Featured 1 Cor. 12-14

By this very post you show that experience is more important than doctrine. As I have been saying your foundation is your experience upon which you build your doctrine, not the other way around as it should be.

Benny Hinn believes that there are nine persons in the trinity--three persons in each of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
He believes that "we are all little gods running around on this earth." (direct quote from TBN).
He believes that during his death he descended into hell where he made "a deal" with Satan in which he was able to complete the atonement for our sins.
He believes in a health and wealth prosperity gospel.

The question that remains then is this: Can you believe those heretical doctrines and be a Christian at the same time. The answer is a loud NO! You cannot be a Christian and believe such heresy at the same time. It is not a matter at looking at a person's heart. It is a matter of looking at a person's fruit (which is their doctrine). Beware of wolves in sheep's clothing.

 

This is what you said:

I, unlike you, can not judge the man's heart! I do not know what Benny Hinn believes and know very little about him.

But that is not what Jesus taught. He said "Judge righteous judgment."
When he said "By their fruits you shall know them," the context was in knowing false prophets, and he was referring to false doctrine. False prophets do not exhibit the fruit of the Spirit. An unsaved person can't do that.
We judge a person by his doctrine, not by his "heart."
By that you infer you judge by experience not doctrine. How can you know the heart? You can't. But you can know the doctrine, and it must be judged!

Are Muslims saved? Hindus? Mormons?
Did you just make a judgement? Yes you did! Didn't you just judge "their hearts," or was it based on their doctrine?
I judge Benny Hinn based on his doctrine. I deem his doctrine anti-Christian. Anyone one who denies the traditional view of the doctrine is not saved. Anyone who denies the atonement is not saved.

Read carefully Matthew chapter 7. He is not speaking of the fruit of the Spirit. He is referring to the fruit of false prophets.

Quite frankly I can't think of any. I have been fortunate to have had good teachers from my salvation onward. The Lord has led me in his paths from my salvation onward and has not led me astray. As long as I study the Word of God along with that which is taught by man, how can I go wrong?
But I don't believe you are doing that. You are allowing yourself to be influenced by your emotions.

 

DHK: I have been fortunate to have had good teachers from my salvation onward.

Aside from the blanket statement of God, His word, the Spirit, etc.....who exactly were your teachers(authors, schools, those you read frequently) from salvation on if you don't mind?

 

Read. Do a google search. Do not remain ignorant of false teachers. It is your responsibility to know what others believe. Would you have followed Jim Jones or David Koresh?

 

Nothing really

 

It has to do with judgment. Beware of false teachers such as Benny Hinn.
In 1Cor.12:1 Paul says "I would not have you ignorant of spiritual gifts."
Then in verse 2, he reminds them of their pagan background. Why does he do that? Because false experiences, deceptive practices, wrong doctrine may have crept in from that pagan past.
In verse three it seem quite evident that it did.

In their pagan past they were able to speak in tongues but they didn't understand what they were saying.
Now they were giving into this same practice all over again--speaking in a language that they didn't understand. But it wasn't of God. Others knew it wasn't of God, for there were some who could recognize the language they were speaking. Would it not frighten you if your friend started speaking in another language that you happened to recognize and all that she was repeating over and over again was "Jesus is accursed," "Jesus is accursed." Paul says that isn't of the Holy Spirit. It isn't of God. It is of another spirit. Those who say "Jesus is Lord," (in another language) are speaking by the Holy Spirit, not those who call Jesus accursed.

If you don't understand what you are speaking you may be one of those calling Christ accursed. You just don't know.

 

And your past posts say that you stand on your experience not on the Bible.
You will believe in your tongues experience because you say it confirms the Bible, but a Mormon or even a Hindu (who accepts all religions) can say the same type of things. It is the Word of God that determines whether an experience is of God or not; not the other way around.

 

So if I have an experience of who I'm convinced is God, and He is telling me that a person is about to commit suicide, and I go and it's true, and maybe help them, how do we discern this DHK?

 

That is all well and good. And if the man was about to celebrate his birthday instead? Then how would you feel? I don't run my life by my feelings.

 

Tell me how you would discern this situation please?

Is it scriptural? Is it the devil? Is it God?

 

No, you are determined to use the Word of God to justify your experience. You experience is near and dear to you and you won't give it up. Everything revolves around it. Your doctrine revolves around your experience. Let's see once more how the Scriptures are totally against speaking in another language in this day and age.

1. There is no such thing as a private prayer language taught in the Bible. There never was, is not, and never will be. It doesn't exist.

2. All spiritual gifts mentioned in 1Cor.12 were supernatural and given to first century churches, given only to first century churches, for the revelation of God was not yet complete.

3. They were given to the churches and not for private use. Just as the gift of healing, helps, administration, miracles, etc. was not used for oneself to practice at home, neither was the gift of tongues. It is totally absurd even to think that such a thing was possible. All the gifts were given for the edification and understanding of the entire church; never just one individual.

4. Tongues ALWAYS had to be interpreted. If tongues were not interpreted the person had to remain silent. They were not to exercise their gift at all.

5. Women were not permitted to speak in tongues whatsoever. They were to maintain absolute silence in the church.

6. Tongues were a sign to the unbelieving Jew. If there is no unbelieving Jew present there is no need to speak in tongues.

7. Tongues are a sign that designated one as an apostle, authenticated his message and him as an apostle.

8. Tongues was a vehicle for revelation, and would cease at the end of the first century when the last book of the Bible would be written. And that is exactly what happened.

9. Historically we have only 3 cases of tongues. In Acts 2, 10, and 19. We don't read of any others except in the Book of Acts, and in a general way that Paul refers to. But Paul died ca. 68 A.D. Tongues were already beginning to fade out when First Corinthians was being written. By the time the Book of Revelation was written it had probably already ceased. There is no history of tongues from that time until 1905 which is the beginning of the Charismatic movement. Thus the Charismatic rules out 19 centuries of Christendom inferring that they are all unscriptural--some of the most Godly men that ever lived, lived during that period. But you don't care about that.

10. Paul stressed the insignificance of tongues when he said: "I would rather speak five words with understanding then 10,000 words in an unknown tongue." 5:10,000! That is quite a contrast isn't it? To put it more mathematically it is a ratio of 1:2,000. Speaking in your own language or with understanding is two thousand times more important than speaking with tongues.

11. Read 1Cor.12:28. All the gifts are listed in order of importance and tongues are listed last, as the least important of all the gifts. It was not one of the more important gifts.

12. We are never told to seek after tongues.

13. "Do all speak in tongues." The answer to the rhetorical question is "No." All had a gift, but it wasn't the same one, and they were to be content with the one that they were given of God. To seek a gift that God had not given you was sinful.

14. Nowhere is the gift of tongues directly connected with the baptism of the Holy Spirit. These are two separate events and doctrines.

Now that still is not all the restrictions on tongues but it is enough.
It still is not all the reasons why a person should not even try to speak in tongues but it is enough. It is enough that you cannot go through that entire list and respond with Scripture to each one and prove them wrong.

If you were honest you would have to admit, given the evidence above, that speaking in tongues, is not a Biblical gift for today.
If you do not know what you are speaking, and no one else doesn't know what you are speaking you can be assured it is not of God.

 

I don't deny that God is able to lead you to different individuals that are having problems. A person can be led by the Spirit and many often are to such situations. There are many Godly individuals that have such testimonies.

 

So is it an experience that is ok with scripture?