Clearly Paul is anticipating the day we see Christ face to face and not that we will see Christ face to face when the NT Canon was complete.
[ March 14, 2002, 09:33 AM: Message edited by: Kiffin ]
1 Cor. 13:8-10 is always brought into the discussion. "That which is perfect" is not referring to scripture. "That which is perfect" is referring to the completion of God's purposes in Jesus Christ which reaches it's climax at the Second coming (Romans 8:19) and vs 12 confirms this For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known. Clearly Paul is anticipating the day we see Christ face to face and not that we will see Christ face to face when the NT Canon was complete.
[ March 14, 2002, 09:33 AM: Message edited by: Kiffin ]
DocCas
New Member
This has already been thoroughly refuted at http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000319;p=6 9th post from the top of the page.
Bottom line: I do not think we need to accept that everything that poses AS those gifts in certain circles of today ARE those gifts, in order to accept that the gifts of the Spirit, including tongues, are still in operation today.
I will never forget reading the missionary book, "Bruchko." He had evangelized a tribe in S. America. The tribe he evangelized and neigboring one had prior warred over who knows how long--centuries, probably.
But soon, a group of Bruchko's new converts began to get concerned over that neigboring tribe. The tribe was just a few days walk away. So, they up and took of in the middle of the night to tell them of Jesus.
Now this is a tribe that had been known about by anthropologists, but had never before been pentrated by missionaries.
A week or so later the group of Bruchko's young tribal converts returned with an incredible story of how they had preached Jesus to the other tribe, and how almost the whole tribe was saved.
But Bruchko was utterly stumped. A skilled linguist, he knew the two tibes' languages were not intelligible with one another. Yet, here was this group of young tibesmen-converts standing before, telling him this story of how they preached Jesus to the rival tribe and nearly all were saved.
Brucko later travelled to that other tribe and was utterly amazed at what he found: a tribe that had been saved by Christ and His message. Still, no formal missionary contact had been made. How did they hear? How could they understand the young converts?
That the young converts went and were given the gift of toungues seemed the only, only possible explanation to Bruchko. Now, with that piece of the puzzle missing, his new converts' story made perfect sense.
We so often get so blinded by our own small little Christian and denominational worlds that we tend to impose those small little worlds upon what the Scriptures say about what God can and cannot do, all the while fighting tooth and nail and perceiveing that that is not what we do.
But A.W. Tozer pretty much Scripturally demolishes the myth that the gifts of the Spirit, including sign gifts such as toungues, have passed away at the death of the Apostles. It is in the little book of his called "Keys to the Deeper Life." We would all do well to get hold of it and read it, and adjust ourselves accordingly.
BTW, if you get the book Bruchko and read it, be prepared to stay up reading all night. You WILL NOT be able put it down!
I can also tell you that during one particular pressing experience I had as a missionary, I was given the gift of interpretation of tongues. Still boggles my mind to this day.
[ March 14, 2002, 01:03 PM: Message edited by: LP ]
What is the issue?
Where did a doctrine originate?
The Apostle Paul made it clear that he received his message and truth by revelation from Jesus Christ.
GAL 1:11 I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. [12] I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
From the posts given by those opposing tongues (and the gifts), no evidence of origin for their doctrine of cessationism is given outside of man. What is given is that a man has studied hard, understands Greek and Hebrew, and therefore understands what the Apostle Paul meant by what the Apostle Paul said. And this is the common support for all cessationist arguments for the last 100 years.
No appeal is made to revelation from Jesus Christ, or the Holy Spirit. God is not given credit for divinely giving this doctrine. From everything I have read here, and other places, the only source that is given is man himself. Therefore, I reject it.
The hatred of tongues
The issue of tongues is basically why all the rest of the supernatural gifts are thrown out. As you can see from this thread, and others here, the issue is all about tongues. If you could just get rid of tongues, the rest of the gifts would likely be accepted. But tongues is the sticking point. And the Holy Spirit intended that it would be that way. And you can see that the opposition to tongues is not a minor or trivial opposition. The opposition to tongues, and those who believe that the Holy Spirit still gives tongues, is tough and hard-edged. There can be no exceptions, no give and take. It is all or nothing. In this war there are no prisoners.
And this is the very reason why tongues are the pivotal point. The Holy Spirit, Who is God, knew that man is created to be a being who would seek after God. But also, that fallen man would want to make his own way, and create his own religions. The true religion of the Lord Jesus Christ, which today on the earth is being administrated by the Holy Spirit, must have a super-naturalness about it. Much of that which is called Christian religion in the United States does not have a supernatural element to it at all. Basically, all the activities that most churches do can be accounted for in terms of man’s achievement. Tongues, which the Apostle Paul made very clear, are not for all Christians. But those who oppose tongues today contradict Paul, and the Holy Spirit, and say they are for nobody today.
The Apostle Paul makes it clear that the enemy can influence the thinking and belief systems of Christians.
1TI 4:1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.
Also note, the Apostle Paul cites the Holy Spirit here. Those who oppose tongues in this thread have not given the Living God, Who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, any credit for their doctrine. Will anyone who supports cessationism please say that it came from the heart of God? That the doctrine of cessationism came by revelation of the Holy Spirit? I don’t think you can say that. If you do, you are caught in your own trap, because you also say that this kind of revelation stopped at 100 A.D.
This doctrine of cessationism originated somewhere. Because no person here can give a source, I must assume that it either came from the mind of a man, or the mind of the enemy.
Where did a doctrine originate?
The Apostle Paul made it clear that he received his message and truth by revelation from Jesus Christ.
GAL 1:11 I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. [12] I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
From the posts given by those opposing tongues (and the gifts), no evidence of origin for their doctrine of cessationism is given outside of man. What is given is that a man has studied hard, understands Greek and Hebrew, and therefore understands what the Apostle Paul meant by what the Apostle Paul said. And this is the common support for all cessationist arguments for the last 100 years.
No appeal is made to revelation from Jesus Christ, or the Holy Spirit. God is not given credit for divinely giving this doctrine. From everything I have read here, and other places, the only source that is given is man himself. Therefore, I reject it.
The hatred of tongues
The issue of tongues is basically why all the rest of the supernatural gifts are thrown out. As you can see from this thread, and others here, the issue is all about tongues. If you could just get rid of tongues, the rest of the gifts would likely be accepted. But tongues is the sticking point. And the Holy Spirit intended that it would be that way. And you can see that the opposition to tongues is not a minor or trivial opposition. The opposition to tongues, and those who believe that the Holy Spirit still gives tongues, is tough and hard-edged. There can be no exceptions, no give and take. It is all or nothing. In this war there are no prisoners.
And this is the very reason why tongues are the pivotal point. The Holy Spirit, Who is God, knew that man is created to be a being who would seek after God. But also, that fallen man would want to make his own way, and create his own religions. The true religion of the Lord Jesus Christ, which today on the earth is being administrated by the Holy Spirit, must have a super-naturalness about it. Much of that which is called Christian religion in the United States does not have a supernatural element to it at all. Basically, all the activities that most churches do can be accounted for in terms of man’s achievement. Tongues, which the Apostle Paul made very clear, are not for all Christians. But those who oppose tongues today contradict Paul, and the Holy Spirit, and say they are for nobody today.
The Apostle Paul makes it clear that the enemy can influence the thinking and belief systems of Christians.
1TI 4:1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.
Also note, the Apostle Paul cites the Holy Spirit here. Those who oppose tongues in this thread have not given the Living God, Who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, any credit for their doctrine. Will anyone who supports cessationism please say that it came from the heart of God? That the doctrine of cessationism came by revelation of the Holy Spirit? I don’t think you can say that. If you do, you are caught in your own trap, because you also say that this kind of revelation stopped at 100 A.D.
This doctrine of cessationism originated somewhere. Because no person here can give a source, I must assume that it either came from the mind of a man, or the mind of the enemy.
Did not say "that" is referring to Jesus. "That" is referring to the eternal ages which Christ brings in at His return. If "that" was referring to Jesus specifically as a person, you would have a argument but the argument in referring to "that" as the canon is baseless. Did all of a sudden when John wrote "Amen" at the end of Revelation, they cease?
The Church Fathers testify of the sign gifts still occuring in the years afterwards. The problem for cessationists is the context. The idea of "that" being Scripture was made popular by C.I. Scofield and other Dispensationalists as well as many Reformed theologians in order to refute Pentecostalism. "that" is not referring to the New Testament canon. It is a theology that is built on a misinterpretation of one verse of scripture.
Cessationists say that we see in a mirror, dimly, is referring to not having the conplete NT canon but actually that is a very strained interpretation. We see only an imperfect reflection now but someday we will see (Him, Jesus Christ) Face to Face. If we take the cessationist argument for 1 Cor. 13:12, then we must have a better grip of scripture than the Apostle Paul since he only knew "in part" and also would imply that the Apostle Paul outlived John into the 2nd Century since he writes "then I shall know fully" that is Paul lived to see the entire Canon finalized, which we know is false.
[ March 14, 2002, 01:19 PM: Message edited by: Kiffin ]
The Church Fathers testify of the sign gifts still occuring in the years afterwards. The problem for cessationists is the context. The idea of "that" being Scripture was made popular by C.I. Scofield and other Dispensationalists as well as many Reformed theologians in order to refute Pentecostalism. "that" is not referring to the New Testament canon. It is a theology that is built on a misinterpretation of one verse of scripture.
Cessationists say that we see in a mirror, dimly, is referring to not having the conplete NT canon but actually that is a very strained interpretation. We see only an imperfect reflection now but someday we will see (Him, Jesus Christ) Face to Face. If we take the cessationist argument for 1 Cor. 13:12, then we must have a better grip of scripture than the Apostle Paul since he only knew "in part" and also would imply that the Apostle Paul outlived John into the 2nd Century since he writes "then I shall know fully" that is Paul lived to see the entire Canon finalized, which we know is false.
[ March 14, 2002, 01:19 PM: Message edited by: Kiffin ]
Well, I don't read this kind of insight very often. It is very, very refreshing!
Our brand of Christianity that makes us "doctors" and "theologans" and "philosphers" and the like--it is a false Christian spirituality. Paul did not learn--learn with all his heart, soul, mind and strength--what he did through any stripe of primary intellectual inquiry and accumen. Quite, quite, quite on the contrary. As qwerty quoted above,
And,
Want to know Christ? Suffering will be your lot. He will place you in situations that REQUIRE you to have revelations to get through them--revelations of course entirely grounded in and into Scripture. When those come, THEN you will understand the Scripture, not through any primary academic inquiry as to their meaning.
If we want to understand--real-ly understand--what Paul (and the other NT writers) knew and meant in all he wrote in Scripture, we must come to know it in the very way he himself came to know it. All else is a false spiritual knowledge, and is no spiritual knowledge at all. Knowledge puffs up, something the Scribes and Pharisees, of course, could neither see nor hear about, with little exception. Neither can modern day Scribes and Pharisees.
For example, if you want to real-ly understand what Paul meant by, "Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church," you can try and understand it by all kinds of intellectual inquiry. But you will only real-ly KNOW it when you undergo something of what Paul went through that led up to his own knowing it--suffering on behalf of others. True spiritual knowledge is bound up in usually pressing, practical situations, and our proper responses to God within them. There is no other way, except psuedo-ways.
Tozer has said,
More profoundly and to the point, T. Austin-Sparks has said (and there is no link to this so I quote),
And quoting Tozer again:
The passage just quoted is taken from Paul’s first Epistle to the Corinthians and is not lifted out of context nor placed in a setting which would tend to distort its meaning. Indeed it expresses the very essence of Paul’s spiritual philosophy and fully accord with the rest of the Epistle, and I might add, with the rest of Paul’s writings as we have them preserved in the New Testament. That type of theological rationalism which is so popular today would have been wholly foreign to the mind of the great Apostle.... The textualism of our times is based upon the same premise as the old-line rationalism, that is, the belief that the human mind is the supreme authority in the judgment of truth. Or otherwise stated, it is confidence in the ability if the human mind to do that which the Bible declares it was never created to do and consequently is wholly incapable of doing. Philosophical rationalism is honest enough to reject the Bible flatly. Theological rationalism rejects it while pretending to accept it and in so doing puts out its own eyes (emphases added).</font>[/QUOTE]
This whole tongues debate, not to mention hoards of others that could be mentioned, are only a mere symptom that points to a larger problem, namely, that we have in some very crucial and greivous ways simply departed from NT Christianity. As a whole, the spirit of our faith is quite, quite "other" than the spirit of faith which was in the NT. The crux of that is how we even know God and the Bible. Our way to that, overall, looks a lot more like the Scribes and Pharisees way than the Apostle's and early Church's way, and what is worse, we usually have niether the eyes to see it nor ears to hear about it.
`
[ March 14, 2002, 03:35 PM: Message edited by: LP ]