Speaking in Tongues

Just to clarify a bit, my experience was in an Assembly of God church. The AoG does not teach that speaking in tongues is necessary for salvation, rather it is the sign of "Baptism in the Holy Spirit".

Speaking for myself, I will not say tongues no longer occur because it has happened to me. It only happened once and the "tongue" was a real language (Spanish). My problem with the Pentecostal practice of speaking in tongues is that it sometimes overshadows the real reason for a church service--to worship God. Also, there is such peer pressure to speaking tongues that I think the vast majority (98+%) is fake.

As I said before, things like "holy laughter" and being "slain in the Spirit" are completely unbiblical and total garbage--mass hysteria at its best.

DHK,

Isn't this getting off the subject. If you are a missionary and do not have the comforts of the west, that doesn't mean you are any more spiritual than anyone else. I live in Indonesia and I do not have a steady income, but that doesn't make me right on any given point of theology any more than your location or situation makes you right. I have used squat toilets, or toilets that were just a hole in a wood or cement floor, and things of that nature. Fortunately, I've never been offerred those sweet grub worms or rotten pork as a guest of honor anywhere, but I haven't ministered in the parts of Indonesia where they serve such weird foods. Going through these experiences doesn't make one more spiritual than someone else, and it is no basis for trying to argue that "I am holier than thou, and therefore I am right." It did look like you were trying to argue that you were more spiritual in that post.

Of course we who believe that God operates today, in the world and in the church, the same way as revealed in New Testament scripture will think that those who think otherwise must have a boring outlook on life. Joy should be a part of our Christian life, and we should be excited about the work of God. The Corinthians were zealous about spiritual gifts-- and this was a good thing. Paul wanted them to direct their zeal toward mutual edification. We should be excited about God working in all the ways He works, and we should be excited in the way He works through the saints-- saving people's souls, leading them to repentance, encouraging believers to walk closer with the Lord and obey His word, and ministering through gifts of the Spirit like prophecy, healing, miracles. These are exciting things. It is normal for the Christian to be excited about such things, as long as we have our priorities right.

The Bible teaches us about a powerful God who raised Jesus from the dead, and gave gifts to the church. God is a God that does miracles through people, as revealed in the Bible. If someone does not believe God operates this way, then we who believe God does work this way and are excited about it, will think his outlook on life is somewhat boring. This doesn't mean we want a cushy life on earth. It just means we are excited about God working in Biblical ways.

I cannot find any scripture that teaches that God will stop acting in the world and through the church in a way _other than_ the way He does in scripture.

Originally posted by music4Him:
And now I can visit any church... Methodist, Baptist and Full Gospel (I have been going to FG mostly within the last year and 1/2) and so far I don't feel out of place in any of them.

I guess it just depends on the person and the church?

Click to expand...

Doesn't this in itself make you think that something is wrong. The Charismatic movement in itself is a unifying force, much like the ecumenical movement. But is that good or bad? If you can feel at home in a variety of churches--Methodist, Baptist, Full Gospel, and almost any church that is Charismatic, something is wrong. What is a Charismatic Church? It is one that accepts and practices speaking in tongues. There are Charismatic Baptists, who for convenience sake on this board have called themselves "Baptistcostal." I don't accept them as truly Baptist. There are Charismatic Methodist, and likewise Charismatic almost any denomination including Charismatic Catholics, including Charismatic Mormons. In fact Brigham Young said that speaking in tongues was the "Adamic Langauge."
In order to for these denominations to get along with each other (via tongues), they must sacrifice something. That which they sacrifice is their doctrine. To some baptism no longer becomes as important as it was before. Sprinkled, poured, or immersed, what is the difference they say. But there is an important difference. Infant or adult? For these differences our ancestors spilled their blood. They were that important.

I have heard recent Charismatic leaders on TV pray: "Oh God, deliver us from doctrine!" How terrible. The emphasis is on unity at the expense of doctrine. And that unity comes based on the experiences that people have. It doesn't matter anymore what the Bible says. It is your experience that counts. The bible becomes almost irrelevant. People now make up their doctrine according to the experiences that they have. And often it is heretical.

Ecumenism and the Charismatic movement are two tools that I beieve that anti-Christ and the false prophet will use to form the one world church in the Tribulation Period.
DHK

Originally posted by Link:
DHK,

Isn't this getting off the subject. If you are a missionary and do not have the comforts of the west, that doesn't mean you are any more spiritual than anyone else.

Click to expand...

You are right. And that is why I ignored the question the first time that it was asked me. I saw no need to answer it. It was personal and irrelvant. But then it was asked again, and the matter was pressed. I don't really like giving testimonial answers like that to prove a point, and posts that make me sound more spiritual. That wasn't my point at all.
The point the poster was making was the stereotype that she had painted for us who do not believe in tongues or the spiritual gifts: there is no "fun" in life. We are all dead beats. Life is boring. Life is sad and dull. There is no excitement. Basically it is false stereotype and if one were to be more specific could be considered a false allegation. I posted as I did to point out that speaking in gibberish is not the true gift of tongues, and is not having "fun" per se. It is amusement. It is a psychological phenomena that started in the 20th century, unknown before that time.
I compared that to what true Christianity offers, in the way that I myself have experienced it. I have travelled quite a bit throughout North America as well. I know you come from Indonesia, and have it a bit more rough than most Americans. But the fact remains that most Americans have everything they ever need in life: a guaranteed income, always food on the table, always a roof over their head, always running water, electricity, a heated home, or even air conditioned as the case may be, a car (and often more than one), more appliances than they know what to do with, etc. They live above and beyond their needs, so that their credit cards are often maxed out. Most of them live in some of the most affluent societies in the world where money is no problem.
When you have those things, you don't need to walk by faith, and you don't even have the opportunity to do so. You don't know what it means to exercise your faith. To be in the situation where one has to pray for a refigerator or do without; live in a village and trust God that you don't get sick when they draw the water from the polluted canal; trust God to keep you healthy when the pump for the source of drinking water is put five feet away from the washrooms, which are as you describe--a hole in the ground. Most people don't know what it is to trust the Lord. That was my point. They are armchair theologians (so to speak) never having experienced practical Christianity. I would have never said those things if my own standard of Christianity had not first been challenged: not once, but twice.
DHK

DHK,

I wonder if certain varieties of dispensationalism will not be used by Satan in the Tribulation. There are some people who have been taught the 'pre-trib rapture.' I can imagine them saying 'This isn't the anti-Christ because the rapture hasn't taken place yet' and taking the mark. Cessationist theology could cause some to reject the prophecies of the Two Witnesses. Btw, how does the Two Witnesses prophesying, and all the prophets mentioned during the tribulation fit with your idea of cessationism if you are a dispensationalist.

Btw, I do not live in a house with just a hole in the floor for a toilet. I have visited homes like that before, though. God has provided well for me.

DHK,

I wonder if certain varieties of dispensationalism will not be used by Satan in the Tribulation. There are some people who have been taught the 'pre-trib rapture.' I can imagine them saying 'This isn't the anti-Christ because the rapture hasn't taken place yet' and taking the mark. Cessationist theology could cause some to reject the prophecies of the Two Witnesses. Btw, how does the Two Witnesses prophesying, and all the prophets mentioned during the tribulation fit with your idea of cessationism if you are a dispensationalist.

Btw, I do not live in a house with just a hole in the floor for a toilet. I have visited homes like that before, though. God has provided well for me.

Originally posted by Link:

Of course we who believe that God operates today, in the world and in the church, the same way as revealed in New Testament scripture will think that those who think otherwise must have a boring outlook on life. Joy should be a part of our Christian life, and we should be excited about the work of God. The Corinthians were zealous about spiritual gifts-- and this was a good thing. Paul wanted them to direct their zeal toward mutual edification. We should be excited about God working in all the ways He works, and we should be excited in the way He works through the saints-- saving people's souls, leading them to repentance, encouraging believers to walk closer with the Lord and obey His word, and ministering through gifts of the Spirit like prophecy, healing, miracles. These are exciting things. It is normal for the Christian to be excited about such things, as long as we have our priorities right.

Click to expand...

I agree with much of what you say. Of course I do not believe that the spiritual gifts are for today, and I believe I have the evidence to support my position (from the Word of God). I believe that that ought to be the basis of our discussion--and with you I have found for the most part it has.
Certainly there is joy and excitement in living the Christian life, as long as that life is genuine. There are many that live a false "put on the mask" type of life, as the clerk at the grocery store is forced to smile to you and say "have a nice day," whether she means it or not. Lives based on experiences are like yo-yos, up and down. And when you are down, one is forced to put on their mask, and pretend about their fun smiley Christian life.

The Bible teaches us about a powerful God who raised Jesus from the dead, and gave gifts to the church.

Click to expand...

Let's look at that in context:

Ephesians 4:8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.

Ephesians 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

This is not the same list as is given in 1Cor.12. It is vastly different, and may be interpreted in two different ways. One way says that Jesus was the cornerstone of the foundation, with the Apostles and prophets making up the other part of the foundation, and the rest of us building upon it. Every church then would have evangelists, pastors and teachers, building upon the foundation that consists of Christ (the chief cornerstone), and the Apostles and prophets.

A second interpretation, and a literal more figurative what go like this.
The word Apostle is means: "one sent with a message." There are about 19 apostles mentioned in the Bible. Barnabus, Timotheus, Paul, Matthias, Sylvanus, are but some of the ones that are not usually thought of. When apostolos was translated from Greek into Latin (in the Vulgate) the word mittere was used, from which we get our English word missionary. Basically the apostle of today is a missionary.

The word prophet. A prophet of the OT had more than one purpose. The predictive function of the prophet was minor. The major funcition of the prophet was to warn, encourage, rebuke, and in general--preach to the nation of Israel. Prediction actually played a minor role. The prophet of today is the preacher of the day.

Evangleist ought to need no explanationn. We have evangelistists today.
And Pastors and Teachers are the main offices in the local church. These are what God has given to us for the operation of the local church today. I believe these are different, and are if a different context than the spiritual supernatural gifts that Paul is discussing in 1Cor.12-14.

God is a God that does miracles through people, as revealed in the Bible. If someone does not believe God operates this way, then we who believe God does work this way and are excited about it, will think his outlook on life is somewhat boring. This doesn't mean we want a cushy life on earth. It just means we are excited about God working in Biblical ways.

Click to expand...

I don't believe that you will find a poster on this board that believes that God does not do miracles. Whoever said that? We all believe that God does miracles. But we don't believe in so-called miracle workers, and we don't beieve that the gift of miracles, or the gift of healing is in operation today. If it were, then someone would take up my challenge and prove that it is.

If there is such a faith healer today, or someone who has the Biblical gift of healing today, then let him demonstrate it by walking up and down the corridors of a hospital and healing all those in the hospital that are sick. Why doesn't anyone come forward to take up that challenge. Because the gift of healing has ceased, along with tongues and the other spiritual gifts. This much is quite obvious. There has no answer been given to this argument yet. Wouldn't it a wonderful thing if you had a "faith-healer" who could do some good for the victims of this Tsunami??

I cannot find any scripture that teaches that God will stop acting in the world and through the church in a way _other than_ the way He does in scripture.

Click to expand...

God does act through the church, especially local churches. Spiritual gifts have ceased. But that doesn't mean he has stopped answering prayer, answering prayer in miraculous ways, answering prayer in healing people, etc. God still works today. We do not deny that. But the miraculous supernatural gifts that were given to the first century Christians for specific purposes have fulfilled their funcition, and are no longer for this day and age.
DHK

Link said:I wonder if certain varieties of dispensationalism will not be used by Satan in the Tribulation. There are some people who have been taught the 'pre-trib rapture.' I can imagine them saying 'This isn't the anti-Christ because the rapture hasn't taken place yet' and taking the mark.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. I have preached that so many times!!

So a hearty and an amen!!

By the way, I agree with your other post too about:If you are a missionary and do not have the comforts of the west, that doesn't mean you are any more spiritual than anyone else

Just as a side note, I was raised in a place here in the U.S., where we had to carry water, and had no inside plumbing.

But that doesn't make me any better than anyone else.

But anyway, glad you're here. Keep up the good work!

Peace,

Tam

No DHK theres nothing wrong. Arn't brothers and sisters in Christ suppost to get along?
1Cor. 12:12-13~
For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.
13) For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been made all to drink into one Spirit.

Let me clarify when I say "I feel at home". I do feel at home in the way that I know that the Lord is with me and that He is in the congragation (theres a love there) and the real deal is going on the in a church (no judging, but comming to hear the word of God preached by a man (or woman) who loves God). Although I will have to admit there was this one church that I did walk out of before service was over. (the weird thing is not too long after that the preacher that was there (when I visited) had left too)

BTW, I'm not buying into the Catholic religon, Mormonizim, or JW's even if they have a tongue talking section.
The Baptist and Methodist churches I visit do not speak in tongues and in respect to their beliefs I don't speak in tongues while visiting them. I don't force none of my beliefs about the gifts of the Spirit on no body (remember the 95 lb 16yr old girl), but if people ask me about it I'll answer them. But really its God's buisness, whether the manifestation of the Spirit will be given to profit a man or given to every man to profit withal. (1Cor.12:4-11)

Now we can't visit other churches?

What will you come up with next DHK?



Peace,

Tammy

Originally posted by tamborine lady:

Now we can't visit other churches?

What will you come up with next DHK?

Tammy

Click to expand...

You can do whatever you want: visit the Church of Satan if you wish. That is up to you.

Joshua 24:15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

Amos 3:3 Can two walk together, except they be agreed?

2 Corinthians 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

I go to a Baptist church, (in particular IFB), because I believe they preach and stand for the truth. If I didn't believe that I wouldn't go there. If I beleived that the Methodists or the Presbyterians adhered to the truth, then I would go there. I will not sacrifice doctrine for convenience, amusement, unity, or any other flippant reason.
When the 3,000 got saved on the day of Pentecost it says that they continued in the Apostles' doctrine. The first thing mentioned is doctrine. That was the most important thing to them.

In Canada we have the United Church of Canada. In my travels to other nations I have noticed that most nations have a United Church. The United Church of_______, and you fill in the blank of the country. In one place I was in the United Church was a conglomeration of the Presbyterian, the Methodist, the Lutheran, the Anglican, and the Congregational. Five churches had joined hands to become one national church. Think about the differences these churches had before they came together, and then think what some of them had to give up doctrinally. What would be their mode of baptism, and when? What would be their definition of salvation, or born again?
To be short, this church preached a social gospel, not salvation through the blood of Christ. In fact the minister had never heard of the hymn "What Can Wash Away My Sin, Nothing But The Blood Of Jesus." It is one of the most popular hymns of that area, but he is a liberal, an unbeliever. He doesn't believe in the Mosaic authorship of the first five books of the Bible. One gets to heaven by doing good works.
Where does unity lead--to the sacrificing of doctrine, and eventually to such a watered down doctrine that there is no gospel at all.

Knox was the founder of the Presbyterian church in Scotland. If he knew what the Presbyterians beleived today he would roll over in his grave today.
Wesley was the founder of the Methodists. If he could see what the Methodists were doing today, he would die a second death.
Luther was the founder of the Lutherans. If only he could see what was happening to the Lutherans today.
And if these Godly men were to see their followers uniting together and compromising evangelical beliefs that result in modernism, then...???
DHK

DKH, Why are you so fascinated with this subject?

quote:
__________________________________________________
Wesley was the founder of the Methodists. If he could see what the Methodists were doing today, he would die a second death.
__________________________________________________

DHK, What are they doing wrong? Speaking in tongues? Is their salvation doctrine wrong, or maybe the baptisim doctine? What? I would like to know because my Mother in law is going to this church. While I was there and listened to the preacher he didn't say anything off the mark. To make me think the gospel wasn't being preached. (Only no alter call at the end of service but the Baptist church I attended would sometimes do the same)

I agree with Music. I like to go to different churches sometimes, and I feel at home in a lot of them.

Just like here on this board, I feel at home talking to a lot of people, and some others I don't.

I praise God that He said He would never leave me nor forsake me, and I know that he is always with me, no matter where I go.

Josh-24-15---------but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

Working for Jesus,

Tam

Hay Tam I think the main thing is the churches that we visit are serving the Lord.


Hummmmmm....I guess DHK isn't going to answer me?

"How can two walk together except they be agreed."
Denmoninations are different for a reason. They have different doctrine. If you believe all the doctrine of all the churches that you mentioned above you are one confused person.

Do you remember the story of Jehoshaphat? He was one of the most Godly Kings of Judah. His story is given in 2Chronicles 17. He did not follow in the steps of his ungodly fathers, but walked in the ways of the Lord. Contemporary to Jehoshaphat was Ahab, the most wicked king that Israel ever had. Near the end of Jehoshaphat's life Ahab convinced Jehoshaphat to go to war with him against the Syrians. They both went up to war together, but the prophet condemned Jehoshaphat's action in doing so. Jehoshaphat's in not remembered in the history of the Jews for the good things that he did, he is remembered as the king who compromised his Godly principles and worked side by side with wickedness. Your association with others is of utmost importance to God. That is why he emphasized all throughout the Old Testament to the Jews to be completely separated from the heathen nations.

You ask, "What is wrong with the Methodist Churc?" Methodist churches may vary from church to church. But I may ask: What about the United Methodist Church? One of the first churches to put their blessing on homosexual unions. I would not want to be associated with the Methodists in any way for that reason alone.
From what I know there are not many Methodists churches any more that are truly evangelical.
Many have gone into liberalism, and do not preach the gospel--but a type of social gospel.
Many do not believe any longer the fundamentals of the faith.
Of course you already know that they differ in our stand on baptism by immersion after salvation.
Quite frankly, in most Methodist churches that I have been acquaited with, I could not honestly say that I have been "amnog the brethren."

This holds true for most of your mainline denominational churches of today. Very few of them are evangelical anymore. It is very sad, but true.
DHK

DHK, from the conversations we have had in the past you are pretty much saying (IMO how it sounds) if a person isn't a Baptist they are doomed to hell.

Yes I know the story about Jehoshaphat...do everything right and nobody notices but mess up one time nobody ever forgets.

What I ment in my questioning was do Methodist have the right salvation plan (ie accepting Christ as their personal Savior and believing on Jesus and confessing Jesus publicly *the whole 9 yards of the Roman road.)
BTW, As far as baptisim goes you have said before that it is not nessasary for salvation it is out of obediance of commandment. Now if Methodist think that Baptisim saves then I would have been worried for my MIL.
BTW, I didn't know they have embraced homosexuality....(maybe we ought to write them and point out the scripture to show them that they made a mistake?) Hate the sin but not the sinner.

quote
__________________________________________________
"How can two walk together except they be agreed."
Denmoninations are different for a reason. They have different doctrine. If you believe all the doctrine of all the churches that you mentioned above you are one confused person.
__________________________________________________

Paul and Barnabas had problems too and they didn't agree on something it didn't mean that one was right and the other was wrong and a lost.

Acts 15:36-41
36 And some days after Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do. 37 And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark. 38 But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work. 39 And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus; 40 And Paul chose Silas, and departed, being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God. 41 And he went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches.

Originally posted by music4Him:

Paul and Barnabas had problems too and they didn't agree on something it didn't mean that one was right and the other was wrong and a lost.

Acts 15:36-41
36 And some days after Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do. 37 And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark. 38 But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work. 39 And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus; 40 And Paul chose Silas, and departed, being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God. 41 And he went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches.

Click to expand...

Let me address this first. It is often cited out of context. Paul and Barnabas never had any differences doctrinally. They were both on the same page when it came to doctrine. Their dispute was over a person, John Mark. Paul didn't want to take him because on the previous missionary journey he quit and went home. Paul viewed John Mark as a quitter, and thought that there was a good possibilty that he might do the same thing again. He wanted a more mature companion, and thus ended up taking Silas.

The trademark of Barnabas has always been compassion, as his name suggests. At the end of Acts 4 we see Barnabas selling large tracts of land selflessly and giving all the proceeds to the Apostles for the poor that had none. This way everyone would have something.
Later when Paul was saved, it was Barnabas that took Paul under his wing and convinced the rest of the Apostles to accept him. The other Apostles were afraid of Paul because of his reputation. Barnabas's compassion was to give a person a second chance. He saw that Paul was saved and had to convince the other Apostles of the same.
The same now was true of John Mark. He had compassion on John Mark. Again he was willing to give him a second chance. That was characteristic of Barnabas--always willing to give a person a second chance. It is one of the character traits listed in the description of love in 1Cor.13. He was a compassionate man. What was the end result of John Mark?
Near the end of Paul's life, while he is awaiting his final sentence in prison, he writes to Timothy and says:

2 Timothy 4:11 Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry.
--All had been reconciled. John Mark (Mark), was now profitable to the ministry. Paul, in jail, wanted to see him.

There was no doctrinal differences between them. It was just a matter of what companion to take with them on their missionary journey. Keep things in perspective when reading the Scriptures.
DHK

"How can two walk together except they be agreed."
Denmoninations are different for a reason. They have different doctrine. If you believe all the doctrine of all the churches that you mentioned above you are one confused person.

No I'm not confused. I won't shun no one as long as they are preaching and BELIEVEING the gospel of Christ. What I heard in the Methodist church was nothing that would make me think the doctine was all wrong.

There was no doctrinal differences between them. It was just a matter of what companion to take with them on their missionary journey. Keep things in perspective when reading the Scriptures.

But yet I proved they were not in agreement nevertheless! Even in some churches the people are not in one accord.


Now you can address the rest of my previous reply.

Music4Him

Like Baptists, there are different kinds of Methodists. Most of the mainline Methodists do not preach the gospel any longer and have gone liberal. Most deny the very fudamentals of our faith. The Free Methodists are fairly evangelical in their belief and still preach the gospel. There is still one other group of evangelical Methodists that may be evangelical.
Also keep in mind how far to the left some of the Methodist churches have gone, such as the United Methodists, with their accpetance of homosexual unions.

The Methodists were started by John Wesley, and out of it grew the holiness movement. Traditionally Methodists believe in entire sanctification, and the belief that one can lose your salvation.

Out of the holiness movement grew the Pentecostal movement, and the rest is history.

The best thing for you to do is write or talk to your mil about her salvation, find out if she does have a personal relationship with the Lord, and seek to find a good Bible-believing church for her.
DHK