The vast majority of the Charasmatic Movement is tied up into health and wealth, being little gods, as second act of grace, as modern day Apostles/Prophets.How can the Holy Spirit be behind a Movement that is majority of the time involved in teaching heresy into the church? IF He was directly involved in it, He would have gooten catholics out of Rome, not sucked into staying as another winfg of their church!
-
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!
Babbling against Speaking in Tongues
- Thread starter Deadworm
- Start date
Another of your slanderous lies! I have drawn the attention of an ex-Baptist here to the unsubstantiated screed promoted by this site and he urged me not to waste my time with believers of this ilk.
The scholarly community generally rejects claims of biblical inspiration and especially inerrancy for countless reasons that require an informed response from good Christian apologetics. Evangelicals ultimately resort to the claim that it is the inner witness of the Holy Spirit that confirms both our salvation and the authority of Scripture. But this subjective claim must cope with similar religious claims such as that encountered in Moroni 10:4 at the end of the Book of Mormon:
"And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost."
Millions of Mormons claim a glorious experience of such self-authenticating witness of the Spirit to justify their faith. As an evangelical, I reject the Book of Mormon, but I too rely on the inner witness of the Spirit that I am a child of God and that I can strengthen my faith by learning from Scripture. But this inner assurance is not even remotely as convincing or powerful as the inner witness provided by authentic glossolalia. For that reason alone we should heed Paul's call to "earnestly strive for spiritual gifts,(1 Cor 12:31)" including speaking in tongues. As promised, I will explain in a future post just how Baptists should engage in such holy striving.
"And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost."
Millions of Mormons claim a glorious experience of such self-authenticating witness of the Spirit to justify their faith. As an evangelical, I reject the Book of Mormon, but I too rely on the inner witness of the Spirit that I am a child of God and that I can strengthen my faith by learning from Scripture. But this inner assurance is not even remotely as convincing or powerful as the inner witness provided by authentic glossolalia. For that reason alone we should heed Paul's call to "earnestly strive for spiritual gifts,(1 Cor 12:31)" including speaking in tongues. As promised, I will explain in a future post just how Baptists should engage in such holy striving.
Maybe you should take your nasty attitude and do just that.
Read 1 Cor 12:31 and 14:1. In both texts Paul commands us to "strive for spiritual gifts."
The real question is how to strive. Here are 5 tips: (1) First, begin by longing to speak in tongues in obedience to God's command and Paul's example.
(2) Then seek the Giver, not the gift. If you continue to seek the gift, you are in danger of turning tongues into a spiritual fetish. Above all, don't attend a charismatic church where you are encouraged, "Just speak it out and fluency in tongues will follow!" This is a recipe for speaking in the flesh. Remember, you need to honor the Spirit's timing. The Holy Spirit does not jump just because you crack your whip!
(3) The best way is to allow yourself to get lost in praise until your words seem inadequate to express the awe and joy you feel as you feast on the Spirit's presence. Then out of the sublime frustration of that feeling of inadequacy, authentic tongues will overwhelm you. You will feel like a chosen divine instrument under the Spirit's control.
(4) If you can wonder later whether what you just experienced was real, assume that you probably did not experience the real thing. The real thing is so wonderful, so powerful that it is beyond doubting and indeed is self-authenticating.
(5) Finally, look for the "fruits of the Spirit" and other spiritual gifts and abilities that are bestowed on you, together with the gift of tongues. In m my case, I received the gift of "The word of knowledge" and my academic performance was suddenly spectacularly improved. But my fellow believer, Mark, received the gift of healing after the gift of tongues and healing testimonies from his ministry are legendary around here.
The real question is how to strive. Here are 5 tips: (1) First, begin by longing to speak in tongues in obedience to God's command and Paul's example.
(2) Then seek the Giver, not the gift. If you continue to seek the gift, you are in danger of turning tongues into a spiritual fetish. Above all, don't attend a charismatic church where you are encouraged, "Just speak it out and fluency in tongues will follow!" This is a recipe for speaking in the flesh. Remember, you need to honor the Spirit's timing. The Holy Spirit does not jump just because you crack your whip!
(3) The best way is to allow yourself to get lost in praise until your words seem inadequate to express the awe and joy you feel as you feast on the Spirit's presence. Then out of the sublime frustration of that feeling of inadequacy, authentic tongues will overwhelm you. You will feel like a chosen divine instrument under the Spirit's control.
(4) If you can wonder later whether what you just experienced was real, assume that you probably did not experience the real thing. The real thing is so wonderful, so powerful that it is beyond doubting and indeed is self-authenticating.
(5) Finally, look for the "fruits of the Spirit" and other spiritual gifts and abilities that are bestowed on you, together with the gift of tongues. In m my case, I received the gift of "The word of knowledge" and my academic performance was suddenly spectacularly improved. But my fellow believer, Mark, received the gift of healing after the gift of tongues and healing testimonies from his ministry are legendary around here.
Oh, great. you're quoting from a notorious anti-Fundamentalist (and therefore anti-John R. Rice) site (not an "article," a website).
He never claimed to be a scholar, and I never claimed him to be one. However, he was a theologian, and he certainly had a huge influence not only among Baptists but among conservative evangelicals.But you have missed and left completely my whole point in quoting from him. The point was that the Charismatic version of tongues is completely unnecessary to be used of God. John R. Rice saw over 200,000 come to Christ without tongues. He mentions or could mention many others who have had like blessing from the Holy Spirit without tongues: Bob Jones Sr. (Methodist, by the way), D. L. Moody (Congregationalist, over a million saved), Sam Jones (Methodist), the Wesley brothers (oh, hey, Methodists), R. A. Torrey, Billy Sunday (1 million saved), and many others.
As anyone can see, there have been some awesome Methodist evangelists, greatly used of God without tongues. And you yourself have admitted on this thread that you haven't spoken in tongues in decades. Have you had any spiritual blessing, any souls saved, during that time? If so (I hope it is so), you can't credit tongues for that.
Oh, great. Still no sourcing, and therefore no context. I don't know if you are the one not sourcing or "Stuff Fundies Like" website is. Either way, it's unethical. But once again, you are completely missing my point. So there is no point in interacting with you here.
Ah, the classic "guilt by association" logical fallacy. I mention John R. Rice, a highly respected revivalist and author among independent and Southern Baptists, and you bring up the wacky Westside Baptist Church.
You diminish your argument by the fallacy.Yeah, um, prove to me that he "has no clue" about the gift of prophecy. And true scholarship goes to the original source. So give me actual quotes, with context, proving your point, instead of out of context single sentences from a junky website like "Stuff Fundies Like."
Have you ever read a book by Rice? Do you have any? How about one of the three Ph.D. dissertations, or the several master's theses about him? Or maybe one of the five biographies of different lengths? Until you show actual knowledge not cribbed from a junky website, why should I pay any attention to your thoughts about him? They are irrelevant.
Last edited:
Okay, さよなら!
John of Japan: "Oh, great. you're quoting from a notorious anti-Fundamentalist."
John of Japan: "But you have missed and left completely my whole point in quoting from him. The point was that the Charismatic version of tongues is completely unnecessary to be used of God."
Just another of your many bogus claims! I have missed nothing. In fact, after my life-changing experience of tongues at age 16 (and that of the skeptical Lutheran pastor who rejected tongues but exploded in tongues at my gentle touch), I searched for descriptions of Spirit-infillings that were similar to my own. For many years, the only ones I could find were those of Charles Finney and D. L. Moody, 2 of the most effective soul-winners of all time--and both men preceded the Azusa Street revival. But none of us are as effective soul winners as those 2 men of God. The point is not that speaking in tongues is essential for apex level infillings with the Spirit, but that it can, among other things, be an aid to such lofty Christ-exalting infillings.
This thread has directed attention to Paul's command "pray in the Spirit (Eph 6:18) and has pointed out that speaking in tongues is the only concrete NT example of such prayer (1 Cor 14:15). I then make the point that speaking in tongues is not the only way to "pray in the Spirit" and give the example of my long periods of fasting and prayer in the Spirit in the room under our church steeple, during which the Spirit directed my prayer for hours (with great evangelistic effect, I might add), but I never spoke in tongues on those occasion
Ah, the classic "guilt by association" logical fallacy. I mention John R. Rice, a highly respected revivalist and author among independent and Southern Baptists, and you bring up the wacky Westside Baptist Church. You diminish your argument by the fallacy.
No fallacy at all! I was a Teaching Fellow in Logic in college. I repeatedly stress that 90% of modern glossolalia is of the flesh, but that what is authentic is so life-changing so empowering that it makes it worthwhile to wade through the rubbish to get to the real thing. So your criticism of African Pentefcostalism is irrelevant to my point just as kooky Baptists like the Westside group are irrelevant to your point. No fallacy at all!
John of Japan: "Yeah, um, prove to me that he "has no clue" about the gift of prophecy. And true scholarship goes to the original source. So give me actual quotes, with context, proving your point."
I just may do that, but would need to do it by starting another thread. My Harvard doctoral thesis on the gift of prophecy in antiquity is 450+ pages long and was passed with distinction and recommended for publication--and believe me, it refutes your grandpa's mischaracterization of prophecy!
Irrelevant because you know very well that the quotes are accurate.
John of Japan: "But you have missed and left completely my whole point in quoting from him. The point was that the Charismatic version of tongues is completely unnecessary to be used of God."
Just another of your many bogus claims! I have missed nothing. In fact, after my life-changing experience of tongues at age 16 (and that of the skeptical Lutheran pastor who rejected tongues but exploded in tongues at my gentle touch), I searched for descriptions of Spirit-infillings that were similar to my own. For many years, the only ones I could find were those of Charles Finney and D. L. Moody, 2 of the most effective soul-winners of all time--and both men preceded the Azusa Street revival. But none of us are as effective soul winners as those 2 men of God. The point is not that speaking in tongues is essential for apex level infillings with the Spirit, but that it can, among other things, be an aid to such lofty Christ-exalting infillings.
This thread has directed attention to Paul's command "pray in the Spirit (Eph 6:18) and has pointed out that speaking in tongues is the only concrete NT example of such prayer (1 Cor 14:15). I then make the point that speaking in tongues is not the only way to "pray in the Spirit" and give the example of my long periods of fasting and prayer in the Spirit in the room under our church steeple, during which the Spirit directed my prayer for hours (with great evangelistic effect, I might add), but I never spoke in tongues on those occasion
Ah, the classic "guilt by association" logical fallacy. I mention John R. Rice, a highly respected revivalist and author among independent and Southern Baptists, and you bring up the wacky Westside Baptist Church.
You diminish your argument by the fallacy.No fallacy at all! I was a Teaching Fellow in Logic in college. I repeatedly stress that 90% of modern glossolalia is of the flesh, but that what is authentic is so life-changing so empowering that it makes it worthwhile to wade through the rubbish to get to the real thing. So your criticism of African Pentefcostalism is irrelevant to my point just as kooky Baptists like the Westside group are irrelevant to your point. No fallacy at all!
John of Japan: "Yeah, um, prove to me that he "has no clue" about the gift of prophecy. And true scholarship goes to the original source. So give me actual quotes, with context, proving your point."
I just may do that, but would need to do it by starting another thread. My Harvard doctoral thesis on the gift of prophecy in antiquity is 450+ pages long and was passed with distinction and recommended for publication--and believe me, it refutes your grandpa's mischaracterization of prophecy!
For crying out loud, learn to use the quote feature of this software. it's not that hard.
And you really should quit your unethical practice of posting quotes with no source other than some Internet website which in turn does not source the quotes.
First of all, highlight what you want to quote. Secondly, look at the icons at the top: B, I, U, etc. Click on the little plus sign. Then click on the Quote icon. You have successfully used the feature. See, not so hard.
No I don't. You're quoting from an atheist, anti-Christian, anti-Christ website. The guy is against everything you and I stand for. Tell me why he would not make up quotes from Rice, or take them out of context even if they were from an original source.
And you really should quit your unethical practice of posting quotes with no source other than some Internet website which in turn does not source the quotes.
At last, you finally deal with my point. So men like Finney and Moody, not to mention all the other men I mentioned who were pre-Azusa Street, were used of God in an incredible way without tongues. So what does tongues provide us in the service of Christ? Absolutely nothing
You "pointed out" but did not prove. All you have done is taken a very minority view about Eph. 6:18, and not proven it at all.
This is actually what I said, which you are trying to answer. But your failure to learn the quote feature on this software makes your posts hard to follow.Ah, the classic "guilt by association" logical fallacy. I mention John R. Rice, a highly respected revivalist and author among independent and Southern Baptists, and you bring up the wacky Westside Baptist Church.
First of all, highlight what you want to quote. Secondly, look at the icons at the top: B, I, U, etc. Click on the little plus sign. Then click on the Quote icon. You have successfully used the feature. See, not so hard.
This makes it even worse. You taught logic, yet you used the "guilt by association" fallacy against me, hinting that my position is akin to the notorious, non-Baptistic Westside Baptist Church. And your appeal to anecdote is hardly scholarly.
No offense, but I'm literally laughing out loud. You quote John R. Rice from an atheist's website, assuming that you then know his position. That may be the most unscholarly thing I've ever read here on the BB. Then you claim scholarship is on your side because of your doctoral thesis. If you do start another thread about this, please use original sources--the actual writing of Rice rather than a hugely suspect source, an anti-Christian website (not an "article," as you said) run by an atheist. True scholarship goes to original sources.
One of the reasons I stopped engaging his posts.
With a Ph.D. from Harvard, he should be able to handle this.
With a Ph.D. from Harvard, he should be able to handle this.
That PHD I think leads to the second reason why I stopped responding to his post, he drones on and on and on as if his many words means he has said something meaningful.
Is Deadworm's position on Eph. 2:18 the scholarly one? Nope, it's an extreme minority view. Here are some leading, recent, scholarly commentaries:
"The phrase 'in the Spirit' (en pneumati) is usually taken to mean in comunion with the Spirit or 'in the power of the Spirit' (NEB). Barclay (p. 126) has: 'Let the Spirit be the atmosphere in which you pray'" (A. Skevington Wood in Ephesians in The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Vol. 11, p. 89).
"And their prayers are to be 'in or by the Spirit', that is, inspired and guided by the same Holy Spirit through whom they have confident access to the Father (2:18)." (Peter T. O'Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians in The Pillar NT Commentary, 1999, p. 484-485).
"Thus, prayer is directed to God in the power of the Holy Spirit" (Harold W. Hoehner, Ephesians, 2002, p. 857).
I challenge Deadworm to find a single scholarly commentary which takes his view.
"The phrase 'in the Spirit' (en pneumati) is usually taken to mean in comunion with the Spirit or 'in the power of the Spirit' (NEB). Barclay (p. 126) has: 'Let the Spirit be the atmosphere in which you pray'" (A. Skevington Wood in Ephesians in The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Vol. 11, p. 89).
"And their prayers are to be 'in or by the Spirit', that is, inspired and guided by the same Holy Spirit through whom they have confident access to the Father (2:18)." (Peter T. O'Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians in The Pillar NT Commentary, 1999, p. 484-485).
"Thus, prayer is directed to God in the power of the Holy Spirit" (Harold W. Hoehner, Ephesians, 2002, p. 857).
I challenge Deadworm to find a single scholarly commentary which takes his view.
But it's from Harvard!!!!
Doesn't that make it automatically relevant?But then since it's from Harvard that kind of cements his theological positions as being non-conservative, shall we kindly say.
But it's from Harvard!!!!
But then since it's from Harvard that kind of cements his theological positions as being non-conservative, shall we kindly say.
Harvard, PH-D or whatever I find his posts rather sophomoric.
The majority of modern day Chasamatic theology comes from the ilk of the word of faith/health and wealth/modsern day revelations thru modern Apostles and prophets. there are still some solid Christians within their ranks, such as I found while in the AOG, but has been overrun by the abeerant/heretical teachings of those listed here!
Quite using th eterm "scholar" as what you and those you hang out among use it, as there are indeed goodand conservative scholar who hold fully to the inspiration of the scriptures and thembeing historically accurate. When you jettison the belief of anauthoratative Bible, full inspired, all of ones theology becomes dubious and suspect!
MOST "scholars" who are good and valid would see that Acts was an historical Book that gave to us the transisition period between Ond and new Covenants, and so not normative for all time forward!
Very interesting to me that Paul , the ole I speak in more tongues than any of you, NEVER told us to seek that to have power to witness and live for jesus, but to be filled continually with the Holy Spirit!Oh, great. you're quoting from a notorious anti-Fundamentalist (and therefore anti-John R. Rice) site (not an "article," a website).He never claimed to be a scholar, and I never claimed him to be one. However, he was a theologian, and he certainly had a huge influence not only among Baptists but among conservative evangelicals.
But you have missed and left completely my whole point in quoting from him. The point was that the Charismatic version of tongues is completely unnecessary to be used of God. John R. Rice saw over 200,000 come to Christ without tongues. He mentions or could mention many others who have had like blessing from the Holy Spirit without tongues: Bob Jones Sr. (Methodist, by the way), D. L. Moody (Congregationalist, over a million saved), Sam Jones (Methodist), the Wesley brothers (oh, hey, Methodists), R. A. Torrey, Billy Sunday (1 million saved), and many others.
As anyone can see, there have been some awesome Methodist evangelists, greatly used of God without tongues. And you yourself have admitted on this thread that you haven't spoken in tongues in decades. Have you had any spiritual blessing, any souls saved, during that time? If so (I hope it is so), you can't credit tongues for that.
Oh, great. Still no sourcing, and therefore no context. I don't know if you are the one not sourcing or "Stuff Fundies Like" website is. Either way, it's unethical. But once again, you are completely missing my point. So there is no point in interacting with you here.
Ah, the classic "guilt by association" logical fallacy. I mention John R. Rice, a highly respected revivalist and author among independent and Southern Baptists, and you bring up the wacky Westside Baptist Church.
Yeah, um, prove to me that he "has no clue" about the gift of prophecy. And true scholarship goes to the original source. So give me actual quotes, with context, proving your point, instead of out of context single sentences from a junky website like "Stuff Fundies Like."
Have you ever read a book by Rice? Do you have any? How about one of the three Ph.D. dissertations, or the several master's theses about him? Or maybe one of the five biographies of different lengths? Until you show actual knowledge not cribbed from a junky website, why should I pay any attention to your thoughts about him? They are irrelevant.
You deny the scriptures as being authoritative and trustworthy, so why do you believ in tongues, if vannoteven trust the scriptures?John of Japan: "Oh, great. you're quoting from a notorious anti-Fundamentalist."
Irrelevant because you know very well that the quotes are accurate.
John of Japan: "But you have missed and left completely my whole point in quoting from him. The point was that the Charismatic version of tongues is completely unnecessary to be used of God."
Just another of your many bogus claims! I have missed nothing. In fact, after my life-changing experience of tongues at age 16 (and that of the skeptical Lutheran pastor who rejected tongues but exploded in tongues at my gentle touch), I searched for descriptions of Spirit-infillings that were similar to my own. For many years, the only ones I could find were those of Charles Finney and D. L. Moody, 2 of the most effective soul-winners of all time--and both men preceded the Azusa Street revival. But none of us are as effective soul winners as those 2 men of God. The point is not that speaking in tongues is essential for apex level infillings with the Spirit, but that it can, among other things, be an aid to such lofty Christ-exalting infillings.
This thread has directed attention to Paul's command "pray in the Spirit (Eph 6:18) and has pointed out that speaking in tongues is the only concrete NT example of such prayer (1 Cor 14:15). I then make the point that speaking in tongues is not the only way to "pray in the Spirit" and give the example of my long periods of fasting and prayer in the Spirit in the room under our church steeple, during which the Spirit directed my prayer for hours (with great evangelistic effect, I might add), but I never spoke in tongues on those occasion
Ah, the classic "guilt by association" logical fallacy. I mention John R. Rice, a highly respected revivalist and author among independent and Southern Baptists, and you bring up the wacky Westside Baptist Church.
No fallacy at all! I was a Teaching Fellow in Logic in college. I repeatedly stress that 90% of modern glossolalia is of the flesh, but that what is authentic is so life-changing so empowering that it makes it worthwhile to wade through the rubbish to get to the real thing. So your criticism of African Pentefcostalism is irrelevant to my point just as kooky Baptists like the Westside group are irrelevant to your point. No fallacy at all!
John of Japan: "Yeah, um, prove to me that he "has no clue" about the gift of prophecy. And true scholarship goes to the original source. So give me actual quotes, with context, proving your point."
I just may do that, but would need to do it by starting another thread. My Harvard doctoral thesis on the gift of prophecy in antiquity is 450+ pages long and was passed with distinction and recommended for publication--and believe me, it refutes your grandpa's mischaracterization of prophecy!