The diffrence of Tongues in Acts and at Corinth

Because Truth is important!

~Lorelei

 

Hi All, I have kind of a side note to something you are talking about. I remember reading from John MaCarther that in the KJV the writers put the "unknown" in front of the word tongues when they wanted it to mean gibberish. So, "tongues would mean real languages and "unknown tongues" would mean gibberish. (there was one place he thought they should have included "unknown" when they didn't but I can't remember where - I can look that up if anyone wants) Anyway, keeping that rule in mind re-read 1 corth. 14 and see if the meaning Paul was trying to get across is more clear. Also, remember that, if MaCarther was right, then where it says "unknown" would always be a bad thing because the Bible is clear we shouldn't speak gibberish, for that is what the pagans were doing at the time 1 corth. was written.

DHK and Lorelie, you guys have done a great job sticking to the context of the text and not letting your emotions get the best of you. Hang in there, the Truth is the Truth and will continue to set people free.

Naomi and Oneness, though this topic is easily heated I see you have tried conduct yourself in a decent manor and that is good (oneness, you seem to get a little furstrated from time to time). One thing I will say to you to is that, don't you think that any Christian would like to have a special "connection" with God through a personal experience that really lifts them up? Actually, in all honesty we have that but we get it from reading the word, praying with a fruitful mind, worshiping with other believers, listening to Christian music. I wish I could make you see that our connection with God is as strong as it can be and is based on sound doctrine and not mesmerizing(sp?) experiences.

Also, N and O please comment on the fact that Paul says tongues will end on their own and not when something happens. You have avoided that for many many pages now. Thanks much!

In Love and Truth,
Brian

[ August 07, 2002, 10:41 AM: Message edited by: The Briguy ]

 

But you insist that only one titles is sufficient. You insist that the name of God changed to Jesus, why didn't Paul change it and stick with it? Did God tell you something he didn't tell the apostles?

Yeah, that's why you cling to Acts 2:38 and never try to make it in unison with the rest of the Bible. You never explore it in relation to John's message of the kingdom to the nation of Israel. You never ask why his preaching to the Jews sounded a little bit differently then that of the message to the Gentiles sent out by Paul.

You say we take verses out of context, but you are the one that can't find much to back up baptism for the remission of sins, yet many more tell us "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you WILL be saved". They have to find unison or the Bible means nothing. You can't say, well Paul really told him about water and Spirit baptism later, we just don't read that.

God didn't keep out any one thing that is important!

Please admit I said there was no reason to pray and fast to see what it really meant. I then clarified by saying praying and fasting were ok but they wouldn't change the meaning of scripture.

You only read from my words what you wanted to think I was saying, a lot like you do when you read the Bible.

You can take 1 Corinthians 14 at face value, no prayer will say it's ok for your church to have tongues with no interpretation and women speaking in the service. Your doctrine found another answer that not only is not in the text but is against what Paul clearly stated was the Lord's command.

This is the kind of thing I am referring to. You ignore scripture when it suits your purpose but refuse to look at the context when it's something you want to believe.

No praying or fasting will ever allow God's Word to contradict what it says in plain text.

There is no contradiction is it's taken at face value within the context! Scripture will back up scripture, not contradict it. When you have confronted me I always show you plainly within the context of the entire Word why that is so. I never ignore it, I never brush it off as "I don't know", I never offer you a source outside of the Bible to explain the meaning. I always show you scripture that proves my point. I don't offer you one verse and ignore what all the others have to say, which is what you do.

If you did that you would have many many verses to quote from Acts chapter two and beyond, but you don't. Why is that? Give me more scripture that says you must be baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins. I will give you some, from the book of Acts That do not

These teach repentance with no word of baptism for the Remission of sins. As it says in Acts 10:43, we receive forgiveness through His name, but not through baptism in His name.

Paul even clarifies that:

And then there is the question of how the gentiles received their forgiveness since they had no water baptism upon receiving the Holy Ghost.

All these verses teach repentance and forgiveness, not one mentions baptism as necessary. Why do you ignore all these verses and only believe Acts 2:38 outside the context of the rest of the book?

~Lorelei

 

This was good!

On FIRE for JESUS!
by Joe Brice


In the power of this new enthusiasm, the disciples of Jesus went forth as
burning and shining lights. The spirit of cold obedience was kindled into
a passion for righteousness, and the slavish sense of duty burst into an
eager flame of devotion. An all-pervasive zeal possessed them, a burning
desire for God, and a yearning pity for mankind. Pentecost put passion,
fervor, and abandon into their lives, not rant nor noise, but the white
heat of holy enthusiasm. It made them heroic and absolutely dead to the
opinions of men. It made them willing, even eager, to be counted fools or
fanatics for Christ. It is the transition from formalism to fervor that
marks the miracle of Pentecost in this aspect. " I have no further
desire," said the Little Flower of Carmel, " except to love Jesus even
unto folly." The Lord of love rejoiced to hear her say it. So few say it.

So many of His servants are cold and faint in their love for Him. Let it
be remembered that truth without enthusiasm, morality without emotion,
ritual without soul, were the things which Christ unsparingly
condemned.-(Rev. 2:1-5). Moral and spiritual passion, are the essence of
the religion of Jesus. "Our Lord delights to see us love-obsessed, carried
away by this master-passion from the conventional to the unconventional,
from ease-loving ways into the regions of peril, into extravagances that
make people question our sanity, as His was questioned, and from tinkering
at mending men to the revolutionary and divine business of saving them."
Christ prefers us passionate to proper. He wants devotion rather than
decorum. He prefers fanaticism to formalism. He longs to see us ablaze
with a love that must sometimes overpass the lines of conventional
churchmanship.

"Our Lord delights to see us love-obsessed."

The fervor of the apostles did not pass away in mere wasteful tumult; it
was disciplined and used for Love's purpose in the world. It was ordered,
but not by the conventions of churchmanship. There was a regular
expression along certain lines, but it was never calculated. They might at
any moment infringe the canons or break the conventions, and be carried
away into some unprecedented enterprise or sacrifice for the Beloved. The
only predictable thing about them was that they would keep blazing. This
is the explanation of the intensity of apostolic enterprise. If we are
asked why this fire is lacking from religion today, there is one answer:
We have not the Spirit. Pentecostal
enthusiasm is not of human kindling. It is not a zeal of the flesh. It is
not an inspiration born of human desire. No man on earth has the love,
which Jesus commands -unless it has been imparted to him. It is the gift
of the Spirit. "God is my witness," said Paul (Phil.1:8), "How I long for
you all with a love that is not mine, but Christ loving in me." The Holy
Spirit of Love is the fire; He sheds abroad God's own love in the
surrendered heart. We cannot bring this flaming devotion into our nature
by effort of will or meditation; it is the effectual expression of the
indwelling Spirit; and on the human side, it is conditioned by willingness
to become a love-slave in the cause of redemption.

"Let my name rot if only Christ be honored."

The human condition frightens us. We are not willing to face the charge of
fanaticism. The love of reputation holds us. What a struggle Wesley had to
shed the cultural superiority and clinging formalism of his churchmanship!
Revivalism would imperil his reputation. There was a painful conflict
before he "consented to become more vile." It is this process of becoming
vile in the eyes of the world which keeps many from the Baptism of Fire.
It is only as we are willing to lose our reputation at the impulse of
consuming love, that the Spirit is granted, and as that great warrior of
the Spirit, C. T. Studd said, " A lost reputation is the best degree for
Christ's service. To raise living churches of souls among the destitute,
to capture men from the devil's clutches, to snatch them from the jaws of
hell, to enlist and train them for Jesus, to make them into an almighty
army for God-this can only be accomplished by red-hot, unconventional,
unfettered Holy Ghost religion, by reckless sacrifice and heroism in the
foremost trenches. It is the hot, free heart, and not the balanced head,
that knocks the devil out." A man has not begun to be worthy of the Spirit
until he is able to say with Whitfield, " Let my name rot if only Christ
be honored." The abandonment of love in the cause of redemption is the
authentic mark of the Spirit-filled life, but it is costly.

Fenelon's inquiry is a word we should heed: "What would a king say to the
subject, or a master to the servant, who was afraid of seeming
over-zealous in his service, and was ashamed of being publicly known as
faithful? How much rather will the King of Kings judge us who do the like?
There is but one way of loving God, which knows no bargaining with Him,
but accepts His every inspiration with a free and generous heart . . . He
cannot suffer the cowardly souls which say to themselves 'Thus far will I
go, but no further' . . . Woe to the timid, cowardly souls who are divided
between God and the world! They will and they will not; they are torn
asunder both by passion and remorse; they fear both the judgment of God
and that of man; they are frightened of what is evil and ashamed of what
is good."

Praise be to God! He is an Awesome God! He is a Consuming Fire!
Thanks for all who Prayed for me this week! Our son is doing great, and in the midst of it all, another neighbor got saved!! (a few more neighbors to go, then the mailman!!! (he is close !!!!
God Bless all of you, may we keep stirring each other on!
Naomi


Thanks for all who Prayed for me this week! Our son is doing great, and in the midst of it all, another neighbor got saved!! (a few more neighbors to go, then the mailman!!! (he is close !!!!
God Bless all of you, may we keep stirring each other on!
Naomi

 

DHK, Good sound presentation of the gospel in your last post. Thank you!

How come nobody commented on my post above, saying that "unknown toungue" in 1 cor. 14 is referring to gibberish. In understanding the text this is a big thing, yet not a single comment,
"Whats up with that?"

In Christ,
Brian

 

One can have passion, be on-fire for the Lord and never speak in tongues or experience all this sensationalism.

If this is in defense of tongues it stands at the very heart of what Paul was opposing in 1 Corinthians 12. Why were we not to speak in tongues without interpretation?

Paul did not want them to be questioning our sanity!

Having passion for the Lord has nothing to do with what Pentecostals are doing. Having passion doesn't cause you to do exactly what Paul said we were not to.

I am still waiting to see if you realize that the word unknown was not in the original texts.

~Lorelei

PS. I am glad to hear that your son is doing well!

 

He believed and He received the Spirit! Yes,he was supposed to be baptized, but as a believer! His sins were washed away already! If not, then how could the Spirit enter a man not cleansed by the blood?

See, you throw the story out there in defense of your belief without really seeing what it says! It supports the opposite of what you believe! It supports belief alone to be saved and receive the Spirit of Christ! They received the Spirit as they heard the message!

Glad you mentioned the keys, remember, he was using those keys to give the Spirit to gentiles for the very first time! Now that is exciting!!!!!

Water wasn't forbidden, but no where in the text does it say this was necessary for thier salvation or cleansing.

You keep trying to wash yourself with water, I was washed with the Blood!

And since it talks about gifts of the Spirit immediately following, in context the baptism would be referring to that of the Spirit. Of course we know that we get the Spirit upon the moment we are saved. Peter doesn't need to use the keys anymore, the door is open. Now the Spirit comes in the moment we believe!

Of course one must realize this:

((The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.))

Or we put our faith in different things. If you say it's by faith alone...but...you are adding to that faith.

On this we agree. The motivation isn't because it is necessary but because we desire it, for I want to please the One that set me free!

~Lorelei

PS. It was fun talking with you again.

 

17 Pages and still nothing. Enjoy your conversation. I will watch the debate. Anytime you would like to debate me one-on-one let me know!

~Lorelei

 

That was the most beautiful presentation of the gospel! May the Lord bless these words for all who read it!

~Lorelei

 

Sorry, one more post then I will shut up! I am a bit talkative this morning but that is because I am just in a good mood! I tend to ramble when I am that way

To follow this debate, where will I go? There used to be a One on One debate forum wasn't there? Is it still there and I am missing it? Or did they do away with it? If so, where will the debate be?

~Lorelei

 

Hi Lorelei -

The one on one forum didn't spark enough interest to remain active. If any pair of members wish to have such a debate, we can do so in any of these forums. I would be happy to help you arrange it. We could still do the exchanges through e-mails in order that the rules would be observed and whatever thread was set aside for the debate could be closed after each entry to prevent intrusions.

Just let me know if you are interested.

- Clint