Charismatic Errors Listed

[awaken]

What?! Where in my words did you get that??? You need to go back and reread what I posted.



Show me the scriptural prescription for this test. What passage says that they are connected?



Or it could just be a flesh thing, even by Christians.

You said my test were not biblical, didn't you? Are we not to test the things of the spirit?

1 Cor. 12

I will admit alot of things done in the name of religion is done by the flesh. But once we are enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and are partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the world to come.....I do not see how anyone could walk away from it or deny it!

 

[DHK]

You said my test were not biblical, didn't you? Are we not to test the things of the spirit?

1 Cor. 12

I will admit alot of things done in the name of religion is done by the flesh. But once we are enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and are partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the world to come.....I do not see how anyone could walk away from it or deny it!

Your "tests" were not valid. They were made up by you pulling Scripture out of context and therefore totally meaningless.

Look above. You have a reference there stuck all by itself--totally meaningless.

Then without any reference you pull a passage from Hebrews 6 that has nothing to do with tongues whatsoever. As Peter said: "They that are unlearned and unstable wrest the scriptures to their own destruction."

Your speaking of tongues is totally of the flesh. You don't know what you speak, and cannot know for it isn't a language. Every tongue or language ever spoke in the Bible was an actual language. But you don't get that or refuse and reject that Biblical truth. You will be accountable at the judgment seat of Christ for the rejection of that truth.

If you don't know what you say when you pray, it is not prayer. There is no communication. If there is no communication, no matter what you say about the Holy Spirit, it is not prayer. The Holy Spirit is not involved if there is no understanding. Only Satan can be involved in such nonsense. It is chaos, and God is not a God of confusion, but of order.

 

[awaken]

Your "tests" were not valid. They were made up by you pulling Scripture out of context and therefore totally meaningless.

Look above. You have a reference there stuck all by itself--totally meaningless.

Then without any reference you pull a passage from Hebrews 6 that has nothing to do with tongues whatsoever. As Peter said: "They that are unlearned and unstable wrest the scriptures to their own destruction."

Your speaking of tongues is totally of the flesh. You don't know what you speak, and cannot know for it isn't a language. Every tongue or language ever spoke in the Bible was an actual language. But you don't get that or refuse and reject that Biblical truth. You will be accountable at the judgment seat of Christ for the rejection of that truth.

If you don't know what you say when you pray, it is not prayer. There is no communication. If there is no communication, no matter what you say about the Holy Spirit, it is not prayer. The Holy Spirit is not involved if there is no understanding. Only Satan can be involved in such nonsense. It is chaos, and God is not a God of confusion, but of order.

Again..I have not read the above post but know where it will end...

 

[DHK]

Again..I have not read the above post but know where it will end...

It ends in your rejection of the truth of the Word of God.

 

[Darrell C]

You said my test were not biblical, didn't you? Are we not to test the things of the spirit?

1 Cor. 12

I will admit alot of things done in the name of religion is done by the flesh. But once we are enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and are partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the world to come.....I do not see how anyone could walk away from it or deny it!

Hello Awaken, nice to meet you. I will answer these backwards as I did not see the other post before responding.

You refer to Hebrews 6:4-5, and state you "do not see how anyone could walk away from it or deny it!"

The curious thing is this: this is exactly what the warning in Hebrews 5:12-6:12 is focused on...that men do not associate with Christ and then walk away.



Hebrews 6

King James Version (KJV)

4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,


Consider Judas: did he not cast out demons, heal, preach the Gospel? Was he saved? The obvious answer is no, he was not, yet still, he was enlightened (sat under the teaching of Christ in fact), tasted of the heavenly gift (Christ), made partaker of the Holy Spirit (which every man that is brought under conviction of sin, righteousness, and judgment is), tasted of the good word of God (which would apply not only to the teaching of Christ but would also, I believe, include the ABCs mentioned which speak of the first principles of Christ found in the Old Testament), and tasted of the powers of the world to come (meaning he experienced the control of Messiah over creation, witnessed healings, miracles, et cetera).

And he walked away from it.

He is an example of falling away.



6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.


The onlyway to crucify the Son of God afresh is to...offer up sacrifice according to the Law. This would apply to those Jews that became associated with Christ and like the soil which received the word with joy, persecution led them to forsake Christ (thus denying genuine salvation) and returning to the First Covenant practice.

The first principles of the oracles of God (and Christ...are Old Testament teachings of Christ) are stated in vv.1-2, and refer to, not Christian doctrine, but doctrines associated with the Law. For this reason the writer exhorts them to leave the first principles and top go on unto perfection, which is...faith leading to salvation in Christ.

Many will fall into this category, saying Lord, Lord, but will not be known of the Lord. They will preach, teach, behave very "Christian-like," but, because they have responded with an intellectual assent, and rather than repenting and carrying through unto salvation, they sit around the fringes, tasting, rather than digesting.

One of the primary evidences of salvation is going to be...doctrinal purity. If the doctrine ios wrong, so is the practice, even if it resembles Christian practice. There are many groups in the world that by all appearances are "good" people. They obey the law of God, they are genuinely nice people, yet, they have an altogether different Jesus, because they, like Judas, are not in agreement with the Jesus of scripture. This would include those that view Jesus as a spirit brother of Lucifer. Those that deny His deity. Those that, because they have not been born again, but have asimilated a Christian-like religion, have not the ability to properly understand scripture.

So don't let it surprise you that people can experience the power of God in their lives and then fall away, for every man and woman at some point in their lives experience the conviction of the Holy Spirit. Their response, though, is not guaranteed repentance and believing to the saving of the soul. Their will be those that will sit in a church for years, learn the lingo, even be appointed to positions such as teacher or deacon, and still not be saved.

We see a similar statement here:


Hebrews 2

King James Version (KJV)

2 Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip.

2 For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward;

3 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;

4 God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?


What is in view here is not losing salvation, but letting it drift by. Verse 4 would apply to Judas as well as Peter, James, and John.

It should be noted that that the salvation referred to here is specificly salvation in Christ which the writer emphasizes to his brethren that they should be wary of unbelief, which is the root cause for rejection of Christ.

Okay, trying not to get long-winded here, so I will stop there and answer the post that was actually addressed to me, lol.

God bless.

 

[awaken]

Hello Awaken, nice to meet you. I will answer these backwards as I did not see the other post before responding.

You refer to Hebrews 6:4-5, and state you "do not see how anyone could walk away from it or deny it!"

The curious thing is this: this is exactly what the warning in Hebrews 5:12-6:12 is focused on...that men do not associate with Christ and then walk away.



Hebrews 6

King James Version (KJV)

4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,


Consider Judas: did he not cast out demons, heal, preach the Gospel? Was he saved? The obvious answer is no, he was not, yet still, he was enlightened (sat under the teaching of Christ in fact), tasted of the heavenly gift (Christ), made partaker of the Holy Spirit (which every man that is brought under conviction of sin, righteousness, and judgment is), tasted of the good word of God (which would apply not only to the teaching of Christ but would also, I believe, include the ABCs mentioned which speak of the first principles of Christ found in the Old Testament), and tasted of the powers of the world to come (meaning he experienced the control of Messiah over creation, witnessed healings, miracles, et cetera).

And he walked away from it.

He is an example of falling away.



6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.


The onlyway to crucify the Son of God afresh is to...offer up sacrifice according to the Law. This would apply to those Jews that became associated with Christ and like the soil which received the word with joy, persecution led them to forsake Christ (thus denying genuine salvation) and returning to the First Covenant practice.

The first principles of the oracles of God (and Christ...are Old Testament teachings of Christ) are stated in vv.1-2, and refer to, not Christian doctrine, but doctrines associated with the Law. For this reason the writer exhorts them to leave the first principles and top go on unto perfection, which is...faith leading to salvation in Christ.

Many will fall into this category, saying Lord, Lord, but will not be known of the Lord. They will preach, teach, behave very "Christian-like," but, because they have responded with an intellectual assent, and rather than repenting and carrying through unto salvation, they sit around the fringes, tasting, rather than digesting.

One of the primary evidences of salvation is going to be...doctrinal purity. If the doctrine ios wrong, so is the practice, even if it resembles Christian practice. There are many groups in the world that by all appearances are "good" people. They obey the law of God, they are genuinely nice people, yet, they have an altogether different Jesus, because they, like Judas, are not in agreement with the Jesus of scripture. This would include those that view Jesus as a spirit brother of Lucifer. Those that deny His deity. Those that, because they have not been born again, but have asimilated a Christian-like religion, have not the ability to properly understand scripture.

So don't let it surprise you that people can experience the power of God in their lives and then fall away, for every man and woman at some point in their lives experience the conviction of the Holy Spirit. Their response, though, is not guaranteed repentance and believing to the saving of the soul. Their will be those that will sit in a church for years, learn the lingo, even be appointed to positions such as teacher or deacon, and still not be saved.

We see a similar statement here:


Hebrews 2

King James Version (KJV)

2 Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip.

2 For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward;

3 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;

4 God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?


What is in view here is not losing salvation, but letting it drift by. Verse 4 would apply to Judas as well as Peter, James, and John.

It should be noted that that the salvation referred to here is specificly salvation in Christ which the writer emphasizes to his brethren that they should be wary of unbelief, which is the root cause for rejection of Christ.

Okay, trying not to get long-winded here, so I will stop there and answer the post that was actually addressed to me, lol.

God bless.

Thanks for the input...and I understand what you are saying. But my comment was to say that I do not understand how anyone could walk away after experiencing God personally.

Your point about Judas is taken and has given much to consider...:type:

 

[Darrell C]

Can you define what they were doing in Acts 2?

Yes, they were preaching the Gospel to the Jews that had come from different countries for Pentecost.

Named here are the different regions:


Acts 2

King James Version (KJV)


5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.


Hence the different languages spoken by these Jews.


6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

Pardon me for this, Awaken, but you say...

It was the noise abroad that drew the crowd.

"noised abroad" refers to the fact that what was happening traveled through the grapevine quickly, rather than there was a "noise" which drew them to investigate.

Being foreign speaking Jews, they were amazed to hear them preaching...in their own language.


7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?

As I am sure you have heard before, Galileans were not necessarily known for their scholarship. The same diminutive view can be seen here of the Lord:


John 7:14-15

King James Version (KJV)

14 Now about the midst of the feast Jesus went up into the temple, and taught.

15 And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?



8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?


What cannot be mistaken is that the "tongues" that the disciples speak are...known languages. When reading 1 Corinthians 14, give attention to the plural and singular in the translation, a witness to the theological ability of the KJV translators.


9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,

10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,

11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.


They heard them speak in their own languages.

12 And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?


The fact is this: all that were being preached to were...unbelievers. While they believed in God and were faithful to attend the (mandatory) event, they had yet heard the Gospel, they were not born again, and were therefore not believers according to the New Covenant standard.

Others mocked.

What follows is the delivery of the Gospel resulting in salvation:


41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

What were the ones doing that were speaking in different languages?

Preaching the Gospel in a language which was understood, which is necessary for the word of God to be delivered.

Paul tells us what unbelievers' reaction will be if they come in and all "speak with tongues," but concerning understanding the word let's first look at this:


1 Corinthians 14

King James Version (KJV)

9 So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.


Paul does not say they will "edify themselves," nor that they speak to God, but that they speak into the air. In other words, their speech becomnes meaningless and is of no benefit to anyone, which is not the purpose of the gift of tongues.


23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?


And this is true.

Consider why:


22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.


Without question, tongues are for a sign to unbelievers.

Prophecy here is not limited to foretelling future events, but refers to "speaking forth the word of God." So for believers, the speaking forth of the word is beneficial. It will also benefit unbelievers. But consider now closely how it is that Paul is saying that speaking in tongues is meant for unbelievers, yet, if unbelievers come into the church and all speak with tongues they will think them mad.

Again we look at the plurality of tongues in this chapter, here, it is a plurality of people speaking them, as opposed to the singular gift of tongues. As we saw in Acts 2 known languages were heard by those not yet having received the Gospel. But for what purpose would this be if there was a multitude of people "speaking in tongues" in the church?


9 So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.

10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification.

11 Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.


The rebuke in this chapter is, if you are speaking unintelligibly, you are are not doing that which is beneficial...to anyone. And we will have to touch on vv.2-4 at another time, as I am out of time.

Who were they speaking too?

To those that were in need of hearing the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Remember they were speaking before the crowd gathered. It was the noise abroad that drew the crowd.

It was the reaction that resulted that drew them, not the noise.

Other than Acts.. how was it for the unbelievers?

Being mentioned in two books only, we see Acts 2 establishing what it is, and 1 Cointhians establishing what it is not.

Just as those that spoke foreign tongues in Acts 2 miraculously heard the Gospel, even so, this is the New Testament Standard which align with mediating the New Covenant rather than the pagan practice the Corinthians would have been familiar with.

How was it to be a sign to unbelievrs?

It was a miracle. Tohear something spoken and understand it when, as evidenced by the question, "Are these not Galileans?" shows they did not expect the disciples to be familiar with 17 foreign languages.

Would you say prayer is edifying?

Absolutely. But I will pray with my mind and my spirit, and when I pray, both I and the Lord will know the content, lol.

Would you say spending time with God in prayer would build yourself up in your spirit?

Absolutely, but do not confuse the fact that we are to be built up in the faith with that our edificication should be self seeking. In 1 Corinthians, it is the edification of the Body of Christ, not the individual, which is in view.

These questions are the ones I had to answer when I was searching this out...

Completely understandable. I know that many embrace this issue differently, and it is one that raises tempers and hurt feelings.

I will be glad to speak with you on this topic but I warn you, I will not be party to emotional responses, but will address the issues from God's word only.

And I hope you also will feel the same way.

God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Thanks for the input...and I understand what you are saying. But my comment was to say that I do not understand how anyone could walk away after experiencing God personally.

Your point about Judas is taken and has given much to consider...:type:

And that is greatly appreciated, Awaken. Look forward to getting to know you and discussing God's word.

God bless.

 

[awaken]

Yes, they were preaching the Gospel to the Jews that had come from different countries for Pentecost.

Named here are the different regions:


Acts 2

King James Version (KJV)


5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.


Hence the different languages spoken by these Jews. k

I agree that they were speaking real languages, I have never said otherwise. But I do not understand how you get they were preaching to the Jews. Peter preached in verse 14. These that were speaking with other tongues were mangnifying/praising God. vs. 11 ...an example of this is in this prayer...
"Many, O LORD my God, are the wonders you have done. The things you planned for us no one can recount to you; were I to speak and tell of them, they would be too many to declare." (Psalms 40:5)

Even non-charismatic commentaries agree that the disciples were praising God in tongues and not sharing the Gospel.

I do not see the disciples speaking TOO the Jews, but to God. The Jews just overheard in their language what they were saying.

 

[awaken]

6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

Pardon me for this, Awaken, but you say...




"noised abroad" refers to the fact that what was happening traveled through the grapevine quickly, rather than there was a "noise" which drew them to investigate.

Being foreign speaking Jews, they were amazed to hear them preaching...in their own language.


7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?

As I am sure you have heard before, Galileans were not necessarily known for their scholarship. The same diminutive view can be seen here of the Lord:


John 7:14-15

King James Version (KJV)

14 Now about the midst of the feast Jesus went up into the temple, and taught.

15 And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?

I agree that they were unlearned...

8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?


What cannot be mistaken is that the "tongues" that the disciples speak are...known languages. When reading 1 Corinthians 14, give attention to the plural and singular in the translation, a witness to the theological ability of the KJV translators.


9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,

10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,

11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.


They heard them speak in their own languages.

12 And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?

Again I agree that it was known languages.

The fact is this: all that were being preached to were...unbelievers. While they believed in God and were faithful to attend the (mandatory) event, they had yet heard the Gospel, they were not born again, and were therefore not believers according to the New Covenant standard.

Others mocked.

What follows is the delivery of the Gospel resulting in salvation:


41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

I agree that they were unbelievers! But where we disagree is that the disciples were not preaching! They were praising God just like in Acts 10.

Preaching the Gospel in a language which was understood, which is necessary for the word of God to be delivered.

Paul tells us what unbelievers' reaction will be if they come in and all "speak with tongues," but concerning understanding the word let's first look at this:


1 Corinthians 14

King James Version (KJV)

9 So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.

Paul was rebuking speaking in tongues in church without an interpreter. He was not forbidding tongues.

Paul does not say they will "edify themselves," nor that they speak to God, but that they speak into the air. In other words, their speech becomnes meaningless and is of no benefit to anyone, which is not the purpose of the gift of tongues.

It is only to the air if no one interprets! It is no good in the assembly. "Into the air" is saying that it has no point in the assembly. Pauls correction is in the assembly.

23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?


And this is true.

Consider why:


22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.


Without question, tongues are for a sign to unbelievers.

In the assembly..he said that if an unbeliever came in and ALL were speaking without interpretation they would think they were mad. How would that be a sign to the unbeliever? He was correcting them in the assembly. He also says that when they give thanks in tongues they "DO IT WELL" VS. 17 but the other is not edified. NOt that it is wrong...just in the assembly pray with interpretation so others will be edified.

Prophecy here is not limited to foretelling future events, but refers to "speaking forth the word of God." So for believers, the speaking forth of the word is beneficial. It will also benefit unbelievers. But consider now closely how it is that Paul is saying that speaking in tongues is meant for unbelievers, yet, if unbelievers come into the church and all speak with tongues they will think them mad.

Again we look at the plurality of tongues in this chapter, here, it is a plurality of people speaking them, as opposed to the singular gift of tongues. As we saw in Acts 2 known languages were heard by those not yet having received the Gospel. But for what purpose would this be if there was a multitude of people "speaking in tongues" in the church?

I addressed this above. It was that they ALL were speaking at the same time.

9 So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.

10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification.

11 Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.


The rebuke in this chapter is, if you are speaking unintelligibly, you are are not doing that which is beneficial...to anyone. And we will have to touch on vv.2-4 at another time, as I am out of time.

Only if it is not interpreted. He correction throughout chapter 14 is if you are going to speak in tongue pray for the interpretation for the edification of the church. He also teaches in vs. 26-33 the order in which it was to be done. Tongues being listed among a good thing that is brought to the assembly..Just do it in order.

To those that were in need of hearing the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

well, we disagree here. Again...Since they were all speaking in foreign languages, they could not have understood each other. Therefore, they were not talking to one another, but notice that there was no-one else around at this point for them to be talking to.

It was the reaction that resulted that drew them, not the noise.

Regardless...no one was around when they began speaking in tongues. It said suddenly this happened. When the word got around they gathered...But they were speaking to God not to the crowd.

Being mentioned in two books only, we see Acts 2 establishing what it is, and 1 Cointhians establishing what it is not.

I will agree that Corinthians is rebuking...but not forbidding!

 

[Darrell C]

I agree that they were speaking real languages, I have never said otherwise. But I do not understand how you get they were preaching to the Jews. Peter preached in verse 14. These that were speaking with other tongues were mangnifying/praising God. vs. 11 ...an example of this is in this prayer...
"Many, O LORD my God, are the wonders you have done. The things you planned for us no one can recount to you; were I to speak and tell of them, they would be too many to declare." (Psalms 40:5)

Even non-charismatic commentaries agree that the disciples were praising God in tongues and not sharing the Gospel.

I do not see the disciples speaking TOO the Jews, but to God. The Jews just overheard in their language what they were saying.

Hello Awaken, I have just as long as it takes for my wife to take our dog for a short walk, so I am sneaking this one (and perhaps two) in, lol. So don't expect too much, and you won't be disappointed. I will try to be back in the morning before the service to check in and maybe have time to be a little more thorough.

I can see how it might be seen in this chapter that the initial reaction was one of praise, and I agree with that, but, one question: in his response...who was Peter speaking to? Only those that spoke his language? Peter shows, I believe, the gift of interpretation by answering the very ones that say...



Acts 2

King James Version (KJV)

7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?

8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?


We can see that it is both Jew and proselyte from other countries (where they were born) here:


8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,

10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,

11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.


When Peter addresses them, shall we assume that these foreigners were deprived from understanding that which Peter preached? So, initially I would agree you could make a case that praise is in view, but, following the chapter through the implication is that Peter's address was to all. And in order for them to understand, the implication is that Peter spoke in a language they could understand.

God bless.

 

[awaken]

Hello Awaken, I have just as long as it takes for my wife to take our dog for a short walk, so I am sneaking this one (and perhaps two) in, lol. So don't expect too much, and you won't be disappointed. I will try to be back in the morning before the service to check in and maybe have time to be a little more thorough.

I can see how it might be seen in this chapter that the initial reaction was one of praise, and I agree with that, but, one question: in his response...who was Peter speaking to? Only those that spoke his language? Peter shows, I believe, the gift of interpretation by answering the very ones that say...



Acts 2

King James Version (KJV)

7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?

8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?


We can see that it is both Jew and proselyte from other countries (where they were born) here:


8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,

10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,

11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.


When Peter addresses them, shall we assume that these foreigners were deprived from understanding that which Peter preached? So, initially I would agree you could make a case that praise is in view, but, following the chapter through the implication is that Peter's address was to all. And in order for them to understand, the implication is that Peter spoke in a language they could understand.

God bless.

The Bible doesn't say that there was a "miracle of hearing" at Pentecost. In fact, the passage says that the people in the crowd were talking to each other and were able to understand each other, so they would have been able to understand Peter as well. The people in the crowd knew a common language and they did not need to be told the Gospel in their native languages. The disciples were not witnessing to the crowd when they spoke in tongues, and it's not until Acts 2:22 that Peter began bringing the Gospel message to this crowd.

 

[Logos1560]

The Bible doesn't say that there was a "miracle of hearing" at Pentecost. In fact, the passage says that the people in the crowd were talking to each other and were able to understand each other, so they would have been able to understand Peter as well. The people in the crowd knew a common language and they did not need to be told the Gospel in their native languages. The disciples were not witnessing to the crowd when they spoke in tongues, and it's not until Acts 2:22 that Peter began bringing the Gospel message to this crowd.

You seem to be ignoring or misunderstanding what the Scriptures stated at Acts 2:4-11.

Acts 2:8, 11 does specifically state that the people that spoke different tongues [languages in which they were born or raised] heard the disciples "speak in our tongues [languages]" or individual languages.

The passage does not say that the people heard the disciples speak one common language that they all understood, but it clearly indicated that the various groups heard the disciples speak in the various or different languages in which they had been raised.

 

[John of Japan]

You do not see that because that is not the purpose of tongues! Tongues is a manifestation of the Holy Spirit. It is to praise and magnify God! Speak to God not to man. (1 Cor. 14).

If you wil notice NOWHERE in scriptures is the manifestation tongues/praying in the spirit is outside the church... except for ones own edification (Jude 20).
Even in 1 Cor. 14 The manifestation is inside the church...the unbeliever comes to the church. The correction is about the misuse of tongues in the church.

No church will witness this if the Holy Spirit is quenched or even worse forbidden!

You laughed it off before and gave me some verse that did not prove what you wanted it to, but I'll try again. The tongues in Acts were very clearly to the lost.

(1) In Acts 2 lost people heard and understood the tongues being used and said, "We do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God" (v. 11).

(2) Peter then said that this event was a fullfillment of Joel 2, that all the believers were prophesying (vv. 16-18).

(3) You don't prophesy to God, therefore the tongues speakers were prophesying to the lost with their understandable tongues, seeking to win them to Christ. (Are your tongues understandable to lost people? No. Then they are not what was in Acts 2.)

(4) The result was 3000 people saved.

Case closed. The tongues of Acts 2 were for winning souls to Christ.

 

[awaken]

You seem to be ignoring or misunderstanding what the Scriptures stated at Acts 2:4-11.

Acts 2:8, 11 does specifically state that the people that spoke different tongues [languages in which they were born or raised] heard the disciples "speak in our tongues [languages]" or individual languages.

The passage does not say that the people heard the disciples speak one common language that they all understood, but it clearly indicated that the various groups heard the disciples speak in the various or different languages in which they had been raised.

You need to read my post again..I think you misunderstood it.

 

[awaken]

You laughed it off before and gave me some verse that did not prove what you wanted it to, but I'll try again. The tongues in Acts were very clearly to the lost.

Yes, it got the lost attention..but they were not speaking TOO the unbelievers.

(1) In Acts 2 lost people heard and understood the tongues being used and said, "We do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God" (v. 11).

(2) Peter then said that this event was a fullfillment of Joel 2, that all the believers were prophesying (vv. 16-18).

It did not say they were all prophesying that day. They could have.. but even if they were tongues and prophecy are different.

(3) You don't prophesy to God, therefore the tongues speakers were prophesying to the lost with their understandable tongues, seeking to win them to Christ. (Are your tongues understandable to lost people? No. Then they are not what was in Acts 2.)

Wow! what a stretch...grasping at straws again! Tongues do not prophesy! They are different. Acts 19 says they did both! Acts 2 does not say they did both! Peter preached...the others were magnifying/praising God just like in Acts 10.

(4) The result was 3000 people saved.

Case closed. The tongues of Acts 2 were for winning souls to Christ.

The result of 3,000 saved was from Peters preaching...not from speaking in tongues. Tongues got there attention...but they were not preaching.

 

[John of Japan]

Yes, it got the lost attention..but they were not speaking TOO the unbelievers.

In exegesis we actually look at the text itself and get meaning from it. Now, from the text itself, we know that people heard what the disciples were saying in their own language (unlike your prayer language), we know that people understood it (unlike your prayer language), and we know that the disciples were speaking of the wonderful works of God. That is all in the text. This is called exegesis--getting from the text what is there.

What is not in the text is: that the disciples were praying when they spoke, that the disciples were talking to God in some other way when they spoke. Your insistence that they were speaking to God instead of people, praying in their tongues, is called eisegesis--reading into the text what is simply not there.

Furthermore, yours is a completely illogical interpretation. Give me one reason why God would have them pray in a language other than their own when He understands people perfectly well in their own language. The only possible reason for tongues to be given in Acts 2 is for the disciples to speak to other people. God doesn't need our languages in the slightest! He can read our thoughts before we think them.

It did not say they were all prophesying that day. They could have.. but even if they were tongues and prophecy are different.

Try again. Yes it did. Peter specifically said, "But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy" (Acts 2:16-17). Peter did not say, "When you hear them prophesy tomorrow or the next day," he said, "This is that which was spoken...your sons and your daughters shall prophesy."

Wow! what a stretch...grasping at straws again! Tongues do not prophesy! They are different. Acts 19 says they did both! Acts 2 does not say they did both! Peter preached...the others were magnifying/praising God just like in Acts 10.

Exactly. Tongues and prophecy are different. In other words, the tongues were the means by which they prophesied. God gave them tongues to enable them to prophesy to people who did not understand their language. They spoke miraculously with other languages the wonderful works of God. This is very clearly prophesying.

It's like saying, "He raised the gun and shot the deer." The gun was the tool used to shoot the deer. So, "They spoke with tongues and prophesied." The tongues were the means by which they prophesied.

The Greek for "other tongues" in Acts 2:4 is, eteraiV glwssaiV. This is in the dative case, and is what is called in Greek grammar the "dative of means," or in the big advanced grammar by Daniel Wallace, the "dative of manner." Wallace says, "The dative substantive denotes the manner in which the action of the verb is accomplished" (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 161). So Acts 2:4 could be translated, "They spoke by means of tongues." The Greek grammar clearly shows that I am right here.

Acts 19:6 is very similar. Tongues is in the dative case, and is a dative of means, showing how they prophesied. It could be translated, "They spoke and prophesied by means of tongues."

The result of 3,000 saved was from Peters preaching...not from speaking in tongues. Tongues got there attention...but they were not preaching.

Can you prove that? From the text itself, not some other text or your own presupposition? (A presupposition is an opinion decided beforehand.)

 

[awaken]

In exegesis we actually look at the text itself and get meaning from it. Now, from the text itself, we know that people heard what the disciples were saying in their own language (unlike your prayer language), we know that people understood it (unlike your prayer language), and we know that the disciples were speaking of the wonderful works of God. That is all in the text. This is called exegesis--getting from the text what is there.

When we pray in the spirit...our understanding is unfruitful. Tell me where in scriputure it says the ones speaking understood what they themselves were saying! The Jews understood in THEIR OWN LANGUAGE.

What is not in the text is: that the disciples were praying when they spoke, that the disciples were talking to God in some other way when they spoke. Your insistence that they were speaking to God instead of people, praying in their tongues, is called eisegesis--reading into the text what is simply not there.

No, that is letting scripture interpret scripture! Acts 10 said they were praising God the same as Acts 2. Praising God is PRAYER! Talking to God! Why were the disciples praising God in tongues? Because this is one of the primary purposes for tongues.

Furthermore, yours is a completely illogical interpretation. Give me one reason why God would have them pray in a language other than their own when He understands people perfectly well in their own language. The only possible reason for tongues to be given in Acts 2 is for the disciples to speak to other people. God doesn't need our languages in the slightest! He can read our thoughts before we think them.

With this logic..why pray at all! Just let God read your thoughts...you are grasping at straws again!

Try again. Yes it did. Peter specifically said, "But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy" (Acts 2:16-17). Peter did not say, "When you hear them prophesy tomorrow or the next day," he said, "This is that which was spoken...your sons and your daughters shall prophesy."

You need to take your own advice in the above...Peter did not say they prophesied that day (they could have, but it is not shown in scriptures as it is in chapter 19). Even if they did tongues and prophecy is different..it does not prove that tongues was addressing the people!
One more note....Peter was describing the pouring out of the Holy Spirit that day. It was going to be available to all flesh! The Gentiles did not receive that day! YOU ARE THE ONE READING INTO WHAT IS NOT THERE.

Exactly. Tongues and prophecy are different. In other words, the tongues were the means by which they prophesied. God gave them tongues to enable them to prophesy to people who did not understand their language. They spoke miraculously with other languages the wonderful works of God. This is very clearly prophesying.

No where does it say tongues is prophesying! They are different manifestations!

It's like saying, "He raised the gun and shot the deer." The gun was the tool used to shoot the deer. So, "They spoke with tongues and prophesied." The tongues were the means by which they prophesied.

Then Peter did not need to preach! It was Peter that proclaimed the Gospel!

The Greek for "other tongues" in Acts 2:4 is, eteraiV glwssaiV. This is in the dative case, and is what is called in Greek grammar the "dative of means," or in the big advanced grammar by Daniel Wallace, the "dative of manner." Wallace says, "The dative subastantive denotes the manner in which the action of the verb is accomplished" (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 161). So Acts 2:4 could be translated, "They spoke by means of tongues." The Greek grammar clearly shows that I am right here.

Keep digging maybe you will find the same thing I did! It was trying to disprove this that I actually came across the truth! They spoke by means of the utterance that the Holy Spirit gave them..yes! they used their own voice and mouth!

Acts 19:6 is very similar. Tongues is in the dative case, and is a dative of means, showing how they prophesied. It could be translated, "They spoke and prophesied by means of tongues."

Can you prove that? From the text itself, not some other text or your own presupposition? (A presupposition is an opinion decided beforehand.)

I let scripture interpret scriptures! prophecy and tongues are a different manifestation!

 

[Darrell C]

Hello again Awaken, just a few minutes this morning, but I will address as much as I can get to, lol.

The Bible doesn't say that there was a "miracle of hearing" at Pentecost.

But it does:


Acts 2

King James Version (KJV)

6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.


We cannot divorce that fact as we seek to understand the events.

In fact, the passage says that the people in the crowd were talking to each other and were able to understand each other,

Actually, nowhere in the text do we see that statement. While we can see the implication, there is a difference between how it actually reads, and that which is implied, and that which we think it teaches.

What is certain is that they were hearing the disciples speak the wonderful works of God in their own language. This is the focus. Concerning doubt whether they were preaching the Gospel, we can look at Peter's address to the crowd and see...the very same thing: Peter preaches using Old Testament passages to explain what is going on. In those quotes, we see that one aspect is to prophesy, and this is not limited to foretelling future events, but speaking forth the word of God.

What I would ask you to consider is this: shall we think that the very first born-again Christians, on the very day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit is given (Whom Christ said...He shall glorify Me (John 1613-14))...failed to speak of Christ?

In Peter's sermon we see the wonderful works of God spoken, and the leading of the Spirit was to the effect that men be saved. Why would we think that before Peter spoke, this did not take place?

so they would have been able to understand Peter as well.

I would not argue that point, as I think it very possible that there were those that were builingual, however, from my point of view, scripture infers that speaking other languages was, as all sign gifts, meant for the purpose of being a sign.

Consider:


1 Corinthians 14:21

King James Version (KJV)

21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.


In this instance, the sign was a sign of God's intervention...in judgment. In the early Church, it was also a sign that God was moving, that He was doing a work in the lives of men.

Concerning Peter's sermon what we do not see included is speaking in tongues, but we do see prophesy mentioned. Peter states that what is occurring is a (and I emphasize "a" due to the fact that this prophecy, I believe, still has a time of fulfillment in the Millennial Kingdom) fulfillment of sorts of Joel's prophecy:



Acts 2:16-18

King James Version (KJV)

16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;

17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:


The implication is that there would be those that prophesy. And as I said, we cannot limit prophesy to foretelling of events. The modern day "prophet" is the preacher, for he is the one speaking forth the word of God.

The people in the crowd knew a common language and they did not need to be told the Gospel in their native languages.

Read Peter's sermon with "the wonderful works of God" in view.

Also, consider what would have been worthy of praise in the hearts of the disciples freshly born again and now certain in their hearts that Jesus was the Christ, the Savior. Consider whether their praise would have been directed along those lines.

The disciples were not witnessing to the crowd when they spoke in tongues,

This cannot be dogmaticly stated from what the scripture tells us. The fact that their devotion would have centered around the Person of Christ is not only possible, but highly probable.

As far as their "witnessing," stand on a corner in your town and praise God. What would you be doing? Now ask yourself, what would you be praising God for? Would it not be Christ-centered? Would He not be mentioned in your praise?

and it's not until Acts 2:22 that Peter began bringing the Gospel message to this crowd.

And again, Peter speaks the wonderful works of God. He preached the Gospel just as we see the Gospel in the Old Testament.

And now...have to get going. Look, I don't expect anyone to suddenly change their view. How hard this is, which is why I found it interesting that one here actually speaks against certain doctrines once embraced.

But, as I said, very glad to talk with you about it.

God bless.

 

[awaken]

Hello again Awaken, just a few minutes this morning, but I will address as much as I can get to, lol.



But it does:


Acts 2

King James Version (KJV)

6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.


We cannot divorce that fact as we seek to understand the events.

That is like an unbeliever (spanish) coming into our church while one is speaking in tongues(spanish). The language that the speaker is speaking, the speaker himself does not understand..BUT...the unbeliever that already knows Spanish understands him. How is this a miracle of hearing? The unbeliever already knows Spanish!

Actually, nowhere in the text do we see that statement. While we can see the implication, there is a difference between how it actually reads, and that which is implied, and that which we think it teaches.

What is certain is that they were hearing the disciples speak the wonderful works of God in their own language. This is the focus. Concerning doubt whether they were preaching the Gospel, we can look at Peter's address to the crowd and see...the very same thing: Peter preaches using Old Testament passages to explain what is going on. In those quotes, we see that one aspect is to prophesy, and this is not limited to foretelling future events, but speaking forth the word of God.

What I would ask you to consider is this: shall we think that the very first born-again Christians, on the very day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit is given (Whom Christ said...He shall glorify Me (John 1613-14))...failed to speak of Christ?

In Peter's sermon we see the wonderful works of God spoken, and the leading of the Spirit was to the effect that men be saved. Why would we think that before Peter spoke, this did not take place?

You do not see that they were "saying to one another" vs. 7. They were speaking to one another.
You can praise God..TO God..and others hear and God will get the glory!
Examples...
"Many, O LORD my God, are the wonders you have done. The things you planned for us no one can recount to you; were I to speak and tell of them, they would be too many to declare." (Psalms 40:5)

"Say to God, "How awesome are your deeds! So great is your power that your enemies cringe before you."" (Psalms 66:3)

These are praises to God...speaking to God! If I came in and heard this in a Spanish speaking church in English! I think God would get the glory! Number one I would be amazed that these Spanish speaking people knew English..Number two By what they were saying would bring glory to God!

I would not argue that point, as I think it very possible that there were those that were builingual, however, from my point of view, scripture infers that speaking other languages was, as all sign gifts, meant for the purpose of being a sign.

Consider:


1 Corinthians 14:21

King James Version (KJV)

21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.


In this instance, the sign was a sign of God's intervention...in judgment. In the early Church, it was also a sign that God was moving, that He was doing a work in the lives of men.

But it was a sign on the day of Pentecost! But there were those that did not hear God! THey mocked!

Concerning Peter's sermon what we do not see included is speaking in tongues, but we do see prophesy mentioned. Peter states that what is occurring is a (and I emphasize "a" due to the fact that this prophecy, I believe, still has a time of fulfillment in the Millennial Kingdom) fulfillment of sorts of Joel's prophecy:



Acts 2:16-18

King James Version (KJV)

16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;

17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:


The implication is that there would be those that prophesy. And as I said, we cannot limit prophesy to foretelling of events. The modern day "prophet" is the preacher, for he is the one speaking forth the word of God.

What Joel was discribing was the pouring out of the Holy Spirit! THat it was available to All that believe! I am not saying there were not some that prophesied...it just was not tongues! Tongues and prophecy is different!

Read Peter's sermon with "the wonderful works of God" in view.

Also, consider what would have been worthy of praise in the hearts of the disciples freshly born again and now certain in their hearts that Jesus was the Christ, the Savior. Consider whether their praise would have been directed along those lines.




This cannot be dogmaticly stated from what the scripture tells us. The fact that their devotion would have centered around the Person of Christ is not only possible, but highly probable.

As far as their "witnessing," stand on a corner in your town and praise God. What would you be doing? Now ask yourself, what would you be praising God for? Would it not be Christ-centered? Would He not be mentioned in your praise?



And again, Peter speaks the wonderful works of God. He preached the Gospel just as we see the Gospel in the Old Testament.

And now...have to get going. Look, I don't expect anyone to suddenly change their view. How hard this is, which is why I found it interesting that one here actually speaks against certain doctrines once embraced.

But, as I said, very glad to talk with you about it.

God bless.

Thank you for your kind way of approaching this debate! Very refreshing!
I will get back to the above when I get back from church.