The Bible Tongues is not what being done today

No man is inerrant and infallible. I never claimed that. I did claim that a man who writes a book with almost 500 sources of documentation has written a well documented book. It is totally absurd to say that just because the author of the book preached the content of each chapter before he put it into print, puts the validity of the book in question. What kind of reasoning is that? Shall we throw out all of Spurgeon's books and works on that basis? One of his best known book is his "Lectures to His Students," composed of 'guess what?' Lectures or sermons!! Oh no! Not sermons again!! Throw the book out. It is not good! Really, what kind of logic is this? Most of the greatest commentaries, Bible Teachers/expostors, evangelists, missionaries, and other great men of God, have written books--books of sermons. Many of those books of sermons have become useful commentaries. Many more of them have become useful books on subjects of prayer, The bible, Witnessing, or even, yes, even--the Charismatic Movement.
DHK

 

DHK,

Tamborine lady was not arguing that because MacArthur preached his book in a sermon, that this indicated that his message was false. She just argued that if a man preaches a sermon, his sermon is not necessarily true. You are arguing against an argument Tamborine lady did not make. You are the one with the logical problem.

 

DHK,

The Bible does not teach that women cannot speak in tongues. The verse about women keeping silent in the church is not _immediately_ after the instructions on tongues. It comes right after the instructions about prophesying. If you believe that women were not to speak in tongues in church, then you would certainly agree with the idea that women were not to prophesy in church, right?

But then you have a problem to deal with. Acts 2 says that the sons and _daughters_ would prophesy. Philip had four daughters that prophesied. I Corinthians 11 even talks about women prophesying. So it is clear that women can prophesy, and the issue for discussion is how that relates to the command that women keep silent _in the church._

If you believe in a near-absolute-silence position when it comes to women in church, then you have to concede that women were allowed to use the gift of prophecy outside of the church meetings. (Of course, you do not have to conceed that, unless you want to be logical.)

Then you would have to revamp your beliefs about not using spiritual gifts outside of the church. I Corinthians does not limit the use of prophecy or tongues to church meetings, no matter what you say. It is clear from scripture that there were times when prophecy was used in one-on-one situations or in small groups. The gift, however, works for the common good. It is clear from scripture that miracles were done in situations outside of a meeting of the local church for mutual edification. Peter, John, and Paul did miracles while evangelizing. One of Paul's miracles was done while he and Barnabas were evangelizing a bunch of pagan Gentiles, so there is not much of a case you can make for that crowd being a 'church.' So the only logical conclusion here is that your interpretation that 'for the common good' means that gifts must only be used in church meetings is wrong. Common sense should be enough to tell us that. 'For the common good' just doesn't mean 'only in church meetings.'

If women could prophesy outside of church, then it makes sense that some of them might be able to speak in tongues outside of church. And if you would look at Acts 1 and 2, then we see that Mary and some other women were numbered among the 120! So there goes your theory that women cannot speak in tongues.

I Corinthians 14 does not forbid tongues outside of church. You argue that tongues do not edify the speaker unless they are interpreted. You contradict Paul, who teaches that tongues edify the speaker, and if they are interpreted, they can edify the church.

I Corinthians 14 tells the one who would speak in tongues that if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in the church and let him speak to himself and to God. The restriction on interpreting only applies 'in the church.'

You interpret Paul's statement "...I speak in tongues more than ye all....' to refer to Paul speaking in foreign languages in evangelism. Of course, you have no proof from scripture that he is speaking of evangelism here. I would like to point out that you are contradicting yourself with this interpretation. If Paul used tongues to evangelize when he went to all those places where there were no churches yet, THEN HE WAS USING TONGUES OUTSIDE OF CHURCH. And if the people understood him speaking in tongues, THEN HE PROBABLY DID NOT INTERPRET WHAT HE SAID. You argue that tongues cannot be used outside of church, but then you argue for Paul using tongues outside of church. You can't have it both ways. Which way do you believe?


On I Corinthians 14:26, Paul does not say it was wrong for everyone to have a psalm, a doctrine, a tongue, a revelation, and an interpretation. Instead, he puts a restriction on these expressions of gifts by saying 'let all things be done unto edifying.' Paul didn't teach the churches to have a church meeting that featured one preacher preaching a sermon while all the rest sat silently, except to sing a few congregational hymns. This idea comes from tradition. The Corinthians were having a mutually edifying meeting in which multiple speakers used their gifts to edify the congregation. Paul gave instructions so that these meetings would be done in an orderly fashion according to the Lord's ordained pattern. He never through out mutual edification in favor of a pastor preaching on long sermon. So we need to go with the God-ordained pattern.

The instructions Paul show that Paul supported mutual edification, rather than the one-man-show. His instructions about tongues required a speaker in tongues and an interpreter. His instructions about prophesying told the prophets to speak two or three, and allowed 'all' to prophesy, and for 'the other' to judge.

Hebrews 10:25 is famous as the verse preachers use to tell people to go to church. But the passage not only tells us not to forsake assembling together, but it also tells us what to do when we assemble. It says 'but exhort one another.' That is a command. The command is not 'be exhorted by one man' but rather 'exhort one another.' This is right after verse 24 which tells us to provoke ONE ANOTHER to love and to good works. We see more detail in I Corinthians 14, which gives instructions on how to have a mutually edifying meeting.

 

My goodness! Then I'll stick to reading my bible (theres alot of sermons in there (sermon on the mount is really good) Laugh: Then I'll read Smith Wigglesworth and Maria Woodworth -Etter (in her book is alot of accounts of healing, tongue tallin' revivals) There is alot of healings documented in both of Smiths and Marias books........do I believe that the people got healed? YES!

BTW, just one question......
DHK you said said that the gift of tongues was just for a few. Well then why did Paul have to tell the Corinthians how to use the gift? Also this is the other thing that stumps me....why is it written and goes into detail in the bible, how when and where to use the gift if like some people would say they ceased in 70AD? The writers could have left it out by making the judgement. How many years after 70 AD was the KJV written anyhow? Maybe tongues were bigger than what some want to believe? JMHO (Just my humble opinion)

Music4Him

 

Good point Music! Especially in light of the fact that Paul doesn't give them that "in depth" instructions on how to use any of the other gifts!

Guess there must have been a LOT of common folk in that church that God had given the gift of tongues!

Working for Jesus,



Tam

 

The only thing that Paul did was to put restrictions on the use of tongues, somethinng he didn't have to do for any other gift. Never in Scripture is there instruction on how to speak in tongues, such as many Charismatics give.
DHK

 

You have a flawed view of both missions and ecclesiology. Paul was a missionary. He was sent out by the church of Antioch. As a missionary he established churches in every area he went. How does one start churches but by preaching the gospel and then after people get saved, baptizing them, and then forming them into a church. If tongues was used in this process then so be it. God ordained it to be so in the first century. In formation of churches, and in the early years of the churches the gift of tongues was in operation. Near the end of the first century, the fulfillment of tongues had come, and were no longer needed. Thus tongues ceased. It is as simple as that. It is not astro-physics. It is really quite simple theology.
DHK

 

Then sit down and read a good book like Charismatic Chaos, where all such incidents are well documented.
DHK [/QB.]</font>[/QUOTE]I have read That book, Why don't you read a book like John Sherrell's book " they speak with other tongues." How about Carl Brumback's book " What Meaneth This?"

 

Then sit down and read a good book like Charismatic Chaos, where all such incidents are well documented.
DHK [/QB.]</font>[/QUOTE]I have read That book, Why don't you read a book like John Sherrell's book " they speak with other tongues." How about Carl Brumback's book " What Meaneth This?"

 

DKH,
Help me out what page in Macarthurs book ar documented stories and How can i be sure that they can be documented? Documenting a story is a novel idea, why don't you try that sometime?????????????????????
If you hear from AMen ask him the same thing!!!!

 

I have Sherrill's book. So what? It doesn't impress me at all. In fact I have a whole shelf of books written by Charismatics. They make up thier own theology based on their experiences, rather than the Word of God. That is why I know they are in error.
DHK

 

Atestring said:Why don't you read a book like John Sherrell's book " they speak with other tongues."

I've read that one atestring, and I agree, it's fantastic!!


As for DHK:

AHHHHHRRRRR!!!!


Peace,

Tam

 

I have Sherrill's book. So what? It doesn't impress me at all. In fact I have a whole shelf of books written by Charismatics. They make up thier own theology based on their experiences, rather than the Word of God. That is why I know they are in error.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Do they make up stories about Chineese laundrymen and greeks from Vancouver?

 

I have Sherrill's book. So what? It doesn't impress me at all. In fact I have a whole shelf of books written by Charismatics. They make up thier own theology based on their experiences, rather than the Word of God. That is why I know they are in error.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]DHK could you tell me what you mean?
Are you saying there are no "experiances" written about in the bible? Or how about the ones who talked in tongues like Peter and Paul.
That statement that you made above (that I italicized), don't make since..... because you make it seem that "Charismatics" (tongue talkers in general) they are in error and not to be listened to, but yet theres Peter and Paul and you have no problem reading and quoting them. Hummmmm

Music4Him

ducking and dodging the John Sherrell books that DHK is thowing at me through cyber-space.....

 

That which is written in the Bible is inspired by God. We know that it is true. When Benny Hinn tells all his viewers to put their dead loved ones before their TV's, and at the appointed time that his show comes on, they will all come to life, what are we to think? The guy is a crackpot. That is but one example. Need I give more.
DHK

 

Yes

 

John MacArthur, Charismatic Chaos, quoting George E. Gardiner, "The Corinthian Catastrophe" (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1974) p.55.

 

Nobody should use TV preachers to prove or disprove anything.

Too many times they are far to attached to finances rather than Jesus and the Word of God.

Peace,

Tam

 

Nobody should use books either that have sermons in them. Maybe we should just throw out the Bible because of those three chapters in Matthew 5-7, you know: it is called "the 'sermon' on the mount." Talk about biased!
DHK

 

There are a total of 13 of Paul's letters in the Bible. There are also 8 more letters by other HS-inspired writers. Out of all 21 of these letters, tongues is mentioned in only 3 chapters of one of the earliest. When Spiritual Gifts are mentioned in later letters, the Sign Gifts (including tongues) are nowhere to be found. THAT makes a powerful statement about the time period when true tongues speaking was going on, and the decline in frequency and importance of tongues and the other Sign Gifts that occurred as the books that were to form the NT were being written over a period of years.
The simple truth is that I Corinthians contains many points that ARE still valid today, so it's fitting that it should be in the Bible. Plus, the tongues passages are still instructive about how Church services should and should not be run, even without tongues. AND, correctly understood, these chapters are a powerful testimony AGAINST the kind of 'tongues' speaking that is going on now. The fact that Satan is able to convince some people that certain verses in these chapters mean the exact opposite of what they really mean does not invalidate the correct interpretation that one can easily arrive at when one is being guided by the HS and reason, rather than by emotion and rationalization.