• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

1 Cor. 12-14

Status
Not open for further replies.

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
But I can show you where ALL spoke in tongues when they were baptized in the spirit.
Oneness Pentecostal is a cult. They believe that everyone must be baptized by the Holy Spirit, and that the evidence of the baptism of the baptism of the Holy Spirit is speaking in tongues. In short, if you do not speak in tongues you are not saved. That is their believed. They also throw in baptism into the mix.

Your belief is similar.
I challenged the Oneness Pentecostal, when they were permitted on the board, to show me the plan of salvation without using the book of Acts. They couldn't do it. They could not show how to lead a person to Christ or how to present the gospel without the book of Acts. The entire Book of Romans is a great thesis on soteriology. In spite of that they couldn't explain salvation without Acts.
Why?
Because "the baptism of the Holy Spirit," resulting in tongues, was a part of their theology. And that is only found in the Book of Acts.

Acts is a historical book, a book of the acts of the apostles; a book of the history of the church; a book of transition where the church is in its infancy. One cannot depend on the Book of Acts for doctrine. They must use the epistles for solid doctrine.

For example, to use Acts 2 for your basis of speaking in tongues. Was your experience also accompanied by a mighty rushing wind, cloves of fire appearing over you? Did that happen to you? Then your experience, per Acts 2, is null and void.
As for Acts 2 being in a church, yes it was. It was in the First Baptist Church of Jerusalem. Read 2:41.
They that heard the word were baptized and the same day were added to the church. What church? The church at Jerusalem of course.
Look at the last verse in the chapter.
"And the Lord added daily such as should be saved to the church."
What church?
The local church in Jerusalem.

Acts 10 and 19 had different purposes.
But you cannot build doctrine on experiences in the Book of Acts.
That doctrine is from the epistles. And there is only one epistle that speaks of the gift of tongues and that is First Corinthians.
 

Michael Wrenn

New Member
The Pentecostal doctrine that baptism in the Holy Spirit occurs after conversion/regeneration and that the initial evidence of same is speaking in tongues is false doctrine which makes those who don't believe it into second class Christians in the eyes of those who do.
 

awaken

Active Member
Oneness Pentecostal is a cult. They believe that everyone must be baptized by the Holy Spirit, and that the evidence of the baptism of the baptism of the Holy Spirit is speaking in tongues. In short, if you do not speak in tongues you are not saved. That is their believed. They also throw in baptism into the mix.
Well, this is where I am different! I do not believe you have to speak in tongues in order to be saved.

Your belief is similar.
I challenged the Oneness Pentecostal, when they were permitted on the board, to show me the plan of salvation without using the book of Acts. They couldn't do it. They could not show how to lead a person to Christ or how to present the gospel without the book of Acts. The entire Book of Romans is a great thesis on soteriology. In spite of that they couldn't explain salvation without Acts.
Why?
Because "the baptism of the Holy Spirit," resulting in tongues, was a part of their theology. And that is only found in the Book of Acts.

Acts is a historical book, a book of the acts of the apostles; a book of the history of the church; a book of transition where the church is in its infancy. One cannot depend on the Book of Acts for doctrine. They must use the epistles for solid doctrine.
The whole Bible is historical except for the part of prophecy that has not been fulfilled. Speaking in tongues is an administration of the Holy Spirit that came in existence on the day of Pentecost. (This is not saying the HS was not here before). I ask you...Is Jesus still baptizing people today with the Holy Spirit? Are there still unbelievers in the world? Do we still pray? Do we still need the Holy Spirit's help in prayer as Rom. 8:26-27 suggest? If not, what other issues in Paul's epistles tot he Romans no longer apply? THe answer is Yes! He is still here! The manifestation of the HS through the gifts are still here! THe church age has not ended..and the manifestation was given to the church. It has nothing to do with the death of the apostles! It is part of the "things of the Spirit of God", which apply to church age Christians. Tongues is also a sign for the unbeliever...and we still have them today! Not to mention you have to ignore and contradict Paul speaking of PRAYING in the spirit...and calling it tongues!

For example, to use Acts 2 for your basis of speaking in tongues. Was your experience also accompanied by a mighty rushing wind, cloves of fire appearing over you? Did that happen to you? Then your experience, per Acts 2, is null and void.
As for Acts 2 being in a church, yes it was. It was in the First Baptist Church of Jerusalem. Read 2:41.
They that heard the word were baptized and the same day were added to the church. What church? The church at Jerusalem of course.
Look at the last verse in the chapter.
"And the Lord added daily such as should be saved to the church."
What church?
The local church in Jerusalem.

Acts 10 and 19 had different purposes.
But you cannot build doctrine on experiences in the Book of Acts.
That doctrine is from the epistles. And there is only one epistle that speaks of the gift of tongues and that is First Corinthians.
You can not pick and chose what books you want to obey and follow! All scriptures is given by inspiration...for doctrine! 1 Tim 3:16!!
 

awaken

Active Member
The Pentecostal doctrine that baptism in the Holy Spirit occurs after conversion/regeneration and that the initial evidence of same is speaking in tongues is false doctrine which makes those who don't believe it into second class Christians in the eyes of those who do.
Well I am not Pentecostal! And I do not put anyone in as a second class Christian!
 

awaken

Active Member
I'm sorry you feel this way. Actually, I have read every single post and done my best to understand what you are saying and reply to it. I don't feel you've done the same.
No, sorry, you can't deny the influence of Charismatics in your life. What you said is that you heard what they were saying and thought you could disprove it. May I ask if you went to your pastor about these doctrines before trying to combat the Charismatics? Did you go to other older, experienced Christians and ask their advice?
Yes, and that is when I discovered that my pastor ( a Baptist preacher) believed the manifestation of the HS is still here.
How do I see the tongues as different? I've already shared that, but here it is again. Maybe I haven't been clear enough.

(1) In Acts the tongues were miraculous, given from God to witness to others. Thousands were saved, and that is far more important than the tongues.
All tongue after Pentecost was miraculous, because it can not be done without the Holy Spirit! And they were not given to preach the gospel..it was a sign to the unbeliever, yes! But Peter is the one that preached the gospel and led many to Christ! They were mangifying God! Talking to God not to men! The men just happen to hear what they were saying in their own language. Notice that there was not an interpreter there. The ones that heard them speak in their own language were not saved (indwelt)..so they can not manifest something they do not have.

Example: If a lost person (French) came to church and someone gave a message in tongues and the French lost person understood in their language what they were saying, that would not be interpreting through the spirit (that was his learned language). Remember the gift of interpretation is just as miraculous as the other gifts and can only be done by the Holy Spirit or it would not be miraculous.

(2) In 1 Cor. the tongues are simply languages, special linguistic ability given by the Holy Spirit. There was no Pentecost like Acts 2 in Corinth (the worst church in the NT), no one was said to be saved through the tongues, they were not in an upper room, they saw no fiery tongues, there was no earthquake. You have not proven any different.
Well, if you read my post...I said the exact same thing! Pentecost can not be repeated! But the tongues was here to stay! They are given to profit all..until the unity of the saints!

(3) Modern Charismatic tongues are nothing like the tongues in the Bible. Charismatic missionaries have to go to language school just like I did. They see no one saved with their tongues. Charismatic tongues are a private prayer language like you've been touting, and that is nowhere in the Bible, despite your protestations.
Again! That is why a learned language can not classify as tongues in the Bible. I did not go to school to learn tongues, it is done by the Holy Spirit...not to go and preach in a mission field. But to build myself up in my most holy Faith "praying in the spirit". 14:2 shows that tongues is speaking to God!!!

(4) Modern Charismatic tongues divide churches. They started that way in the 1960's, and continue to do so. As long as you're in Jude, read v. 19: "These are sensual persons, who cause divisions, not having the Spirit" (NKJV).
No! Satan divides churches! No church has absolute truth they have all strayed from the Bible in some area. Tongues is just one!


You accused me in your post of reading the Bible with bias, saying "Read it again without your bias beliefs." I charge you with this in Jude. You are being careless with God's Word.

(1) Praying in the Holy Spirit in Jude is very different from your verse in 1 Cor. 14:14, where it is "my spirit," the human spirit, not the Holy Spirit of God as in Jude.
It is with my spirit that the Holy Spirit speaks!

(2) You say, "We are in the last days." The truth is, we've been in the last days since Pentecost, where Peter used the phrase in quoting Joel.
True! and as long as we are in the last days (church age) We will have the Holy Spirit manifesting through us and that includes tongues. Because in 13:12-13 it says that it will be here until we see Him face to face, when we will know as we are known. The last time I read my Bible that will be at the coming of Jesus!

You know, as with most tongues speakers, you seem to value tongues above witnessing for Christ. May I ask, have you ever won anyone to Christ? Have you witnessed for Christ recently? If the answer to these questions is no, you are not filled with the Holy Spirit nor have you ever been. I suggest that you kneel in humble repentance to God and ask His forgiveness for emphasizing tongues (never commanded in the Bible) over witnessing for Christ, the last command of our Savior on the earth--the Great Commission.
I did not emphasize tongues...everyone here did! I am just defending what I believe is in the Bible...and I have shown scriptures to back it up! As far as leading someone to Christ the answer is yes! But not through tongues...because that is not the purpose of tongues. It is for the church to build up the CHURCH (saved people). It is a sign to the unbelieve that it is real! But you do not lead a lost person to the Lord by tongues..it is just a sign that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is real.
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
You can not pick and chose what books you want to obey and follow! All scriptures is given by inspiration...for doctrine! 1 Tim 3:16!!
Yes, ALL Scripture is profitable; but not all Scripture is not applicable to you! That is your mistake.

If that is true, tell me how this Scripture applies to you:

Isaiah 3:18 In that day the Lord will take away the bravery of their tinkling ornaments about their feet, and their cauls, and their round tires like the moon,
19 The chains, and the bracelets, and the mufflers,
20 The bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the headbands, and the tablets, and the earrings,
21 The rings, and nose jewels,
22 The changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping pins,
23 The glasses, and the fine linen, and the hoods, and the vails.

Do you have cauls, tires, mufflers and wimples that you wear?
And how do they affect your Christian life?
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
The whole Bible is historical except for the part of prophecy that has not been fulfilled.
That is not true. The epistles, like Romans and Corinthians are doctrinal books, whereas the book of Acts is a historical books. If the "doctrine" you gain from Acts contradicts the teaching given in the epistles it is wrong.
Speaking in tongues is an administration of the Holy Spirit that came in existence on the day of Pentecost.
It was a sign to the Jews. It got everyone's attention. There were about 100,000 Jews present on the Day of Pentecost, a feast day of the Jews. The tongues got their attention. After being accused of being drunk Peter then got up and preached, being full of the Holy Spirit. The result--3,000 were saved. Saved, not because of the tongues, but because of the Spirit-filled preaching of the Word of God.
(This is not saying the HS was not here before). I ask you...Is Jesus still baptizing people today with the Holy Spirit? Are there still unbelievers in the world?
1Cor.l4:22 goes with verse 21. Tongues were a sign to the unbelieving JEWS. Whenever tongues was spoken Jews were present. You can count on that. You can't show me a place or time in the NT where Jews were not present when tongues were spoken. If you are speaking in tongues and Jews are not present your experience is invalid.
Do we still pray? Do we still need the Holy Spirit's help in prayer as Rom. 8:26-27 suggest? If not, what other issues in Paul's epistles tot he Romans no longer apply? THe answer is Yes! He is still here! The manifestation of the HS through the gifts are still here!
No, the gifts have ceased. And you have misinterpreted Scripture. For example, Rom.8:26,27 has nothing to do with tongues.
THe church age has not ended..and the manifestation was given to the church.
The "manifestation"? What does that mean? It sounds like a cult? "The Manifest sons of God"? What are you talking about?
Definition of MANIFESTATIONan occult phenomenon; specifically : materialization

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/manifestation
A spirit manifests itself. Demons are able to manifest themselves.
It has nothing to do with the death of the apostles!
2Cor.12:12; Heb.2:3,4. They were the signs of an apostle. They were part of the "sign gifts." Being sign gifts they ended at the ended at the end of the apostolic age when the apostles died. There was no more need of them. They ended when the canon of Scripture was complete, when the apostles had finished writing.
It is part of the "things of the Spirit of God", which apply to church age Christians.
Foolishness! 1Cor.2:12 which mentions "the things of the Spirit of God" is speaking of "illumination." We are indwelt with the Holy Spirit and are therefore able to understand the things of the Spirit of God, in contrast to the unsaved or natural man who has not the Spirit of God, and therefore is not able to understand spiritual things for he is spiritually discerned (1Cor.2:14).
Tongues is also a sign for the unbeliever...and we still have them today! Not to mention you have to ignore and contradict Paul speaking of PRAYING in the spirit...and calling it tongues!
1Cor.14:21,22. They are not simply unbelievers. They are specifically unbelieving Jews of the first century, and unless you have them in your church your experience is null and void.
Furthermore you are being hypocritical. You said you don't speak in public, but only pray privately. What has praying privately in tongues got to do with a sign for unbelievers. You have a moot argument and a hypocritical one.
Paul did not call praying in the Spirit "praying in tongues."
He made a hypothetical statement. IF I pray...
He made the same kind of statements in 1Cor.13:1-3.
"If I give my body to be burned..."
But he never gave his body to be burned and he never prayed in tongues.

It was a hypothetical:
1 Corinthians 14:14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
--He didn't say he did.
You can not pick and chose what books you want to obey and follow! All scriptures is given by inspiration...for doctrine! 1 Tim 3:16!!
We use those Scriptures that are applicable to us. We rightly divide the Word of truth.
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Yes, and that is when I discovered that my pastor ( a Baptist preacher) believed the manifestation of the HS is still here.
Does he speak in tongues?
Again! That is why a learned language can not classify as tongues in the Bible. I did not go to school to learn tongues, it is done by the Holy Spirit...not to go and preach in a mission field. But to build myself up in my most holy Faith "praying in the spirit". 14:2 shows that tongues is speaking to God!!!
You have misunderstood my position. My position is that the gift of tongues in 1 Cor. is an ability to learn languages, and the gift of interpretation is an ability to translate. To those of us who minister in a foreign language it is patently obvious that many have no gifts in these areas.
No! Satan divides churches! No church has absolute truth they have all strayed from the Bible in some area. Tongues is just one!
Again you misunderstand. It was the Charistmatics themselves who tried to take members away from my church, and even succeeded in one case. According to you, then, the Charismatics were filled with Satan!
It is with my spirit that the Holy Spirit speaks!
You are sidestepping. It doesn't fit your bias to say that there is no evidence of tongues in Jude. There are only three places where the term praying in the Holy Spirit occurs: Jude and Eph. 6:18 and arguably Rom. 8:26. None of them are 1 Cor., and neither one of them speaks of tongues. You are interpreting with bias.
I did not emphasize tongues...everyone here did! I am just defending what I believe is in the Bible...and I have shown scriptures to back it up! As far as leading someone to Christ the answer is yes! But not through tongues...because that is not the purpose of tongues. It is for the church to build up the CHURCH (saved people). It is a sign to the unbelieve that it is real! But you do not lead a lost person to the Lord by tongues..it is just a sign that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is real.
The baptism and filling of the Spirit are the same. Compare Acts 1:5 and 2:4. So when Peter was filled with the Holy Spirit and preached the Gospel in Acts 2 and 4:8, and everyone was in 4:31 and spoke the word with boldness, they were witnessing for Christ because they were filled. So it is most certainly for leading people to Christ, tongues or no tongues. For you not to admit this shows a shallow and biased view of the matter.
 

awaken

Active Member
Does he speak in tongues?
Yes!

You have misunderstood my position. My position is that the gift of tongues in 1 Cor. is an ability to learn languages, and the gift of interpretation is an ability to translate. To those of us who minister in a foreign language it is patently obvious that many have no gifts in these areas.
No where in scriptures does it say it is a learned language. It says what you are speaking, you do not understand.

Again you misunderstand. It was the Charistmatics themselves who tried to take members away from my church, and even succeeded in one case. According to you, then, the Charismatics were filled with Satan!
Please do not put words in my mouth! I never said that!

You are sidestepping. It doesn't fit your bias to say that there is no evidence of tongues in Jude. There are only three places where the term praying in the Holy Spirit occurs: Jude and Eph. 6:18 and arguably Rom. 8:26. None of them are 1 Cor., and neither one of them speaks of tongues. You are interpreting with bias.
wrong! I cannot make it any plainer than Paul put it..."For if I pray in tongue, my spirit prayeth" "I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with understanding"

The baptism and filling of the Spirit are the same. Compare Acts 1:5 and 2:4. So when Peter was filled with the Holy Spirit and preached the Gospel in Acts 2 and 4:8, and everyone was in 4:31 and spoke the word with boldness, they were witnessing for Christ because they were filled. So it is most certainly for leading people to Christ, tongues or no tongues. For you not to admit this shows a shallow and biased view of the matter.
When you are baptized with the Holy Spirit it is for power! Acts 1:8...Power to carry out the ministry of what God has called you to do.

So you believe that you can get baptized/filled more than once? Because they are filled with the Holy Spirit in Acts 2 and then again in Acts 4:8.

I am going to post one more post in this thread to explain why I believe "praying in the spirit" is tongues. I am tired of repeating myself.
 

awaken

Active Member
That is not true. The epistles, like Romans and Corinthians are doctrinal books, whereas the book of Acts is a historical books. If the "doctrine" you gain from Acts contradicts the teaching given in the epistles it is wrong.
It was a sign to the Jews. It got everyone's attention. There were about 100,000 Jews present on the Day of Pentecost, a feast day of the Jews. The tongues got their attention. After being accused of being drunk Peter then got up and preached, being full of the Holy Spirit. The result--3,000 were saved. Saved, not because of the tongues, but because of the Spirit-filled preaching of the Word of God.
THis proves you just barely read my post, because this is exactly what I have been trying to tell everyone. Tongues is not to preach the gospel! The gifts were given to the church to edify, comfort the church!

1Cor.l4:22 goes with verse 21. Tongues were a sign to the unbelieving JEWS. Whenever tongues was spoken Jews were present. You can count on that. You can't show me a place or time in the NT where Jews were not present when tongues were spoken. If you are speaking in tongues and Jews are not present your experience is invalid.
wrong! Was Paul called to the Jews? What was the congregation in Corinthians?

No, the gifts have ceased. And you have misinterpreted Scripture. For example, Rom.8:26,27 has nothing to do with tongues.
The "manifestation"? What does that mean? It sounds like a cult? "The Manifest sons of God"? What are you talking about?
Read the Bible! It is in chapter 12:7 "But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal"

A spirit manifests itself. Demons are able to manifest themselves.
you point?

2Cor.12:12; Heb.2:3,4. They were the signs of an apostle. They were part of the "sign gifts." Being sign gifts they ended at the ended at the end of the apostolic age when the apostles died. There was no more need of them. They ended when the canon of Scripture was complete, when the apostles had finished writing.
and you prove this with what scriptures? Just before Jesus left the earth He said that "those who believe" will cast out demons, speak in tongues, see miraculous healings through the laying-on of hands, and so on. Neither Jesus nor the writers of Scripture ever canceled this promise, so this promise is still in effect!

Foolishness! 1Cor.2:12 which mentions "the things of the Spirit of God" is speaking of "illumination." We are indwelt with the Holy Spirit and are therefore able to understand the things of the Spirit of God, in contrast to the unsaved or natural man who has not the Spirit of God, and therefore is not able to understand spiritual things for he is spiritually discerned (1Cor.2:14).

1Cor.14:21,22. They are not simply unbelievers. They are specifically unbelieving Jews of the first century, and unless you have them in your church your experience is null and void.
Furthermore you are being hypocritical. You said you don't speak in public, but only pray privately. What has praying privately in tongues got to do with a sign for unbelievers. You have a moot argument and a hypocritical one.
Paul did not call praying in the Spirit "praying in tongues."
He made a hypothetical statement. IF I pray...
He made the same kind of statements in 1Cor.13:1-3.
"If I give my body to be burned..."
But he never gave his body to be burned and he never prayed in tongues.

It was a hypothetical:
1 Corinthians 14:14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
--He didn't say he did.

We use those Scriptures that are applicable to us. We rightly divide the Word of truth.
Paul said he spoke in tongues more than all..
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Yes!

No where in scriptures does it say it is a learned language. It says what you are speaking, you do not understand.
Well, if it is a language, it is either miraculous or learned. It is not miraculous in 1 Cor. 12-14, so it is learned. Case closed.

Please do not put words in my mouth! I never said that!
Nor did you condemn the Charismatics who wickedly stole the sheep. You seemed to think it was fine. Sheep stealing is okay in the view you posted, as long as it is the Charismatics who are stealing. That is the clear implication of what you wrote.

By saying it was Satan's work to stop the Charismatics, ergo, since I did not believe in tongues, the Charismatics were right to steal away the precious Japanese sheep that I had labored and sacrificed and wept and prayed to win to Christ. You showed no concern at all for God's shepherd--all was hunky dorey since it was the Charismatics had done it.

I heard of a missionary in Japan who went on furlough and while he was gone a Charismatic came in and stole the whole church. But I guess that's okay with you. Tha was actually the main operating procedure in the 1960s when the movement started. So you are advocating a sheep stealing movement.
wrong! I cannot make it any plainer than Paul put it..."For if I pray in tongue, my spirit prayeth" "I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with understanding"
Yes, your mistaken interpretation is very clear. Paul spoke of praying with his own spirit, therefore, to you every mention of prayer and the Holy Spirit is tongues. Very weak.

When you are baptized with the Holy Spirit it is for power! Acts 1:8...Power to carry out the ministry of what God has called you to do.

So you believe that you can get baptized/filled more than once? Because they are filled with the Holy Spirit in Acts 2 and then again in Acts 4:8.
The Bible said it. That settles it. I believe it.
I am going to post one more post in this thread to explain why I believe "praying in the spirit" is tongues. I am tired of repeating myself.
You wouldn't have such trouble if you simply took the Bible as it says. There are no tongues in Jude and Eph. where praying in the Holy Spirit is mentioned. Period. End of story. You can squirm all you want, it doesn't change the Bible.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
THis proves you just barely read my post, because this is exactly what I have been trying to tell everyone. Tongues is not to preach the gospel! The gifts were given to the church to edify, comfort the church!
And Paul said they don't edify; they confuse. He told the Corinthians to seek to prophesy, not to speak in tongues for there is no understanding with tongues and therefore unfruitful.
wrong! Was Paul called to the Jews? What was the congregation in Corinthians?
Read the Book of Acts. Paul went to the Jew first and then to the Greek. He went into the synagogues first, and then to the Gentiles. Tongues were a sign to the unbelieving Jew (1Cor.14:21,22). I can quote the Bible for you; point you to the Scriptures, but it is a pity when it is right before your eyes and you deny it.
Read the Bible! It is in chapter 12:7 "But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal"
(CEV) The Spirit has given each of us a special way of serving others.

(LITV) And to each one is given the showing forth of the Spirit to our profit.

(MKJV) But to each one is given the showing forth of the Spirit to our profit.

It is not a selfish gift. As the CEV puts it, it is for the service for others. You misunderstand the verse. "Our profit" is the profit of the church," the edification of all in the church.
and you prove this with what scriptures?
I did prove it through Scriptures. You just didn't bother to look them up. I will quote them for you this time:

2 Corinthians 12:11 I am become foolish: ye compelled me; for I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing was I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I am nothing.
12 Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, by signs and wonders and mighty works.

Hebrews 2:3 how shall we escape, if we neglect so great a salvation? which having at the first been spoken through the Lord, was confirmed unto us by them that heard;
4 God also bearing witness with them, both by signs and wonders, and by manifold powers, and by gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to his own will.
--This verse specifically says that the gifts of the Holy Spirit were signs that bore witness of the Apostles witness to the Lord Jesus Christ.
Just before Jesus left the earth He said that "those who believe" will cast out demons, speak in tongues, see miraculous healings through the laying-on of hands, and so on. Neither Jesus nor the writers of Scripture ever canceled this promise, so this promise is still in effect!
You ignore context, as per usual.
Do you ignore the context of Isaiah 3 also?
Are you wearing cauls, tires, wimples, mufflers, etc.?

In the latter part of Mark 16 Jesus is giving specific instructions to his disciples or apostles. If you want to test these commands and make them personal I would challenge you to pick up some draino and start drinking it, along with other poisonous substances and see if they will harm you. Isn't that what it says? If you drink any poisonous thing it will not harm you? Funny, how the Charismatics always ignore that part. :laugh:

Here is a demonstration of the GIFT of healing:
Acts 5:16 And there also came together the multitudes from the cities round about Jerusalem, bring sick folk, and them that were vexed with unclean spirits: and they were healed every one.
--Note that multitudes came from ALL the cities surrounding Jerusalem. These were thousands of people that were sick, for the city of Jerusalem itself was a huge city. No one was turned away: blind, crippled, or otherwise. All were healed. No exceptions.
The equivalent of that today would be one who claimed they had the gift and would be able to into the ER's of the hospitals of any city and heal them all; go up and down the corridors of all the hospitals and heal all that are there--in short to heal all that come to him.
The fact is there is no one in this world that can do this, just as there is no one in the world today that has the Biblical gift of tongues. They have ceased.
Paul said he spoke in tongues more than all..
Yes he did. He was an apostle. He lived in the first century. The canon of scripture was not yet complete. Unbelieving Jews were always present. He spoke with an interpreter. He followed the very guidelines that he set down for others.

But you don't care about that do you?
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Here is an historical example of what I've been saying, that the Charismatics started in the '60s by being divisive and splitting churches:

"In addition to fellowship activities for Neo-Pentecostals, the Blessed Trinity Society offered a sophisticated and expensive quarterly ($1.50 an issue), Trinity, to inform its readership of current news of the movement and to introduce Charismatic Renewal to non-Pentecostals in the historic...denominations" (The New Charismatics, by Richard Quebedeaux, p. 57).

Unlike the old line Pentecostals, who started their own denominations, the Charismatic movement started out being divisive and splitting churches, and continues the same to this very day.
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
To be fair, having said that tongues was not practiced until the 20th century, I have to add that there may have been isolated instances: "Data exist suggesting that speaking in tongues was practiced infrequently in sixteenth-century Germany by the Anabaptists, and in seventeenth-century France by the Jansenists" (The New Charismatics, by Richard Quebedeaux, p. 21). And ther were the 19th century cultic Irvingites.

I would also like to point out that all of the linguists I've ever read about who have researched the matter universally consider Charismatic/Pentecostal tongues to be simple sounds devoid of meaning, not real languages. I'll quote.

"glossalalia 'Speaking in tongues': i. e. uttering sounds under conditions of religious ecstasy that are believed, wrongly, to be in unknown languages" (Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics, P. H. Matthews, p. 160).

Linguist William Samarin observed Charismatics for five years, and said, "Glossalalia is indeed like language in some ways, but this is only because the speaker (unconciously) wants it to be like language. Yet in spite of superficial similarities, glossalalia is fundamentally not language" (quoted in Charismatic Chaos, by John MacArther, p. 278, from Samarin's book Tongues of Men and Angels, 227).

And check out this quote from ongoing research by Paul de Lacy, who has examined 19 hours of tongues speaking: " So far, my research suggests that glossolalia has no lexicon (i.e. no words/morphemes), and by this no syntax, morphology, or semantics. It is essentially 'pure' phonology and phonetics" (http://www.pauldelacy.net/webpage/research-glossolalia.html). In other words, tongues are not language.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

HeirofSalvation

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I would like to hear what a learned Philologist would have to say about the topic of "glossalallia" as in...does it contain ANY of the normal properties of "language" that could be recognized? Know of any John? I guess you already posted here:

And check out this quote from ongoing research by Paul de Lacy, who has examined 19 hours of tongues speaking: " So far, my research suggests that glossolalia has no lexicon (i.e. no words/morphemes), and by this no syntax, morphology, or semantics. It is essentially 'pure' phonology and phonetics" (http://www.pauldelacy.net/webpage/re...ossolalia.html). In other words, tongues are not language.

I suppose an adherent Could argue that it would make sense that a purely "Spiritual Language" might readily be assumed NOT to posses those qualities...but that would be mere assumption.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I would like to hear what a learned Philologist would have to say about the topic of "glossalallia" as in...does it contain ANY of the normal properties of "language" that could be recognized? Know of any John? I guess you already posted here:
Try this from Mario Pei, noted linguist of the past: "Of late, glossalalia has become increasingly the vogue with certain religious bodies, notably the Pentecostal groups, which attempt to repeat, for 'charismatic' purposes, the 'speaking in tongues' of the New Testament. The difference between glossalalia and creative word coinage lies in the fact that the former lacks a recognizable basis of both etymology and meaning" (The Story of Language, p. 170; 1949 & 1965). Translation: words from tongues speaking have no traceable source (etymology) nor meaning (semantics).
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I would like to hear what a learned Philologist would have to say about the topic of "glossalallia" as in...does it contain ANY of the normal properties of "language" that could be recognized? Know of any John? I guess you already posted here:

I suppose an adherent Could argue that it would make sense that a purely "Spiritual Language" might readily be assumed NOT to posses those qualities...but that would be mere assumption.
In order for someone's tongue to be considered an actual language, it would have to have:

1. Morphology, meaning sounds with meaning. Tongues have phonemes, which are the most basic unit of sound, but not morphemes.

2. Syntax, meaning sentence structure. Tongues do not have this.

3. Lexical units, meaning sounds with complete meaning, or actual words with discernable meaning. Charismatic tongues do not have this.
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I suppose an adherent Could argue that it would make sense that a purely "Spiritual Language" might readily be assumed NOT to posses those qualities...but that would be mere assumption.
Linguistically speaking, that would be an exercise in futility. Noam Chomsky, the most influential linguist of our day, has a theory of universal grammar (UG), in which all people all over the world learn their language the same way, with an innate sense of what grammar and meaning are. If Chomsky is right (and I think he is), then God of course put that within us. And God Himself has always spoken in intelligible languages to humans all throughout history.

Tongues are often an unlearned activity in the sense that they seem to come naturally. But when learned they are not learned like languages. Tongues speakers usually teach you how to speak in tongues by gimmicks. A book I have by an ex-Pentecostal, I Once Spoke in Tongues, talks about this. Also, I myself have been approached by a member of the Spirit of Jesus group here in Japan and taught how to do it by repeating "Jesus is Lord" over and over quickly for a half hour. (I didn't take the offer of course.)

awaken says he got his tongues on his knees all by himself. I believe him. But for Charismatics who don't know how, there is always a gimmick.
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Linguistically speaking, that would be an exercise in futility. Noam Chomsky, the most influential linguist of our day, has a theory of universal grammar (UG), in which all people all over the world learn their language the same way, with an innate sense of what grammar and meaning are. If Chomsky is right (and I think he is), then God of course put that within us. And God Himself has always spoken in intelligible languages to humans all throughout history.

Tongues are often an unlearned activity in the sense that they seem to come naturally. But when learned they are not learned like languages. Tongues speakers usually teach you how to speak in tongues by gimmicks. A book I have by an ex-Pentecostal, I Once Spoke in Tongues, talks about this. Also, I myself have been approached by a member of the Spirit of Jesus group here in Japan and taught how to do it by repeating "Jesus is Lord" over and over quickly for a half hour. (I didn't take the offer of course.)

awaken says he got his tongues on his knees all by himself. I believe him. But for Charismatics who don't know how, there is always a gimmick.
There is a lot of online help if you desire it.
Here is an example:
So if necessary just babble like a baby! Start praising God and yield you tongue to the stirrings that rise up from your heart by the Holy Spirit. Don't tune in to the sounds being made - attend to what is happening in your spirit. Try to gauge the depth of the outpouring that is taking place from your heart and go with. (As you do this, often over time the sounds emerging from your mouth become more varied and spiritually expressive.)
You'll get groanings that cannot be uttered in your known vocabulary! You'll get a tremendous release of pent up, heart-cries to God for His salvation and restoration! You'll get a new lightness in your spirit!
He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God.​
Romans 8:27 - NKJV


http://www.teachingpages.co.uk/spiritequip.php?articleGroanings

When you have to learn it you know it is not of God.
I know it is not of God anyway, just further proof.

I like the part "groanings that cannot be uttered." Is that an oxymoron or what?????????
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top