The Bible Tongues is not what being done today

That is a big IF There is no one that is speaking in a heavenly or angelic language. There is no such thing, at least as far as humans are concerned. Angels speak in the languages of angels; humans speak in the languages of humans, and when a human claims to speak in an angel's language he is grossly deceived.

You are right. All tongues are not genuine. None of them in this day in age are. Biblical tongues ceased by the end of the first century. This we know from a study Scripture. Our findings are based on Scripture, not on the experiences of others.

I don't "try" to make it say that. It is my conviction that with honest and objective Bible study that that is what the Bible teaches. Tongues have ceased. There are many on this board that have come to that same conclusion. Go back and read through this thread. I am not the only one that has come to this same conclusion. There are many reasons for believing this, not just a simple exegesis of 1Cor.13:8-13. That Scripture in itself ought to be sufficient, but there is much more.

1. The most important reason is given in 1Cor. 14:21,22, a fulfillment of a prophecy given in Isa.28:11,12, which Paul quotes. Paul says that tongues are a sign for the unbelieving Jew. Look at verse 21:
1 Corinthians 14:21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
--"In the law it is written" Paul is quoting from Isaiah 28. "With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people. Who is "this people?" The people being referred to is the nation of Israel. That is who Isaiah was addressing in Isaiah 28, and that is who Paul is referring to here. With men of other languages will I speak to the nation of Israel, the Lord says. And yet in spite of this sign they still will not hear me. That is what the Scripture plainly says. The people referred to are the Jews that crucified the Lord in the first generation. They were the same ones that Peter preached to on the Day of Pentecost. They were the Jews of that generation. They did not heed that sign, and thus judgement came, as was prophesied in Isaiah 28.

1 Corinthians 14:22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.
--Verse 22 is connected with verse 21 by the connective "wherefore." It is a continuation of the same thought. Tongues is a sign. It says so right here, as it infers in verse 21. Who is it a sign to? "To them that believe not." Put in context tongues are for a sign to the unbelieving Jews. Nothing could be any more clearer than the teaching of these two verses. If you don't agree with the correct dispensational teaching that I have given you, you would at least have

2. The Charismatic churches exalt the gift of tongues as the most important of all the gifts, and yet Paul puts it as the least of all the gifts.
1 Corinthians 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
--Note the order here is very specific. See the adverbs that Paul uses: First, secondarily, thirdly, after that, then…and at the very end of the list what do you find? Tongues—the least important of all the gifts. The gifts are listed in order of importance. The first of importance was the Apostles, and second in importance were the prophets, and then the teachers, and so on. But tongues, the least of all the gifts was put last in the list. It was the least important. Ironically the Charismatics put it as the most important gift, some of them say that it so important that you cannot be saved without it (Oneness Pentecostal, for example).

3. Women are not permitted to speak in tongues, yet it seems that in this age more women than men speak in tongues.
1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

4. History itself bears out that tongues ceased after the first century. There is no reliable evidence of the gift of tongues being spoken after the first century.

5. In every case in the Bible, tongues were a real known language. That is what the word means in the Greek—language. There was no gibberish as it is today. They were all real known languages. Acts 2 bears this out very clearly where the words tongues and languages are used interchangeably.
In 1Cor.14 the emphasis was on understanding. If there was no understanding in the speaking of tongues, then to speak in tongues was a useless gift, no matter what you did with it—preach, pray, sing, or whatever. Understanding had to be there.
--Those are just a few of the reasons why we know that tongues have ceased. Another major reason that comes to mind, is that ever since that Charismatic movement has come into existence it has spawned nothing but heresies and false doctrine. That is not of the Holy Spirit, it is of Satan. False doctrine does not come from God. Thus how can this movement be of God? It cannot.

I believe this way because the Bible teaches that tongues have ceased. There is no such thing as Biblical tongues in operation today. They are fake. They are a cheap imitation of the real thing. They are not of God. The Bible is clear on this issue except to people who want to place their experience above and beyond the Word of God. They base their theology on their experience rather than the Word of God. For a phenomena that only started in 1906, I find it very gullible and naïve that so many Christians would buy into such a phenomena that was unheard of for 1800 years.

You want me to look at testimony from people like Jack Hayford. I would like you to look at the teachings of Jack Hayford:

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/news1/an010601-23.html#top

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/r06a50.html
The above shows that Jack Hayford believes in the heretical doctrine of Replacement Theology.

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/r06a41.html
This Charismatic ecumenical movement that he was involved in spawned much heresy.

 

Yes I can document it. In other words, I can provide the names that you are looking for, the dates, and the name of the church. But I won't. A man is entitled to his privacy. It would be unethical for me to post a person's name on a board like this without permission to do so.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Are you sure it wasn't the chineese laundryman?
BTW were you at the meeting that this happened or is this 2nd or 3rd hand hearsay?

 

You will have to provide more evidence than that. Exact quotes would be preferable. I find that when Charismatics try to find historical evidence of speaking of tongues in history (usually via the church fathers) they only refer to vague references to the filling of the Holy Spirit (something we are all commanded to do), and the baptism of the Holy Spirit (a doctrine in which there is much debate). Neither one of them has to directly with tongues, except by their own presuppositions. They read into those quotes only what they want them to say.
Many of the church fathers advocated false teachings and some were outright heretics. Origen was the Father of Arianism, for example. And Ireneas, who you refer to above, believed that Jesus lived to the ripe old age of 80. As for me I would rather get my doctrine from the Bible.

I don't have a paranoia. I have the Word of God, which needs to be rightly divided without presuppositions by ALL.

Luke 11:
11. If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?
12. Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?
13. If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?
[QB]

The above passage has nothing whatsoever to do with tongues although Charismatics love to quote it out of context in the defence of tongues. The filling of the Holy Spirit is a command that is given to all believers and has no relation to tongues whatsoever. It is a command given in Eph.5:18.

No, I have explained this before. Tongues of angels do exist. Man doesn't speak the tongues of angels nor has any reason to. How does an angel speak? He is a being of perfection, and when sent to do God's bidding can speak in any language to the person sent to. In fact he can speak all languages, perfectly, in perfect grammar, with all knowledge concerning vocabulary and grammar in all the languages of the world. No man has that ability, nor does he need it. That is not the gift of tongues; it is what angels are able to do. Paul never had that ability. The statements are conditional. Paul was saying that even if he had such abilities, and did not have love, then such abilities would be useless. Read the chapter! They are conditional statements.

There is no opinion involved here. It is a proper exegesis of 1Cor.13:1-3. The fact plainly is that it was not possible for Paul to accomplish all the things mentioned in the first verses of 1Cor.13.
--speak in the tongues of angels: not possible.
--have the gift of prophecy so that he could understand ALL mysteries: not possible
--have all knowledge: not possible; if it were he would be God.
--have all faith…not possible. No man has ALL faith. Paul was not a perfected being.
These were conjectural statements. They were conditions. Paul never spoke in angelic tongues. He never said he did. He never made any such claim. For you to even suggest such a thing is reading into Scripture something that is not there.

The fact is that these things didn't happen. Paul died a martyr's death, beheaded by the hand of Nero. There is nothing to suggest that he gave up all his estate or belongings before then, and nothing to suggest that he gave whatever he had to the poor. The things that he did have (such as scrolls of the Scriptures) he would have given to a young pastor like Timothy.

I gave you my research on Jack Hayford. He is a heretic. I have documented the things that he believes in quite thoroughly. Need I say more. My stand is on the Word of God, not on the experience of some heretic.
DHK

 

You ought to do research. It will open your eyes to what is going on. Why didn't you research out heretics like Jack Hayford before quoting him as a source?

Sure we categorize. Charismatics rely on experience rather than the Word of God for their theology. That is a given. The more extreme the experience, the more spiritual the person. That is the going assessment among Charismatics. If you want the quote from the preacher who claimed to go to heaven and hell I can give it to you. I never said it was from Hayford. Here is an example from Percy Colette, a leading Charismatic and some of the outlandish experiences that he has claimed to have.

http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/CHAOS1.HTM

I trust the Word of God. It is my foundation, not experience. And yes I can prove my case through the Scriptures:

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Nowhere in the Bible is experience spoken of as our foundation. The Bereans searched the Scriptures before they would take Paul's word that what he said was true. The Scriptures were their foundation. It was their guidepost. If it was not according to the Word of God, Isaiah said to reject it. Much of what the Charismatics teach is not according to the Word of God, and needs to be rejected.

I compare the outlandish experiences of Charismatics (as documented above) to the Word of God. I am the one that uses the Word of God. I challenge you to do the same thing. Use the Word of God to compare what the Charismatics are doing.
DHK

There is no conjecture and no opinion. What I have said to you is straight from the Scriptures, especially the teaching given in 1Cor.14. What was the purpose of speaking in tongues. It was always for the understanding and edification of the whole church, never for just one individual. It was a gift given for the church's edification. Whether the message communicated by tongues was in the form of teaching, preaching, or prophesying is totally irrelevant. It was for the edification of the church. A prophet can either preach or teach, depending on the prophet and his manner of communication. That is his choice. Different people have different gifts. The fact is that the gift of tongues was used to communicate a gift to a people of a different language as is evidenced in Acts 2: "How hear we every man in our own language?" Paul was given this gift for this purpose. That is obviously why he had the ability to speak in tongues more than them all. Read and study the fourteenth chapter of 1Corinthians. Like I also said, it was also a sign to the unbelieving Jew at the same time. God had his purpose in it all.

Yes Paul said that tongues were a sign to the Jews. If you don't believe that you don't believe what the Bible says. It is so plain in 1Cor.14:21 it cannot be missed.

1 Corinthians 14:21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
--"With men of other tongues…I will speak to this people" "This people" is Israel. God told them that he would speak to them in tongues as a sign. He told them that even when He did, that they still would not believe. And thus it was. The prophecy came true. They heard and saw the sign. They did not believe. Verse 22 goes with verse 21. They were the unbelieving Jews.

I can do the research for you. But I think you should do your own. It still goes on today. People think they are more spiritual when they do such things. The more outlandish, the more spiritual. That is the philosophy.

No, you are entirely wrong. The Pentecostal churches came out of the holiness movement which originated with the Methodist churches. The Pentecostal Movement could be considered as the First Wave. Out of the Pentecostal Movement arose the Charismatic Movement which could be considered as the Second Wave. And now more recently we have the Third Wave, a progression from the Charismatic Movement. The difference is that the Third Wave puts even a greater emphasis than the typical Charismatic on miracles and the supernatural, even dabbling dangerously in the paranormal. It is all about experience. Remember: the greater the experience, the more spiritual you are. Theology really doesn't matter any more. This is evidenced by Benny Hinn's nine-person trinity.

So what! SDA's Mormons, and J.W.'s can claim the same thing. Social work means nothing when you don't have your salvation straight.

There are over one billion Muslims, and about a billion Roman Catholics. In the light of that the number of Pentecostals are infinitesimal.
DHK

 

***That is a big IF There is no one that is speaking in a heavenly or angelic language. There is no such thing, at least as far as humans are concerned. Angels speak in the languages of angels; humans speak in the languages of humans, and when a human claims to speak in an angel's language he is grossly deceived. ***

So the question is, who should I believe, you or the apostle Paul in divinely inspired scripture. Show me chapter and verse from scripture for your assertion that no one speaks angelic language, or that there is no angelic language.

Paul was the one who suggested speaking in the tongues of angels. Based on the way the passage is worded, a reasonable man would at the very least leave open the possibility of speaking in tongues of angels. Your opinions in the above paragraph are not based on scripture. Please do not try to 'explain away' the verses we are discussing instead of really dealing with them.

***I don't "try" to make it say that. It is my conviction that with honest and objective Bible study that that is what the Bible teaches.****


JW's will look at that verse about 144,000 from Israel being sealed and they are convinced that this verse refers to the best JW's, but the passage says no such thing.


***1. The most important reason is given in 1Cor. 14:21,22, a fulfillment of a prophecy given in Isa.28:11,12, which Paul quotes. Paul says that tongues are a sign for the unbelieving Jew. Look at verse 21:
1 Corinthians 14:21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
--"In the law it is written" Paul is quoting from Isaiah 28. "With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people. Who is "this people?" The people being referred to is the nation of Israel. That is who Isaiah was addressing in Isaiah 28, and that is who Paul is referring to here. With men of other languages will I speak to the nation of Israel, the Lord says. And yet in spite of this sign they still will not hear me. That is what the Scripture plainly says. The people referred to are the Jews that crucified the Lord in the first generation. They were the same ones that Peter preached to on the Day of Pentecost. They were the Jews of that generation. They did not heed that sign, and thus judgement came, as was prophesied in Isaiah 28. ***


One major problem with your argument-- it has NOTHING to do with tongues ceasing. If I were to accept your premise that Paul is saying that tongues serve as a sign for the Jews, it doesn't mean that tongues have ceased. There are still Jews afterall, and they still have a part in God's plan. (I assume you believe that, too, since you seem to be against Replacement Theology.)

How was this verse in Isaiah fulfilled the first time, in the short term? Wasn't it fulfilled when the Jews were carried off to Babylon, and all throughout the captivity, even AFTER the temple had been destroyed. The Jews kept hearing God's judgment upon them through the foreign languages of their oppressors after Jerusalem's walls were razed.

Secondly, you are assuming here that the ONLY purpose of tongues was for a sign. If there is a purpose for tongues other than as a sign, then it doesn't make sense that tongues would cease. The passage is clear that there IS another purpose for tongues-- edification. Without interpertation it edifies the speaker, and with interpretation, it edifies the church.

In fact, the POINT Paul is making in this passage is that tongues need to be interpreted, and he is giving arguments for this. One argument is that tongues without interpretation does not edify believers who hear it. Another is that tongues tend to cause unbelievers to respond in unbelief. This is where the verse from Isaiah comes in, 'and yet for all that, they will not hear me' describes how unbelievers react to tongues. Notice Paul says unbelievers and not only Jewish unbelievers. Paul's point is the effect of tongues on unbelievers. You are taking the passage from Isaiah out of context and making a point with it that Paul clearly does NOT make in the passage. Paul's point is that tongues need to be translated.

And in the context of the passage, we clearly see Paul arguing for other purposes for speaking in tongues besides as a sign specifically for the Jews (something he does NOT point out in his commentary on the Isaiah verse in this passage.)

So your tongues for a sign argument does not hold water. Show me where the passage says that tongues will cease at the destruction of Jerusalem/the temple/some other point in the past? You can't do it because you get this part of the theological puzzle from your own human opinion. Human opinion is no basis for doctrine. Toward the end of the passage, Paul writes '...forbid not to speak with tongues.' Do you have an obedient attitude when it comes to this scripture?

**1 Corinthians 14:22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.
--Verse 22 is connected with verse 21 by the connective "wherefore." It is a continuation of the same thought. Tongues is a sign. It says so right here, as it infers in verse 21. Who is it a sign to? "To them that believe not." Put in context tongues are for a sign to the unbelieving Jews. Nothing could be any more clearer than the teaching of these two verses***


A better answer is 'to them that believe not.' That is what Paul says, and not 'to the unbelieving Jews.' It doesn't take a PhD in logic to figure out that 'them that believe not' refers to unbelieving Gentiles as well as Jews. Gentiles can be unbelievers as well. Paul does not specify an unbelieving Jew when he speaks of the unlearned or unbeliever coming into the meeting and responding to all speaking in tongues by thinking that they are mad. It is not unreasonable, nor is it a misuse of Old Testament scripture for Paul to use a verse showing that unbelieving Jews in the past responded to God speaking through foreign languages with unbelief, and use it to illustrate that unbelievers in general in his own time would respond to speaking in tongues with unbelief.

The point Paul is making is that tongues need to be interpreted. That is a point he makes _before_ he quotes Isaiah. It is a point he is still making _after_ he quotes the passage from Isaiah. He does not comment on the temple being destroyed or other eschatological issues in the context of this quote from Isaiah. Let us read what Paul is saying instead of reading our own ideas into the passage-- exegete not eisegete.


****2. The Charismatic churches exalt the gift of tongues as the most important of all the gifts, and yet Paul puts it as the least of all the gifts.***


First of all, your statement is not universally true. Many Charismatics do not teach that tongues is the most important gift, and teach that prophecy is more important. There are Charismatics who do overemphasize tongues in relation to the other gifts. But all of this is beside the point. It is a rabbit trail. What does it have to do with whether there are genuine tongues today? it is irrelevant.

Btw, Paul never says that tongues is the least of the gifts. He puts it at the end of a list of gifts, followed by interpretation which we might think is a higher gift. But there is no reason to think that this gift is exhaustive, or even to think that all the gifts that God could possibly give are listed specifically in scripture. God may give out gifts that are lower than tongues. Scripture does not tell us that there is no gift lower than tongues, so we should not assume it is the lowest gift. We should give thanks to God for all of His gifts.

*** It was the least important. Ironically the Charismatics put it as the most important gift, some of them say that it so important that you cannot be saved without it (Oneness Pentecostal, for example). ***

Especially if you are using 'Charismatic' with a capital 'C' it does not make sense to call Oneness Pentecostals 'Charismatics.' I would imagine a lot of them would resent the label, and their beliefs on tongues necessary for salvation and the Trinity are not typical of Pentecostals either.


**3. Women are not permitted to speak in tongues, yet it seems that in this age more women than men speak in tongues.***

The verse you quote about women's silence does not say that women cannot speak in tongues. Paul makes allowance for the one speaking in tongues to keep silent in the church and to speak to himself and to God.

**4. History itself bears out that tongues ceased after the first century. There is no reliable evidence of the gift of tongues being spoken after the first century.**

These kind of comments are disingenuous. You obviously haven't studied the issue out or you wouldn't be making such statements. Here is the statement


This is from Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, Book V, chapter VII, from the website, &lt;http://www.bibledb.com/EcclesiasticalHistory05.php&gt;


***************
Chapter VII. Even down to those Times Miracles were performed by the Faithful.

These things Irenaeus, in agreement with the accounts already given by us, records in the work which comprises five books, and to which he gave the title Refutation and Overthrow of the Knowledge Falsely So-called. In the second book of the same treatise he shows that manifestations of divine and miraculous power continued to his time in some of the churches. He says: "But so far do they come short of raising the dead, as the Lord raised them, and the apostles through prayer. And oftentimes in the brotherhood, when, on account of some necessity, our entire Church has besought with fasting and much supplication, the spirit of the dead has returned, and the man has been restored through the prayers of the saints." And again, after other remarks, he says:

"If they will say that even the Lord did these things in mere appearance, we will refer them to the prophetic writings, and show from them that all things were beforehand spoken of him in this manner, and were strictly fulfilled; and that he alone is the Son of God. Wherefore his true disciples, receiving grace from him, perform such works in his Name for the benefit of other men, as each has received the gift from him. For some of them drive out demons effectually and truly, so that those who have been cleansed from evil spirits frequently believe and unite with the Church. Others have a foreknowledge of future events, and visions, and prophetic revelations. Still others heal the sick by the laying on of hands, and restore them to health. And, as we have said, even dead persons have been raised, and remained with us many years. But why should we say more ? It is not possible to recount the number of gifts which the Church, throughout all the world, has received from God in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and exercises every day for the benefit of the heathen, never deceiving any nor doing it for money. For as she has received freely from God, freely also does she minister." And in another place the same author writes: "As also we hear that many brethren in the Church possess prophetic gifts, and speak, through the Spirit, with all kinds of tongues, and bring to light the secret things of men for their good, and declare the mysteries of God." So much in regard to the fact that various gifts remained among those who were worthy even until that time.
***********

The time period under discussion in Eusebius' treatment of Ireneaus works is late second or early third century, probably late second century. This is about a hundred years after Paul died, or possibly more.

There are plenty of accounts of other spiritual gifts besides speaking in tongues. Prophecy is a prime example. In the early second century, Justin Martyr wrote his dialogue with Trypho, a Jew. One argument Justin made was that the gift of prophecy had ceased among the Jews, but still continued among Christians.

****Those are just a few of the reasons why we know that tongues have ceased. Another major reason that comes to mind, is that ever since that Charismatic movement has come into existence it has spawned nothing but heresies and false doctrine. That is not of the Holy Spirit, it is of Satan. False doctrine does not come from God. Thus how can this movement be of God? It cannot.***

The early church had gifts of the Spirit and true prophets. Yet there were false teachers, heretics, false prophets, etc. who would lead entire households astray and teach false doctrine. Did the false teachers, false prophets, etc. make the early church false? Of course not. It is probably easier for a false prophet to decieve more people if he is among people who reckognize the gift of prophecy as a Biblical gift. Imagine if some first century Christians did not believe in the gift of prophecy. They would reject false prophets, but they would also reject true prophets. But the false prophet would probably be able to do a lot more false 'charismatic' things among groups of believers that believed in prophecies. Paul wrote to the Thessalonians-- who may have been 'burned' in the past-- to despise not prophesyings. Even if there are people who teach false doctrine claiming to do gifts of the Spirit, we should not reject the gifts. The presence of counterfeit doesn't mean that the genuine article does not exist. If there were no real dollar bills out there, then there wouldn't be much reason to counterfeit dollar bills.

We are talking about a theological position here. Charismatics believe that God gives gifts to his church today. Charismatics are not one uniform group with a central headquarters. It's like Calvinists. Some Baptists are Calvinists, but a lot of Calvinists practice infant baptism. Calvinists are not some unified group. It is a term used to apply to a theological position on a certain issue.

Having a wrong belief about predestination does not necessarily lead to disobeying the Lord. If you don't understand predestination correctly, that may hold you back in your knowledge, but it probably won't make you sin by disobeying the Lord's commands. If you hold to some wrong ideas about eschatology, that doesn't necessarily lead you into sin either.

But it is difficult to be a cessationist--who believes that the gifts have ceased-- without disobeying scripture. The Bible commands '...covet to prophesy and forbid not to speak with tongues..." It is hard for a Cessationist, if he gets the chance, to not forbid speaking in tongues. It is a whole lot harder to believe that prophecy has ceased, and still obey the direct command of scripture 'covet to prophesy.' How can you be a Cessationist and obey the command to covet to prophesy? Also, the Bible commands 'Despise not prophesyings.' But holding to a Cessationist position on prophesy makes it difficult to hear prophesyings without despising them. Cessationism is one of those few common theological positions that can directly lead someone to sin.

Btw, Jehovah's Witnesses are Cessationists and believe the gifts have ceased. If your claim that there is a lot of error in the Charismatic movement is proof that gifts have ceased (and your argument holds no water if you compare the situation to that of the early church) then you should reject Cessationism because JW's are Cessationists, and you do not want to be like them.

*** They base their theology on their experience rather than the Word of God. For a phenomena that only started in 1906, I find it very gullible and naïve that so many Christians would buy into such a phenomena that was unheard of for 1800 years. ***


First of all, you do not know what you are talking about. There was speaking in tongues before 1906. There was speaking in tongues in the Athens Georgia area during a Methodist revival around 1801 or 1802. There was speaking in tongues in certain parts of England in that century, and in some parts of the Holiness movement in the late 1800's. There was also some speaking in tongues in 17th century England. That is what I know of post-Reformation tongues before Pentecostalism off the top of my head and there are probably plenty of other examples.

I would like to ask you again, why do you use the figure '1800' years? Do you believe the tongues in 200 AD were genuine? Considering your interpretation of scripture, why would tongues have ceased as late as 200AD? If they lasted that long, why do you believe they would not last for today.


****You want me to look at testimony from people like Jack Hayford. I would like you to look at the teachings of Jack Hayford:****


You showed me a quote that Heyford spoke at a certain Pentecostal conference? What's wrong with that? What is your quote supposed to show about Heyford's theology?


q
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/news1/an010601-23.html#top


********
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our God is a faithful God. He will be faithful to complete His plan for His people, Israel. We cannot rush this or force it into happening just because we want to see the ''Kingdom Now''. It will happen only in God's timing. The idea that the church can perform actions that will ''bring back the King,'' as Jack Hayford said, is replacement theology and is incompatible with the Bible.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/r06a50.html
The above shows that Jack Hayford believes in the heretical doctrine of Replacement Theology.******


First of all, the website you mention says nothing about Jack Heyford. I do not know where you got that quote.

Second, if Jack Heyford said something about bringing back to the king (what? evangelizing the world) what does that have to do with replacement theology? Replacement theology is saying that the church replaced Israel. A lot of people who hold to Latter Rain eschatology are not true adherants of Replacement Theology. Some of them hold to literalist interpretations of eschatology as well. (Some seem to have a dual interpretation of passages.) The brief quote you gave in regard to Heyford isn't proof that he holds to a Latter Rain eschatology either.

Thirdly, 'heresy' comes from a Greek word that refers to division. Romans 14 shows us that there is room for some difference of opinion, even on matters that relate to doctrine, that we can have and still be in unity. Who has the divisive attitude? Is Heyford the one with the divisive attitude toward you, or are you the one with the divisive attitude toward Heyford? Btw, do you believe that someone has to hold to the same understanding of all doctrines as you do in order to be orthodox? Are you the only person in the world who is not a heretic?

Besides, I find it unlikely that Heyford would hold to either Replacement Theology or a post or a millinealist eschatology, considering his Pentecostal roots and seemingly conservative bent. Pentecostals are generally Dispensational, and a lot of them are (unfortunately) pre-trib. (I am talking about Pentecostals, not Charismatics or Third Wavers.)


Fourth, and very important here, is that this whole red herring you are throwing out is beside the point. Even if Heyford were a Replacement Theologian who held to a Kingdom Now view of eschatology, it still would not invalidate his testimony about something he experienced in his life.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Latter Rain doctrine of a united, global church is behind the movement's desire to unite all churches, and their disapproval of what they call a ''denominational spirit.''

''If and when we finally lay down these petty doctrinal and traditional differences and JOIN TOGETHER as an awesome UNITED body and force, all hell will finally retreat into the abyss, and, together, we will bring back the king! ... When will we realize that the enforcement of Christ's Victory is UP TO US?
(Jack Hayford)
_________________________________

Website commentator wrote,
***Jack Hayford no doubt means well, but since when are doctrinal beliefs about the person of Christ, the role of the church, or how one is saved ''petty'' ?***

Heyford said petty doctrinal and traditional doctrines. He did not say doctrinal beliefs about the person of Christ, the role of the church, or how one is saved. The author seems to be putting words in Heyford's mouth.

*******quote from web page****
Then I uttered a phrase something like this: "Keil ama tondo ramala indiksia."
I had no clue what I was saying. It sounded stupid

DHK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6545 | From: Edmonton, AB | Registered: Jul 2000 | IP: Logged |

atestring
1,000 Posts Club
Member # 973

posted December 01, 2004 10:01 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by DHK:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by atestring:
can you provide Greek Pastors name that is from the vancouver area that heard a person saying things about the devil.
This made up story is usually about a chineese laundryman and has been circulating all of my life without proof and names that can be validated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes I can document it. In other words, I can provide the names that you are looking for, the dates, and the name of the church. But I won't. A man is entitled to his privacy. It would be unethical for me to post a person's name on a board like this without permission to do so.
DHK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you sure it wasn't the chineese laundryman?
BTW were you at the meeting that this happened or is this 2nd or 3rd hand hearsay?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 1014 | From: USA | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged |

DHK
Moderator
Member # 152

posted December 01, 2004 10:08 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Second, Those that spoke in tongues spoke in real languages. That is evident from Scripture.**
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not debating this point.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**If you hear a genuine language being spoken, you probably hear someone who is demon possessed. Otherwise it is psychological phenomena that has its roots in an event in Kansas in 1906, and previous to that date was unknow in church history. If it is for today, why was it unknown for 1800 years. I guess the "filling of the Holy Spirit" was deprived to those people and only applicable to thos of the 20th century onward. That has the markings of a cult--to claim knowledge that was previously unknown in the church. **
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tongues was not unknown to the church. It is in the Bible that has been used for nearly 2000 years.

You say that tongues were unknown for 1800 years. Does that mean that you allow for the idea that tongues in 200 AD in Ireneas day were genuine?

Also, there are other accounts of tongues since 200 AD. Look in _The Spirit and the Church: Antiquity _ by Burgess for a lengthy treatment for this and other issues that uses real quotes from primary sources (or English translations of such quotes.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You will have to provide more evidence than that. Exact quotes would be preferable. I find that when Charismatics try to find historical evidence of speaking of tongues in history (usually via the church fathers) they only refer to vague references to the filling of the Holy Spirit (something we are all commanded to do), and the baptism of the Holy Spirit (a doctrine in which there is much debate). Neither one of them has to directly with tongues, except by their own presuppositions. They read into those quotes only what they want them to say.
Many of the church fathers advocated false teachings and some were outright heretics. Origen was the Father of Arianism, for example. And Ireneas, who you refer to above, believed that Jesus lived to the ripe old age of 80. As for me I would rather get my doctrine from the Bible.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your paranoia about tongues as real languages always being demonic doesn’t square with what Jesus said in Luke 11. Many people speak in tongues after diligently seeking God and asking to be filled with the Spirit—which is a good thing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't have a paranoia. I have the Word of God, which needs to be rightly divided without presuppositions by ALL.

Luke 11:
11. If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?
12. Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?
13. If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?
[QB]
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, I do not believe that tongues is the exclusive evidence of filling with the Spirit, so I would not say it was restricted to people who lived after the 20th century.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The above passage has nothing whatsoever to do with tongues although Charismatics love to quote it out of context in the defence of tongues. The filling of the Holy Spirit is a command that is given to all believers and has no relation to tongues whatsoever. It is a command given in Eph.5:18.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**The passage is very clear. Every statement is conditional. Every statement starts with "though" or "if." It is like saying, "If I had a million dollars I would buy property in Hawaii and live there." But I don't, and probably never will. "If I have my own space shuttle, I would take a trip to the moon" It's not going to happen. It's conjecture. It's conditional.**
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is such a thing as a million dollars. It is not something made up. Space shuttles exist. You are assuming here that tongues of angels do not exist, which isn’t consistent with the examples you give.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, I have explained this before. Tongues of angels do exist. Man doesn't speak the tongues of angels nor has any reason to. How does an angel speak? He is a being of perfection, and when sent to do God's bidding can speak in any language to the person sent to. In fact he can speak all languages, perfectly, in perfect grammar, with all knowledge concerning vocabulary and grammar in all the languages of the world. No man has that ability, nor does he need it. That is not the gift of tongues; it is what angels are able to do. Paul never had that ability. The statements are conditional. Paul was saying that even if he had such abilities, and did not have love, then such abilities would be useless. Read the chapter! They are conditional statements.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
** All of Paul's statements were just like that. If Paul spoke with angelic tongues then he also gave away all his money to the poor--NOT, and he also gave his body to be burned--NOT!! IF: those are conjectural statements. They did not happen, and never would. Paul did not speak with the tongues of angels, could not speak with the tongues of angels. It was impossible to do so. **
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinion opinion and no scripture. Was it possible for Paul to give away all his money? Yes. Was it possible for Paul to give his body to be burned? Yes. Was it possible for Paul to have all faith to remove mountains. According to Christ, yes. (If ‘moving mountains’ is a figure of speech, then it would be possible to move mountains in this figurative sense. If Christ meant it literally, then it is possible to do literally. So no matter how you interpret it, the answer should be ‘yes.’)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is no opinion involved here. It is a proper exegesis of 1Cor.13:1-3. The fact plainly is that it was not possible for Paul to accomplish all the things mentioned in the first verses of 1Cor.13.
--speak in the tongues of angels: not possible.
--have the gift of prophecy so that he could understand ALL mysteries: not possible
--have all knowledge: not possible; if it were he would be God.
--have all faith…not possible. No man has ALL faith. Paul was not a perfected being.
These were conjectural statements. They were conditions. Paul never spoke in angelic tongues. He never said he did. He never made any such claim. For you to even suggest such a thing is reading into Scripture something that is not there.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Think about Paul’s life. He traveled around preaching and did not accumulate houses, etc. It is very possible that he gave his last dinari away to feed a poor person on many occasions. Could Paul have given his body to be burned? Of course. The ‘if’ parts of these statements are all things that are possible, so why would speaking in the tongues of angels be impossible?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The fact is that these things didn't happen. Paul died a martyr's death, beheaded by the hand of Nero. There is nothing to suggest that he gave up all his estate or belongings before then, and nothing to suggest that he gave whatever he had to the poor. The things that he did have (such as scrolls of the Scriptures) he would have given to a young pastor like Timothy.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**First, that is anectodal; can't be proven. Second, if it did happen, it is the exception not the norm. Third, can give or provide a man an ability if He so desires. But that does not negate the Biblical teaching that the gift of tongues has ceased. **
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are being inconsistent here. I gave an example of a man who prayed in tongues—a known Charismatic, and the people who were praying for knew what he was saying because he was speaking in their language. And you say if it happened, then the gift of tongues has still ceased. If God gave the man the ablity to speak in Maori, then the man had a _gift from God.

**Here is anecdotal experience by Heyford that cannot be proven.**

It could conceivably. You want to argue that real tongues do not exist. You are bold enough to make such statements, but when you hear accounts like this, you do not have the gumption or the commitment to go to California, look up Heyford, do some research, find the guy he spoke in tongues to, and get his side of the story. The Old Testament says by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established. If you were committed enough to learning about this, you could do some research.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I gave you my research on Jack Hayford. He is a heretic. I have documented the things that he believes in quite thoroughly. Need I say more. My stand is on the Word of God, not on the experience of some heretic.
DHK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6545 | From: Edmonton, AB | Registered: Jul 2000 | IP: Logged |

DHK
Moderator
Member # 152

posted December 01, 2004 10:10 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do not plan to do this kind of research. But I am not the one making statements that assume that I have all knowledge of everything going on in the world. I do not say that there is no genuine speaking in tongues today. You are the one promoting this position. When shown wrong, you should either stop making such statements, or else be willing to go do the research to show that the cases that prove you wrong are not true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You ought to do research. It will open your eyes to what is going on. Why didn't you research out heretics like Jack Hayford before quoting him as a source?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
** The same preachers tell us how they have been transported up to heaven and back down to Hell again. Why should I believe them?**
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“The same preachers…” You judge people by categorizing them in ways God does not. Show me a quote from a Heyford sermon or book where he ever claims to have gone to heaven or hell. And show me some scripture that says that this cannot happen to preachers who claim to have experienced it. My Bible shows me that a man was shown the Third Heaven, so I cannot deny that such things are possible.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sure we categorize. Charismatics rely on experience rather than the Word of God for their theology. That is a given. The more extreme the experience, the more spiritual the person. That is the going assessment among Charismatics. If you want the quote from the preacher who claimed to go to heaven and hell I can give it to you. I never said it was from Hayford. Here is an example from Percy Colette, a leading Charismatic and some of the outlandish experiences that he has claimed to have.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The claims these people make just go on and on. I don't know if you read about Percy Colette (sp.) a Charismatic Medical Missionary, claims that in 1982 he was transported to Heaven for five and a half days. A newsletter describes the story,

He adds one more detail, "While I was traveling back to earth, I saw two girls, one brunette and one a redhead. We stopped to talk to them, that is their 'soul bodies' on the way back. We had asked them what had happen to them? And they indicated that they had gotten killed in a car accident on the California Highway and their physical bodies were in a funeral home.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/CHAOS1.HTM


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
** I don't trust in experiences that cannot be proven; I trust in the Word of God. The Word of God is my foundation not experience. You can't build a foundation on experience.**
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can’t prove your case from the Bible. Even many of your fellow cessationists, particularly those who know Greek, disagree with the way you interpret I Corinthians 13.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I trust the Word of God. It is my foundation, not experience. And yes I can prove my case through the Scriptures:

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Nowhere in the Bible is experience spoken of as our foundation. The Bereans searched the Scriptures before they would take Paul's word that what he said was true. The Scriptures were their foundation. It was their guidepost. If it was not according to the Word of God, Isaiah said to reject it. Much of what the Charismatics teach is not according to the Word of God, and needs to be rejected.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**You heard; but can't verify. More experience. My theology is based on the Word of God, not someone's experience.**
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you want to verify it, do some research. Find some witnesses.
You sure use a lot of experiential arguments in your posts, a lot more than your arguments from scripture so far.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I compare the outlandish experiences of Charismatics (as documented above) to the Word of God. I am the one that uses the Word of God. I challenge you to do the same thing. Use the Word of God to compare what the Charismatics are doing.
DHK
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Paul was correcting the abuse of tongues in Corinth. In doing so he said, "I thank God that I have spoken in tongues more than you all." Why do you suppose that he said that? The Lord took Paul on three missionary journeys through several parts of Asia, Asia-minor, Europe, etc., and he established over 100 churches. The Lord gave Paul the gift of tongues so that he would have been able to minister to these people in their own language.**
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinion, opinion. Where is the scripture to back up what you are saying. When Paul said he spoke in tongues more than all the Corinthians, it is in the context of a passage in which he says that no one understands the speaker in tongues without interpretation. There is no evidence in scripture that tongues were used to preach the Gospel or that the Acts 2 experience was ever repeated. You are just conjecturing here. You do not have any scripture to back up your opinion. If Paul ever used tongues in evangelism, the Bible does not record it. Guesswork is not a basis for doctrine.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is no conjecture and no opinion. What I have said to you is straight from the Scriptures, especially the teaching given in 1Cor.14. What was the purpose of speaking in tongues. It was always for the understanding and edification of the whole church, never for just one individual. It was a gift given for the church's edification. Whether the message communicated by tongues was in the form of teaching, preaching, or prophesying is totally irrelevant. It was for the edification of the church. A prophet can either preach or teach, depending on the prophet and his manner of communication. That is his choice. Different people have different gifts. The fact is that the gift of tongues was used to communicate a gift to a people of a different language as is evidenced in Acts 2: "How hear we every man in our own language?" Paul was given this gift for this purpose. That is obviously why he had the ability to speak in tongues more than them all. Read and study the fourteenth chapter of 1Corinthians. Like I also said, it was also a sign to the unbelieving Jew at the same time. God had his purpose in it all.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
** But remeber that wherever he went that the Jews had been scattered abroad throughout all the nations. It wasn't just a matter of preaching in another tongue for the sake of another people. The universal language at the time was Greek. It was a sign to the Jews as well; those Jews that did not believe the gospel message was for the Gentiles. **
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul never says tongues were sign specifically for the Jews. He said they served as a sign to unbelievers, and showed how unbelievers reacted to them with unbelief. Paul was trying to persuade men. It seems more likely he would have preferred to use the gift of prophecy in evangelism, based on what he writes in I Corinthians 14.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes Paul said that tongues were a sign to the Jews. If you don't believe that you don't believe what the Bible says. It is so plain in 1Cor.14:21 it cannot be missed.

1 Corinthians 14:21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
--"With men of other tongues…I will speak to this people" "This people" is Israel. God told them that he would speak to them in tongues as a sign. He told them that even when He did, that they still would not believe. And thus it was. The prophecy came true. They heard and saw the sign. They did not believe. Verse 22 goes with verse 21. They were the unbelieving Jews.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**It is very typical of the Third Wave Movement. There is plenty of it going around. They bark like a dog, roar like a lion, hiss like a snake--all of which is supposedly a sign of the Holy Spirit.**
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you are reading some old websites. I’ve been to Toronto. This like this seem to come and go, and I would doubt if this kind of stuff was going on a lot at Toronto anymore. The Vineyard let Toronto go pretty quickly when this started. The Vineyard is considered ‘Third Wave.’ This stuff was controversial within ‘Thid Wave’ churches when it was going on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can do the research for you. But I think you should do your own. It still goes on today. People think they are more spiritual when they do such things. The more outlandish, the more spiritual. That is the philosophy.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If I am not mistaken, the term ‘Third Wave’ was something C. Peter Wagoner came up with to describe evangelical churches that believe in the gifts that were not a part of the historical Pentecostal movement or the Charismatic movement. Some churches categorized as ‘Third Wave’ are rather conservative. I am not sure if Wagoner would categorize Calvary Chapel as Third Wave. The only difference between one Calvary Chapel church service I went to and a lot of Baptist churches I have been to is the style of music.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, you are entirely wrong. The Pentecostal churches came out of the holiness movement which originated with the Methodist churches. The Pentecostal Movement could be considered as the First Wave. Out of the Pentecostal Movement arose the Charismatic Movement which could be considered as the Second Wave. And now more recently we have the Third Wave, a progression from the Charismatic Movement. The difference is that the Third Wave puts even a greater emphasis than the typical Charismatic on miracles and the supernatural, even dabbling dangerously in the paranormal. It is all about experience. Remember: the greater the experience, the more spiritual you are. Theology really doesn't matter any more. This is evidenced by Benny Hinn's nine-person trinity.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pentecostals have come under fire for faking healings or running financially amok, as occurred with Jim and Tammy Bakker several years ago. Some Christians dispute their theology, arguing that the age of miracles is over. But Pentecostals are also beginning to win broad public acceptance, thanks in part to a new focus on social ministry.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So what! SDA's Mormons, and J.W.'s can claim the same thing. Social work means nothing when you don't have your salvation straight.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a global study of rapidly growing churches with social ministries, USC sociology professor Donald Miller found that nearly 90% of them were run by Pentecostals.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are over one billion Muslims, and about a billion Roman Catholics. In the light of that the number of Pentecostals are infinitesimal.
DHK

.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/127/story_12789_1.html*****

***This is the typical Charismatic experience—the repeating of certain syllables over and over again. It is not a language, and in no way resembles what happened in the New Testament. ***

As someone with a degree in linguistics who has studied several languages, I can say that these sounds look like they could be words in a real language. I can't say one way or another just based on what is written. There is not enough of it to identify consistent phonemes or morphemes, but it doesn't look like pure babble.

 

****You will have to provide more evidence than that. Exact quotes would be preferable. I find that when Charismatics try to find historical evidence of speaking of tongues in history (usually via the church fathers) they only refer to vague references to the filling of the Holy Spirit (something we are all commanded to do), and the baptism of the Holy Spirit (a doctrine in which there is much debate). Neither one of them has to directly with tongues, except by their own presuppositions. They read into those quotes only what they want them to say.

Many of the church fathers advocated false teachings and some were outright heretics. Origen was the Father of Arianism, for example. And Ireneas, who you refer to above, believed that Jesus lived to the ripe old age of 80. As for me I would rather get my doctrine from the Bible. ****

Exact quote (from translation) in previous message.

Btw, can you provide an exact quote, or at least point in me the right direction for Origen being the father of Arianism or the quote from Ireneas about the age of Christ. I know that Origen is said to be the father of Origenism, a belief that sinners will not be in Hell forever.

If saying that Christ was crucified at 80 is the worst you can come up with on Ireneaus, that is not so bad. The Bible doesn't say how old Christ was when He was crucified. Intepreters have seen at least three years of ministry in there, and that is probably where we get the three or three and a half year figure. The 80 year old figure seems unlikely considering the fact that Mary, Jesus brothers, etc. lived for as long as they did after Christ's resurrection. Also, the 'thou art not yet 50 years old' passage would need to be placed years back in Christ's life. It all seems unlikely, but I can't think of any solid Biblical evidence that argues for Christ's ministry before the resurrection only lasting for three years.




Luke 11:
11. If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?
12. Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?
13. If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?
[QB]

You wrote
*******
The above passage has nothing whatsoever to do with tongues although Charismatics love to quote it out of context in the defence of tongues. The filling of the Holy Spirit is a command that is given to all believers and has no relation to tongues whatsoever. It is a command given in Eph.5:18.

***********

It does have something to do with the issue because a lot of Christians who speak in tongues do so after asking God to fill them with the Holy Ghost. According to Jesus, we shouldn't expect God to give them something demonic.

*************
No, I have explained this before. Tongues of angels do exist. Man doesn't speak the tongues of angels nor has any reason to.
*************

You have explained your opinion-- your own ideas. You haven't shown chapter and verse that shows that men do not speak the tongues of angels. It is possible to give all one's possessions to the poor, and to give one's body to be burned. These are extreme things to do, but very possible. Why wouldn't it be possible to speak in the tongues of men and of angels. If this is parallel to these other conditional statements in the passage, then we should expect that it is _possible_ to speak in the tongues of angels, just an 'extreme' thing to do.

****The fact is that these things didn't happen. Paul died a martyr's death, beheaded by the hand of Nero. There is nothing to suggest that he gave up all his estate or belongings before then, and nothing to suggest that he gave whatever he had to the poor. The things that he did have (such as scrolls of the Scriptures) he would have given to a young pastor like Timothy.****

Scripture is silent as to what Paul did with his possessions right before he died. But whether he gave them all a way or not, he could have done it. It was not something impossible to do.


***Sure we categorize. Charismatics rely on experience rather than the Word of God for their theology. That is a given. The more extreme the experience, the more spiritual the person. That is the going assessment among Charismatics. If you want the quote from the preacher who claimed to go to heaven and hell I can give it to you. I never said it was from Hayford. Here is an example from Percy Colette, a leading Charismatic and some of the outlandish experiences that he has claimed to have.*****


This is the group-version of the logical error of the ad homenem attack. You stereotype Charismatics to argue against a Charismatic doctrinal stance. The Bible teaches that God gives certain gifts to the church, and those verses are true, no matter how you try to characterize those who really believe these verses.

Opponents of Baptists could argue that Baptists often marry their own cousins and that some Baptist preachers have affairs. It wouldn't be too hard to find examples of both among Baptists. But stereotyping like this does not offer one bit of evidence that Baptists are wrong for holding to believers baptism rather than infant baptism.

To my knowledge I have never heard of 'Percy Colette, a leading Charismatic.' Most Charismatic churches, and Pentecostal churches in particular, that I have been to are not as extreme as you describe here. Maybe you have been watching too much Benny Hinn and Word of Faith preachers on TV.

It is the Bible that teaches that God gives prophecy to the church. Prophecy is an 'experiential' gift. In the Bible, 'experience' can be a good thing. It is a word that shows up in that list of good things God adds to our faith. As for 'extreme' experiences making a more spiritual person, you could probably find some Charismatics who seem to believe that, especially on television. But I also know there are multitudes of Charismatic and Pentecostals who actively preach against that kind of attitude as well.

***Nowhere in the Bible is experience spoken of as our foundation. The Bereans searched the Scriptures before they would take Paul's word that what he said was true. The Scriptures were their foundation. It was their guidepost. If it was not according to the Word of God, Isaiah said to reject it. Much of what the Charismatics teach is not according to the Word of God, and needs to be rejected. ****

Your position on spiritual gifts is not according to the word of God, and needs to be rejected as well. No one here is arguing that experience is the foundation of our faith, or that experience should replace scripture.

I do believe that we should have the role of 'experience' in our daily walk that the scriptures teach us to have. I also believe that God functions in this world in the way He does in the Bible. The Bible reveals to us how God interacts with His church. The Bible teaches that God gives gifts to His church, so that is how I believe God interacts with His church today. In the Bible, the Spirit could speak to people, like Philip the evangelist, and tell him to do something. I believe the Spirit speaks to people like that today. I do not see in the Bible where we are taught that God can only interact with people through the Bible. This teaching is not in scripture, and is not in line with scripture. The Bible does not replace the gifts the Bible teaches about.

Btw, the Bereans rejected what God was doing through Paul after a little while, too.

***I compare the outlandish experiences of Charismatics (as documented above) to the Word of God. I am the one that uses the Word of God. I challenge you to do the same thing. Use the Word of God to compare what the Charismatics are doing.**


I compare things I see and read with the word of God. I just do not see anything int he word of God that says that the gifts have already ceased, and I see plenty of teaching on how God interacts with His church through the gifts, and empowers the saints to build one another up through these same gifts.

The issue in this thread is not whether there are Charismatic toing crazy things. Sure there are. The issue is about Biblical tongues. If you could show one thousand examples of crazy people claiming to have gifts of the spirit babbling in fake tongues, that does not prove tongues are fake. One account of a real tongue proves that tongues are real. You are willing to accept an account of a fake tongue without questioning it, but you reject accounts of real tongues from multiple sources out of hand because it does not fit with your preconcieved notions.

You also think it is unethical to name the name of a preacher who reported hearing a fake tongue, but you think nothing of naming the names of preachers you disagree with theologically. If it is unethical to name names, why do you name the names of those who disagree with you theologically, but not those you like?

*** and he established over 100 churches. The Lord gave Paul the gift of tongues so that he would have been able to minister to these people in their own language.**

Btw, this is a digression. I would like a response on this for other reasons. What is your evidencethat Paul established over a hundred churches? I don't see proof of more than 7 or 8 on the first missionary journey in scripture. Did you mean to say over 10 churches?

******
There is no conjecture and no opinion. What I have said to you is straight from the Scriptures, especially the teaching given in 1Cor.14. What was the purpose of speaking in tongues. It was always for the understanding and edification of the whole church, never for just one individual. It was a gift given for the church's edification. Whether the message communicated by tongues was in the form of teaching, preaching, or prophesying is totally irrelevant. It was for the edification of the church. ******


I see at least ONE thing here we can agree on. There was a purpose for tongues other than as a sign to the Jews. Since can agree on that, perhaps we can agree that it does not make sense to argue that tongues would have ceased if only one of it's purposes were fulfilled. Consider this analogy:

By the way. Knives don't exist anymore. Back in the 1800's, the Burgandy Company stopped manufacturing buggywhips. Knives were used to cut the leather to make the whips. Therefore, since the buggywhips are no longer manufactured, knives no longer exist.

Umm.. Wait a minute. There are other uses for knives besides cutting Burgandy Company buggy whips, so maybe knives continued to exist after the 1800's. [btw, I invented the Burgandy Company for this illustration.]

If knives still exist after buggywhip manufacturers went out of business, then you have no argument for tongues ceasing from the 'sign' verse.


***No, you are entirely wrong. The Pentecostal churches came out of the holiness movement which originated with the Methodist churches.****

How was I 'wrong' in the quote I gave? Do you have evidence that someone besides Wagoner came up with the term 'Third Wave'?

**
The Pentecostal Movement could be considered as the First Wave. Out of the Pentecostal Movement arose the Charismatic Movement which could be considered as the Second Wave. And now more recently we have the Third Wave, a progression from the Charismatic Movement. The difference is that the Third Wave puts even a greater emphasis than the typical Charismatic on miracles and the supernatural, even dabbling dangerously in the paranormal. It is all about experience. Remember: the greater the experience, the more spiritual you are. **

A lot of more conservative churches would fall into the category 'Third Wave' as well. Btw, the greater the experience, the more spiritual you are quote comes from you.

It seems to me that the real reason you do not want to believe in the gifts is because you associate a theological position with some flakiness you have seen, and you reject the doctrinal position out of fear of flakiness.

Btw, please don't quote web site articles you posted yourself and respond to them in the midst of quotes from me. it is confusing and makes it look like I posted the web site quote. Example of your website quote below:

*************
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a global study of rapidly growing churches with social ministries, USC sociology professor Donald Miller found that nearly 90% of them were run by Pentecostals.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are over one billion Muslims, and about a billion Roman Catholics. In the light of that the number of Pentecostals are infinitesimal.
DHK *************

Responding to websites you posted in the midst of our discussion is confusing, and in this case, isn't even on topic.

 

Johnv ; as they say ignorance is bliss. You do not have one whit of evidence in the Word of God to back up your notions. What you are spouting is not what you read out of the Word but what you were taught and the traditions of men.
No where in the Bible does it say that tongues or any other Gift of the Spirit will not be needed in the body until the Lord comes.
The Word says that tongues are for the unbeliever and I was a unbeliever when I first heard it ,as they prayed with me to receive salvation. I did not understand it but it sure got my attention and played a part in my salvation.
The Word also says that we pray to God in tongues when no interpreters are present. This is known as a prayer langauge. I am a Baptist also and I sure received tongues when I was filled with the Spirit and my wife received them in a Southern Baptist church so what you need to do is read Gods Word on a subject and dont listen to everything some preachers spouts out at church.
And just because you once went to a highly emotional church does not mean they all do that. Try a Assemblies of God, you wont see any overly emotional folks there.
I do not go to really emotional churches, but that is just not me, but some folks like that style of worship and that is fine with me as long as they dont push if off on me.
They were wrong to push you, but dont believe all Pentacostal types are like that.
I f I had of been you I would have left the church. When I first heard tongues in the church I was a little scared also but when I got home and thought on it and how the worship had been I was right back there again to get some more.

 

Yes I can document it. In other words, I can provide the names that you are looking for, the dates, and the name of the church. But I won't. A man is entitled to his privacy. It would be unethical for me to post a person's name on a board like this without permission to do so.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Why don't you ask for his permission? If he gives it I will check him out if he does not then let me know. Can you give a date, city, witnesses, or anything that would help me find out if this is legitimate. After all you made a serious accusation about pentecostals. Is it fair to make such claims and not give a clue as to wheither this is legitimate?
Can you find out what the greek words were? That would not be unethical would it?

 

In my local church (typical small SBC) most believe the Bible states the gifts are not necessarirly precluded today. Though, no one speaks in tounges and most have probably never been present in any church when tounges occured.

We concluded in my SS class that if one of us suddenly felt compelled to speak in tounges it would be at the urge of the HS and not because the individual planned it. If one did speak in "proper" tounges there would be another individual, again unplanned, who would "hear" the message in indisputable clarity, while others may hear only "gibberish". I let everyone know that if they ever heard a tounge coming from me, they better believe it has to be the HS! Calling attention to myself is just not my style unless it unmistakably glorifies God.

My point and our collective conclusion is that the gifts are truly gifts from the HS and would be given at His bidding, not because we had to "work" them ourselves. No gift is given for the benefit of the one displaying the gift, but for the benefit of others.

 

Have you taken a course on "How to lose friends and win enemies??"
It is not my intention to string a guy's private life out on the world wide web for every body to see and read about. Do you know why reporters always safeguard their sources? Think about it. Sorry, your request is denied. Just trust me on it. Or do you think I am some kind of liar?
DHK

 

The Word of God does not say this anywhere. You have no Scriptural backing for this statement whatsoever. The gift of tongues was not a selfish gift given for selfish purposes as individual prayer. It was a gift given for the edification of the entire church, as was all the gifts. Can you think of any gift that was given for the selfish use of just one person? Healing perhaps? Was the gift of healing given just so a person could heal themselves and no other? And yet you would apply the same logic to the gift of tongues??
It was a gift given to the entire church, and for the edification of the entire church.
DHK

 

DHK,

It is 100% clear from scripture that it is permissable for a speaker in tongues to speak in tongues without intepretation outside of the context of the church meeting. This is scripture and it is not something you debate, even if it does not make sense to you.

I Corinthians 14: 28. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

 

DHK wrote,
****
Have you taken a course on "How to lose friends and win enemies??"
It is not my intention to string a guy's private life out on the world wide web for every body to see and read about. Do you know why reporters always safeguard their sources? Think about it. Sorry, your request is denied. Just trust me on it. Or do you think I am some kind of liar?***

It is good that you have a desire to respect a brother's privacy. But if you ask for permission, he has the right to either say 'yes' or 'no' to your request. He could even write up a paragraph on the experience. How could this be offensive?

Our brotherhood as believers is based on our being redeemed by Christ, not by membership in a certain type of Baptist church. If you are loyal to brethren in Christ, you should be loyal to brethren in general and not only those that wear a certain label. I find it odd that you do not want to share the least bit of information about a brother who is 'like minded', but if someone is someone disagrees with you on certain beliefs, you are not hesitant to call him a heretic and try to point out his flaws, real or imagined, on this discussion group. I am thinking of you calling Heyford a 'heretic' because you presume that he holds to Replacement Theology-- something you did not make a good case for in your post.

You expect people not to consider you a liar, but you seem to dismiss brethren who testify experiences contrary to you belief system as liars, rejecting their testimony. If Jack Heyford did really adhear to Replacement Theology (extremely unlikely from what I know of him--I would be surprised if he did not hold to an dispensational eschatology or something similar) then that does not make his testimony about his experience invalid.

Also, if you are related hearsay evidence attributed to some other person, anyone who passed the story down to you could have gotten the story confused, remembered wrongly, or even lied. So if someone asks you for where you got the story from, that doesn't mean they are accusing you of lying.

I heard about someone raising the dead in China. If I used that as an argument in favor of miracles in this discussion, I could imagine you asking for details about how raised the dead, etc. It doesn't mean you would be calling anyone a liar.

 

John, I have had the baptism of the Holy Ghost, evidenced by speaking in other tongues, for over thirty years. I have never seen anyone rolling in the floor or speaking "gibberish."

You people read too much and listen to non-belivers. Chill out!

MEE </font>[/QUOTE]I have.

Joseph Botwinick

 

I think the obvious difference between learning to speak Spanish and what happened on the day of Pentecost is that nobody had to teach them to speak in tongues. I think this is part of what John is talking about. It was a work of the Holy Spirit that was somewhat unexpected (there wasn't a planned crusade with signs and wonders to follow). It was something that God did on his own timetable, and in his own way. When I was in college the first time, I had a friend try to teach me how to speak in tongues, and I remember how he talked about relaxing and letting go and opening up to the emotions of the moment. I also remember how I was made to feel as if I wasn't as holy and filled with the Spirit as he was because I didn't speak in tongues. The problem with many of the charasmatic movements today, IMO, is that they are manufactured through the use of emotions and somewhat New Age teachings.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Go to any Pentecostal church and very likely you will hear 'gibberish'.

 

The verse you quote is specifically addressing the use (and non-use) of tongues IN THE ASSEMBLY, and does not in any way support the private use of tongues.
As for 'praying in tongues,' jump back to verses 14-15 of I Cor 14: "For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful. What am I to do? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also." In the context of his entire discourse about Spiritual Gifts in general and tongues in particular, Paul can only be saying that it is NOT good to pray by yourself in a tongue, where you don't know what you are saying and there is no one to interpret. Rather, we are all to pray in words that we DO understand, and thus pray with both our spirit AND our mind.
In between those two quotes falls Paul's description of the true purpose and correct usage of the genuine gift of tongues, none of which has anything to do with private use. As I keep pointing out in these threads, Paul began his entire discussion of Spiritual Gifts in Chapter 12 with the statement, "To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit FOR THE COMMON GOOD." (12:7 emphasis mine) That was a basic parameter for the entire dscussion that was to follow. To say that in chapter 12 Paul said that all true Spiritual Gifts are given for the common good, and then that he said in chapter 14 that one of the gifts is fine to use to edify yourself, turns Paul into one very confused person, and the Holy Spirit who inspired his words into a God of confusion. When you read the enitire discussion as a unit and interpret individual verses within that context, you come to much more sensible understanding than you do by jerking a few verses completely out of context and reinterpreting them to support what you had already decided to believe before you ever started really studying the passage.
I am very bothered by your statement, "This is scripture and it is not something you debate, even if it does not make sense to you." That statement itself contradicts Scripture, which tells us to test the spirits to see whether are from God (I John 4:1). That statement of yours tells me that you have been carefully taught to never question the interpretations of certain verses that you have been given, to never think for yourself, but to just accept what you have been taught as indisputable truth, and brand anyone who disagrees as wrong without ever really considering what they say. I'm not at all surprised. Modern 'tongues' speakers are driven by the emotional high they receive from their ecstatic babbling, and will not let anything, even God's truth, get in the way of another dose of it.

 

Have you taken a course on "How to lose friends and win enemies??"
It is not my intention to string a guy's private life out on the world wide web for every body to see and read about. Do you know why reporters always safeguard their sources? Think about it. Sorry, your request is denied. Just trust me on it. Or do you think I am some kind of liar?
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Well since you ask, i will say that your statements seems exaggerated and your answers are evasive. I have heard the chineese laundryman story that is so ridiculous and when challenged it never seems to be substantiated and your story sounds very similar. Do you really expect people to believe your story when it can't be substantiated? Should your statements be taken at face value? When serious accustaions are made shouldn't any thinking person challenge the validity of such statements? BTW hve you ask for the greek scholars permission yet?