Mark Bishop
New Member
Gene.....
I understand the desire to 'test' but reading
this particular suggestion leaves me a bit cold,
mate.. it smacks of using deception.. and I tend
to balk at that...
mark
<><
-
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!
Charismatics. What is thier doctrine anyhow?
- Thread starter Plain Old Bill
- Start date
I understand the desire to 'test' but reading
this particular suggestion leaves me a bit cold,
mate.. it smacks of using deception.. and I tend
to balk at that...
mark
<><
Marcia
Active Member
I totally agree with you -- Oneness followers are trying to blur the lines between them and historic biblical Christianity. And even more appalling, many Christians do not seem to notice this and sometimes don't seem to care.
The reason I focused on the list of people that I did (the Word Faith teachers) is that those were the people that Plain Old Bill specifically asked about.
James 3:[6] And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell.
[7] For every kind of beasts, and of birds, and of serpents, and of things in the sea, is tamed, and hath been tamed of mankind:
[8] But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison.
[9] Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.
[10] Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be.
[7] For every kind of beasts, and of birds, and of serpents, and of things in the sea, is tamed, and hath been tamed of mankind:
[8] But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison.
[9] Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.
[10] Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be.
GeneMBridges
New Member
Gene.....
I understand the desire to 'test' but reading
this particular suggestion leaves me a bit cold,
mate.. it smacks of using deception.. and I tend
to balk at that...
mark
<>< </font>[/QUOTE]Why is it deception? Because the person doing the speaking doesn't tell them up from they are speaking in Hebrew or Greek? That's not deception any more than Peter asking Sapphira about the sale of land after Ananias had already met his doom. Peter knew the truth about what had happened, yet he plainly asked them both individually. Was he deceiving them by not telling them he already knew? No, he was testing their integrity. They failed the test.
If a person is claiming they have the gift of interpretation how else can we test their claim?With the Word of God, of course. Well, the Word of God tells us what tongues is and it tells us what interpretation is.
Like I said, the person claiming the gift of interpretation could be telling the truth or not. With all the controversy over tongues today, We should be testing these persons. If they are on the up and up, then they should either say they have no interpretation or give the correct interpretation. If they give the wrong one, they are clearly a false teacher and they have been exposed. They have been deceiving the brethren; they need to be confronted.
The speaker/tester should, at that point, sit back down and then wait until later to confront the interpreter in love. At that point, like Peter told Ananias and Sapphira about what he knew, the speaker should disclose the content of the "message" s/he spoke and correct the interpretation. Alternatively, I would be certain to stay and commend the interpreter who says, "I have no interpretation for this, or interprets correctly," by telling them what I had done. That way, that person is encouraged and the Lord is glorified. Where I know this has been done, that is what was done. The interpretation was completely off base in his interpretation. Of course, the next day, the entire tent revival cancelled services and the evangelist left town completely.
Aren't you rather missing the point that the normal pattern is that we all wait on the Lord for the interpretation? The interpretation is as likely to come from an ordinary member of the congregation as from the man at the front. Branding the ordinary member of the congregation as a false TEACHER is unfair, at worst they are decieved. In fact, the defence would be very simple: "that must have simply been a word of prophecy then" (and if that "word of prophecy" can be taken in any way as a rebuke then the tester is on shaky ground indeed!"
Liz
GeneMBridges
New Member
Aren't you rather missing the point that the normal pattern is that we all wait on the Lord for the interpretation? The interpretation is as likely to come from an ordinary member of the congregation as from the man at the front. Branding the ordinary member of the congregation as a false TEACHER is unfair, at worst they are decieved. In fact, the defence would be very simple: "that must have simply been a word of prophecy then" (and if that "word of prophecy" can be taken in any way as a rebuke then the tester is on shaky ground indeed!"
Liz [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]That's circular logic. If its a word of of prophecy it will always be valid. However, how do you know if the tongues and the interpretation were true or not? Ecstatic utterance is not unique to Christianity, and neither is interpretation.
I am not missing the point at all. Once an interpretation has been offered once the floor is open.
The ability to interpret tongues is as much a gift as the tongues themselves. Thus, if someone stands with an interpretation for one person, then the gift has manifested itself. Stand and quote from the Bible itself as a member of the congregation. If a member of the congregation stands and gives an interpretation, and it is wrong, then you should do as instructed above.
There is no defense for God not recognizing His own word, Liz. If somebody claims that they have an interpretation from God to the quoting of His own word in koine Greek or Hebrew, and they get it wrong, then they can't possibly say "Oh well, that is a word of prophecy that is a rebuke to the tester." The interpretation, by definition, matches what is spoken. Nowhere in Scripture do we find a place where the interpretation is something other than what the speaker is uttering. God will not fail to recognize His own word. The rebuke is to the person that says he is interpreting and gets God's word wrong.
I noticed you did not quote the last part of what I wrote, Liz.
I never said anything about confronting them in front of the entire congregation. I very specifically said they should be confronted in love, which, by definition, is a one-on-one or possibily a one-on-one with a witness present conversation. Is that person deceived? Yes, if they offer an interpretation and it is clearly wrong they should be confronted. Is that person in error about the gift of interpretation? Certainly, and if so, then likely the gift of tongues as well. If they are teaching as a leader in the congregation, then they would also be a false teacher in that regard and that is something that can affect the entire congregation.
It's one thing to quibble over bad exegesis or disagree over an exegetical point. It's another to deal with blatant deception and/or plain false doctrine.
Of course it's circular logic. We are talking about charismatics. i used to be one. I am telling you the defence that would be made.
Sorry I am not following you here. You seem to be suggesting that only the people at the front can interpret. In my experience that is simply not true.
In a meeting where many tongues and prophecies are coming out, it would be easy to argue that, of course, there was no interpretation since there was no tongue given. What you heard was not an interpretation, even if the leadership reasonably mistook it for such, it was an additional word of prophecy.
This would not in any way alter the defence given by a convinced charismatic.
Liz
1 Cor. 13:8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.
Notice that the greatest gift is charity (love). Let's try and understand why. There are three groups of gifts: 1) temporary sign gifts (tongues, prophecies, and revelatory knowledge),
2) semi-permanent gifts (faith and hope), and
3) permanent gift (love).
The greatest of all of these is love because it will endure forever through all eternity. It will never end.
What about faith. (2 Cor 5:7 KJV) " (For we walk by faith, not by sight)" That is, when we see Jesus, we will no longer have need of faith.
Heb.11:1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
Likewise hope:
Rom.8:24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?
25 But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.
--Hope that is seen is not hope. Thus when we see Jesus our hope will end. He is our hope. We will no longer have to hope for him to come. Thus at His Coming, faith and hope will end. Only love will continue. That is why love is the greatest. It only is permanent. Faith and hope are semi-permanent gifts ceasing at the second coming.
Verse 8 of 1Cor.13, says that prophecies shall fail, tongues shall cease, and knowledge shall vanish away. The question is "when?" Verse 9 says we know in part and we prophesy in part. The New Testament believers did not have all of the Word of God. They had the Old Testament, and maybe one or two of the New Testament books, like Matthew or James which were written earlier than the others. Therefore they knew in part. They only had "part" of the Word of God. Thus, they had the gift of prophesy (as well as tongues and revelatory knowledge) to give them further revelation of the Word of God. They knew in part and they prophesied in part.
Now verse 10 says, "But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away." The pronoun "that," in the Greek is in the neuter gender, not in the masculine. It therefore cannot refer to Jesus Christ, otherwise the Holy Spirit would have used a masculine pronoun to refer to Him. The word ‘that,' ("that which is perfect"), refers to the Word of God. The old English Word "perfect" means "complete." When the Word of God is completed then that which is in part (the temporary sign gifts of tongues, prophesying, and revelatory knowledge), shall be done away.
When that which is perfect (complete) is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
The Word of God was completed about 95-98 a.d. when John finished the Book of Revelation. All the sign gifts ceased by the end of the first century. They were not needed any more. The only revelation that we need now is contained within the pages of the Bible. And the Lord gives a stern warning about adding to that (Rev. 22:18,19).
However the greatest argument against tongues is its other purpose found in 1Cor.14:21,22
1 Corinthians 14:21-22 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.
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.
Paul, in verse 21, quotes from the law (specifically Isaiah 28:11,12), When he refers to "this people" which people is he referring to? It is the nation of Israel. He is saying that in the O.T. prophecies men will speak with other lips or tongues to the nation of Israel and still they will not believe. The gift of tongues was a sign to the nation of Israel. This is clear from this verse of Scripture.
Verse 22 goes on to make even clearer. It starts witht the word "Wherefore," connecting verse 22 with verse 21. And then says that tongues are a sign, not for them that believe, but for them that believe not. It is a sign to them that believe not, but not just for any unbeliever. In context is is for the Jewish unbeliever, specifically those of the first century who actually were responsible for crucifying the Lord.
This sign was given to the Apostles and first century Christians to authenticate the gospel message for the unbelieving Jews that the gospel message was indeed from God. Even with the sign of tongues they still did not believe. And as the O.T. prophecy indicated judgement would fall upon them, and it did. The gift not only ceased, but the city of Jerusalem was razed to the ground and the Temple was destroyed. It was shortly after that, that tongues had completely ceased.
It was not until 1800 years later in 1906 in the Asuza Street "revivals" so-called that there was a resurgence of the tongues movement. But this was not Biblical tongues. This was an ecstatic gibberish that was being spoken, not a real language at all. It edified (or gave an emotional high) to the individual) instead of edifying the church, as the gift was intended. It is used as a prayer language, something the original gift was never intended to do. God never created a selfish spiritual gift--one for only the user's purpose.
Today's speaking in tongues in is simply a cheap imitation of the Biblical gift of 2,000 years ago. It is not the real thing.
DHK
9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.
Notice that the greatest gift is charity (love). Let's try and understand why. There are three groups of gifts: 1) temporary sign gifts (tongues, prophecies, and revelatory knowledge),
2) semi-permanent gifts (faith and hope), and
3) permanent gift (love).
The greatest of all of these is love because it will endure forever through all eternity. It will never end.
What about faith. (2 Cor 5:7 KJV) " (For we walk by faith, not by sight)" That is, when we see Jesus, we will no longer have need of faith.
Heb.11:1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
Likewise hope:
Rom.8:24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?
25 But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.
--Hope that is seen is not hope. Thus when we see Jesus our hope will end. He is our hope. We will no longer have to hope for him to come. Thus at His Coming, faith and hope will end. Only love will continue. That is why love is the greatest. It only is permanent. Faith and hope are semi-permanent gifts ceasing at the second coming.
Verse 8 of 1Cor.13, says that prophecies shall fail, tongues shall cease, and knowledge shall vanish away. The question is "when?" Verse 9 says we know in part and we prophesy in part. The New Testament believers did not have all of the Word of God. They had the Old Testament, and maybe one or two of the New Testament books, like Matthew or James which were written earlier than the others. Therefore they knew in part. They only had "part" of the Word of God. Thus, they had the gift of prophesy (as well as tongues and revelatory knowledge) to give them further revelation of the Word of God. They knew in part and they prophesied in part.
Now verse 10 says, "But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away." The pronoun "that," in the Greek is in the neuter gender, not in the masculine. It therefore cannot refer to Jesus Christ, otherwise the Holy Spirit would have used a masculine pronoun to refer to Him. The word ‘that,' ("that which is perfect"), refers to the Word of God. The old English Word "perfect" means "complete." When the Word of God is completed then that which is in part (the temporary sign gifts of tongues, prophesying, and revelatory knowledge), shall be done away.
When that which is perfect (complete) is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
The Word of God was completed about 95-98 a.d. when John finished the Book of Revelation. All the sign gifts ceased by the end of the first century. They were not needed any more. The only revelation that we need now is contained within the pages of the Bible. And the Lord gives a stern warning about adding to that (Rev. 22:18,19).
However the greatest argument against tongues is its other purpose found in 1Cor.14:21,22
1 Corinthians 14:21-22 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.
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.
Paul, in verse 21, quotes from the law (specifically Isaiah 28:11,12), When he refers to "this people" which people is he referring to? It is the nation of Israel. He is saying that in the O.T. prophecies men will speak with other lips or tongues to the nation of Israel and still they will not believe. The gift of tongues was a sign to the nation of Israel. This is clear from this verse of Scripture.
Verse 22 goes on to make even clearer. It starts witht the word "Wherefore," connecting verse 22 with verse 21. And then says that tongues are a sign, not for them that believe, but for them that believe not. It is a sign to them that believe not, but not just for any unbeliever. In context is is for the Jewish unbeliever, specifically those of the first century who actually were responsible for crucifying the Lord.
This sign was given to the Apostles and first century Christians to authenticate the gospel message for the unbelieving Jews that the gospel message was indeed from God. Even with the sign of tongues they still did not believe. And as the O.T. prophecy indicated judgement would fall upon them, and it did. The gift not only ceased, but the city of Jerusalem was razed to the ground and the Temple was destroyed. It was shortly after that, that tongues had completely ceased.
It was not until 1800 years later in 1906 in the Asuza Street "revivals" so-called that there was a resurgence of the tongues movement. But this was not Biblical tongues. This was an ecstatic gibberish that was being spoken, not a real language at all. It edified (or gave an emotional high) to the individual) instead of edifying the church, as the gift was intended. It is used as a prayer language, something the original gift was never intended to do. God never created a selfish spiritual gift--one for only the user's purpose.
Today's speaking in tongues in is simply a cheap imitation of the Biblical gift of 2,000 years ago. It is not the real thing.
DHK
The Charismatics have no real doctrine. The only thing they have in common is tongues and experiences. There experiences are wide and varied. Instead of basing their theology on the Word of God they base their theology on experience. In most cases (not all) experience becomes more important than doctrine, thus the doctrine of the Charismatics cannot be properly formulated or catalogued. Everyone has a dream, vision, word of knowledge, prophecy, tongues, etc. Revelation is open ended. To properly compile the doctrine of the Charismatics one would have to go to every person that has ever had a vision, word of knowledge, prophecy, etc., ask what it was, what it taught, record it, and then compile it in one source in one place. That would have to be done for all Charismatics the world over. Since Charismatics are doing this worldwide 24/7 it is an impossible task. Their revelation/doctrine is open ended, based on experience in contrast to the Baptists whose final authority is the Bible.
DHK
DHK
M
mickd7
Guest
Dhk: Where did u get the notion that there are temporary gifts of the Spirit and permanent ones. The Bible does not teach that but man teaches that and you learned it from men because the Bible does not teach that notion.
All Gifts of the Spirit are here until Jesus comes back. All of them are needed and useful to edify and build up the church. If the first Christians needed the Gifts we certainly do for this is a evil world and time and we need everything that the Spirit of God offers and gives to us to stand.
All Gifts of the Spirit are here until Jesus comes back. All of them are needed and useful to edify and build up the church. If the first Christians needed the Gifts we certainly do for this is a evil world and time and we need everything that the Spirit of God offers and gives to us to stand.
No, I got if from the Bible. It is what the Bible teaches. Examine 1Cor.13:8-13 and most of the 14th chapter of 1Corinthians.
If all the gifts are for today, then would you mind showing me at least one individual in this world, alive today, that can walk up and down the corridors of hospitals healing all that are sick. The apostles, at certain times in their ministry had the gift of healing. They could heal all that came to them. And they weren't just the "hidden" diseases--cancers, tumors, headaches, etc. Have you ever seen an arm grow back (that has been severed)?
Have you done a thorough study of the gift of tongues, and asked yourself why it is that missionries to foreign countries still have to study foreign langauges if the gift of tongues were for today?
Have you studied 1Cor.14:21,22 in the light of the gift of tongues and reconciled how that gift was a sign to the unbelieving Jews of that century, and still could be an ongoing gift today, if its purpose has already been fulfilled?
The Bible also indicates that the gift of miracles was a sign specific to the Apostles as a sign to authenticate who the Apostles were, and that their message was truly from God.
Nowhere in the Bible does it say that these gifts will last until Jesus comes.
DHK
We don't know for sure even if there is an interpreter. In Biblical times all tongues were real known languages. They were only spoken when there was someone present that did not know the common language of the area, or vice-versa. For instance, Paul said that "he thanked God that he spoke in tongues more than them all." He travelled much on missionary journeys and encountered many areas where there were languages spoken that were not native to Palestine. God would have given him the gift of tongues to speak those languages that the hearers would be able to listen to the message in their own language. Remember that the Jews were scattered abroad into all the different countries around. The tongues would have been a sign for the Jews. They probably would have been translated into the Hebrew or Aramaic language for the sake of the Jews, for they were a sign for the Jews. Paul would speak directly in the foreign language. The interpretation would be in the langueage of the Jews to authenticate to them that the message was of God.
It was a prophecy from Isaiah 228:11,12. which says concerning tongues "Yet for all that they will not hear me." They didn't hear the when the sign of tongues was presented to them, and the judgement of God fell upon them with the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple in 70 A.D. by the Roman General, Titus. Thus the prophecy was fulfilled. And tongues ceased very soon after that. History records that there was no tongues after that except among heretical sects here and there in occaisional sects that popped up until the beginning of the 20th century. This phenomena was completely different than Biblical tongues as it was not real languages that was spoken but a completely unknown language, composed of a bunch of syllables strung together making no sense at all. That is not the Biblical gift of tongues. What passes as the gift of tongues today is a cheap imitation of the real gift of the first century. It is not of God.
DHK
Mark Bishop
New Member
DHK..
you said.. "What passes as the gift of tongues today is a cheap imitation of the real gift of the first century. It is not of God.
DHK"
in many cases yes.. but not in all of them.
there are indeed instances where tongues is in use..
adn yes.. it is a known language... that is unknown
to the speaker in the occurances I am thinking of.
mark
you said.. "What passes as the gift of tongues today is a cheap imitation of the real gift of the first century. It is not of God.
DHK"
in many cases yes.. but not in all of them.
there are indeed instances where tongues is in use..
adn yes.. it is a known language... that is unknown
to the speaker in the occurances I am thinking of.
mark
"tongues and ears"
"...us being foreigners, we each HEAR in our own tongue..."
The remarkable part of "tongues" was in the hearing not the speaking. The people from other countries, each having a different native tongue, HEARD the gospel in their native language.
God gets The Word out whether we get it right or not.
Praise His Holy Name.
Selah,
Bro. James
"...us being foreigners, we each HEAR in our own tongue..."
The remarkable part of "tongues" was in the hearing not the speaking. The people from other countries, each having a different native tongue, HEARD the gospel in their native language.
God gets The Word out whether we get it right or not.
Praise His Holy Name.
Selah,
Bro. James