Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.That isn't my definition of heresy. If you do reductio absurdum on your definition the color of carpet one suggests could be viewed in terms of heresy. That isn't tenable imho.
So I don't think we can automatically declare someone who is teaching on this subject as being a heretic. If for no other reason than the NT clearly shows us there are experiences of this in the apostolic age and has doctrinal content on the use of and interpretation of tongues.
-
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!
Is this a heresy?
- Thread starter John of Japan
- Start date
plain_n_simple
Active Member
One could say the same of your viewpoint that all gifts have ceased. It says nowhere that these will stop once the bible was completed. That is your opinion to shore up your unbelief, and or lack of faith in Jesus to do what we are to do. Maybe you tried praying and it did not work, that's no reason to create doctrine. A pity you have wasted so many years on head knowledge. The gospel always comes with demonstration praise God! That is where you will find credibility that comes from Jesus.
Right, like I'm going to be teaching as a doctrine the color of the carpet in my church.:laugh: I specifically and intentionally used the word "doctrine" in the OP.
So if I get you right, for a doctrine to be heresy it has to be against foundational doctrine. Do you have Scripture for your definition? And how do we determine what is a foundational doctrine in your opinion? My view is taken from NT Greek semantics of the word hairesis. What is yours based upon? In fact, what is your definition?
Again, this is not doctrine, it is practice. Such church splits are very sad, but I don't think they rise to the level of fights over heresy.
I take it from this that you view the modern Charismatic version of tongues as identical to those in the NT. Is that correct?
Are you aware of the fact that the Azusa St. revival people sent out missionaries, expecting them to not need to go to language school, but they did not receive a miraculous gift of languages, contrary to what Parham taught them? A 1906 headline in a New York paper said, "Faith Gives Quaint Sect New Languages to Convert Africa." (See Azusa Street and Beyond, ed. by L. Grant McClung, Jr., pp. 13.)
Furthermore, are you aware of the work of linguists proving that modern Charismatic tongues are only babble and not real languages? William Samarin researched modern tongues extensively, finding that they had no syntax or semantics, that they were "characterized by strings of usually simple syllables that are not matched systematically with any semantic system" (The New Charismatics, by Richard Quebedeaux, p. 202). Wayne Oates, in "A Socio-Psychological Study of Glossalalia" (in Tongue Speaking in Biblical, Historical and Psychological Perspective), concluded that "Distortions of speech characteristic of early childhood are submerged as a child matures, but these distortions reappear in glossalalia when an individual tries to verbalize long-repressed religious convictions for the first time; he reverts to an early stage of communicative development" (ibid, 201).
I doubt seriously if these were the same kind of tongues seen in the modern movement, except for the Montanists, who apparently got their tongues from the Cybele cult.
I don't have time to look up all your references. It would be nice if you gave some quotes. For example, Agabus does not appear in the Didache, and I highly doubt if anything like tongues occurs in the Apostolic Fathers, which I have. So I would like references before I believe this point.
This is not what I've done. My OP refers to someone not a member teaching tongues to members without the pastor knowing. This is not the same as someone simply teaching tongues. My definition of heresy revolves around the local church, not the universal church.So I don't think we can automatically declare someone who is teaching on this subject as being a heretic. If for no other reason than the NT clearly shows us there are experiences of this in the apostolic age and has doctrinal content on the use of and interpretation of tongues.
Last edited by a moderator:
The verse I quoted was more in defense of John's scenario. Romans 16:17 says that we are to avoid those that cause divisions and offenses among us, and that, by John's definition, is a heretic. Those are the ones that come in and split churches, and as Paul says, those are the ones that we are to avoid.
Well it does, if you are willing to look at the Bible objectively, and consider just why the gift of "other languages" was given.
1. According to 1Cor.14:21 they are given as a sign to unbelieving Jews, specifically those of the first century. If they did not believe that sign they would face certain judgment. They did not believe. Judgment came in 70 A.D. That reason should be enough.
2. The gift of tongues, prophecy, and revelatory knowledge, as mentioned in 1Cor.13:8 are revelatory gifts. They would cease (as it says the would in that verse), when God's revelation (the Word of God) would be complete. That was at the end of the first century. 1Cor.13:8-13 explains that well. We don't need the temporary revelatory gifts for we have the completed Word of God. Those gifts were simply temporary, until the Word of God was completed.
3. They were the signs of the Apostles according to 2Cor.12:12. Perhaps it was not just one gift, but collectively the gifts of the Spirit were a sign of the Apostles that authenticated both them and their message as being from God.
If not, then one would have to outright deny the Bible:
Hebrews 2:3 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?
4. Tongues was not a gift for everyone. In fact it was the least important gift of all the gifts and there is no command to seek the gift.
1 Corinthians 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
Notice the adverbs: First, secondarily, thirdly, after that, then,...
They denote order of importance. The one who was most important was the Apostle. The least important gift was the gift of tongues, listed at the bottom of the list. It was the least important of all the gifts.
1 Corinthians 12:29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?
30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?
--Look carefully at these rhetorical questions. The obvious answer to these questions is "No."
There were only 12 apostles and they are all dead.
There were only a few prophets, and they all passed away by the end of the first century.
Did all work miracles in the church of Corinth? No. Maybe one or two did.
The same with healing? Maybe one to three had the gift. We are not told. But the fact is: Not all had the same gifts.
Not all could speak in tongues.
1 Corinthians 12:31 But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.
--They were not to seek after tongues. Paul was going to show them something far better that they were to seek after. Then in chapter 13:1-7 one of the most beautiful passages in the Bible is written on love, not on tongues, but on love.
5. Throughout chapter 14 a comparison is made between tongues and prophecy. Throughout the entire chapter speaking in tongues is rebuked and the gift of prophecy is encouraged. Why? With prophecy there is understanding. With tongues there is no understanding.
It is not my opinion; it is my belief firmly established on the Word of God.
It has nothing to do with faith. I don't have to pray about those things that are wrong.
Benny Hinn believes that there are nine persons in the trinity. I don't have to pray about whether or not he is right. I know he is wrong.
By a study of the Scripture I know that the modern day tongues movement is totally against Scripture. I am convinced of that. It doesn't need prayer. It needs preaching against.
I do find the gospel preached with power. I see many people saved. But that has nothing to do with tongues.
plain_n_simple
Active Member
Sometimes it comes down to visitors telling the church the truth of scripture that they are not aware of. If they leave the church it might be a good thing because the church was not able to teach truth, or accept it to begin with. Instead they might be focused on Sunday dinner and how the church can entertain.
plain_n_simple
Active Member
"Do the works that I do."
That is one of the most misinterpreted verses in the Bible, especially by Charismatics.
Do you:
Walk on water,
Raise the dead (who have already been buried like Lazarus),
Feed thousands with just a couple of fish and a loaf of bread,
Calm the sea,
Heal the multitudes--all that came to him no matter what the infirmity was.
Turn water into wine.
Do you perform these miracles?
plain_n_simple
Active Member
Through me, by His grace, Jesus healed the sick 4 times in front of me, others were released in faith. During and after this Jesus got the glory and it gave integrity to what I was saying, the gospel. It was true and real with others witnessing.
If you have ever witnessed God healing someone, you should praise God for it and have a hope that it can happen again.
If you have never witnessed a healing like this you have no credibility to comment on it except thanking God anyway. Do you care that the sick are healed no matter how? Do you have love?
So far you have showed no testimony about the supernatural power of God, yet you mock others that do.
You seem to think that when someone makes a decision to join your club, that is the only power of God available.
God told me a friend was in need once. It was a strong feeling he was in trouble after praying one day. He said Go! I had no idea how to find him. Had not seen him in 2 yrs or better.
God showed me.
I went and talked a man out of near death by sharing love and how much he was worth. He is after Christ now.
I call that a prophetic word from God. It was plain and loud.
Is that bad that God talked to me?
Is that bad the Spirit showed me where he would be after I asked?
Is that love?
These are experiences that I can weigh with the bible after they happen.
Glad I believe that Christians still do the work Jesus did, or a woman I know would still be crippled with arthritis.
I never said that I don't believe in healing. I do. I also have seen people in my ministry healed. I don't believe were in a competition here.
However that healing is in response to answer to prayer.
That is vastly different to the gift of healing as is demonstrated by Peter in Acts 5:16, where all those that were sick came from ALL the cities round about Jerusalem to Peter and Peter healed them ALL, not just four, but ALL who came to me--hundreds if not thousands of people. We have no faith healers today. The gift of healing has ceased. God still heals, but the gift of healing has ceased. There is a big difference.
I have many times, especially on the foreign mission field where people don't have access to hospitals.
The how is important. Satan can heal a person too. The Bible always takes precedent, not "healed no matter what." I take a stand where the Bible takes a stand. The gifts have ceased. That doesn't mean healing in and of itself has ceased. We cannot do the miracles Jesus did, nor even replicate the miracles that the rest of the Apostles did.
That is a poor assessment on your part.
God still works today, just not as he did in the first century. The gifts have ceased. Today he answers prayer according to his will.
What gives you that impression?
Why would you call "a strong feeling" the "prophetic word"? The two are not even related. Such "prophetic words" have ceased. They were used when the Bible was incomplete as a vehicle of revelation to communicate messages from God to man.
Would it not be more accurate to say that the Lord led you by his Spirit to that man. And yes I believe that can happen. I don't doubt you. I question your terminology, not your experience.
Yes, the Lord still works in marvelous ways today. I would never deny that. I don't call it the gifts of the Spirit, the baptism of the Spirit, etc. But God is still working in the midst of his people. He answers prayer. He leads us.
The poll numbers are overwhelmingly on the side of the OP scenario being heresy, 14 to 1 to 1. This was predictable. Baptists go for tongues very rarely, probably because of all the baggage that goes with them: false prophecies, fake healings and the like.
Sparked a memory. A pastor I sat under in northern Oklahoma related a situation that occurred to him. He was invited to preach at a church, but he didn't actually research the church before he went there; he assumed they knew he was an "old-fashioned" Baptist (more Southern Baptist than IFB). He got there and started preaching, and people started jumping up and down, speaking in tongues, being "slain in the spirit", etc.
Not expecting this, my pastor didn't know what to do. He said that he stepped down next to his wife, held her hand, and prayed as hard as he could, "Lord, if there's anything here that's not of you, let it be gone!"
The congregation quieted, people looked around confusedly, returned to their seats, and he was able to finish his preaching of the Word.
"Sometimes it comes down to visitors telling the church the truth of scripture that they are not aware of," indeed.
To me, the fruit of the Spirit seems a better witness to a person's spiritual status than the gift of "tongues".
"Tongues" can be mimicked but the fruit of the Spirit is a little more difficult...
Galatians 5
"Tongues" can be mimicked but the fruit of the Spirit is a little more difficult...
Galatians 5
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
Years ago, I had a pastor friend tell me that he prefered to preach to a local body of those who had the gift of "ears" rather than "tongues".
HankD
Well said, Hank. :thumbs:
An error that divides one from Christ is heresy.
The person described above is divisive and unruly and should be disciplined, but his doctrine isn't necessarily heretical.
Very clearly, the tongues etc. in this case hindered the preaching of the Word of God. You can see similar instances on YouTube.
I am reminded of the time my grandfather preaching in an IFB church known for their emotional outbursts (though it wasn't at all Charismatic). They would whoop and holler and get up and run around. One man would jump up and run up to the communion table, pull it out and run in circles around it hollering. So grandpa said, "So that we can all hear the Word of God, if you get excited just wave your hankey." He said there was a sea of hankies that day! :laugh:
Would you care to give Scripture for your view on the meaning of heresy? (I'm not saying you are wrong.)
It seems to me that any definition of heresy cannot rightly be subjective. If we are choosing what doctrines are foundational as one said on this thread, and only those are heresy, then we must have criteria for determining what doctrines are foundational--or in your case, which ones fall to the level of heresy and which ones don't.
Last edited by a moderator:
Taking the denotative meaning as I've read it, any difference of opinion is a technical heresy. Baptists and Presbyterians hold to different heresies of Christianity. But the Scriptural use of the term seems to be one that describes false doctrine, not mere difference of opinion.
Brethren can have differences of opinion concerning wine, meats offered to idols and days of worship, and we are commanded to receive them, because Christ has received them. But one who is an heretick we are to reject. How can we reject one Christ has received?
Then the denotative meaning would be against false doctrine, not simply opinion. The connotative meaning might indicate opinions, because it is a subjective meaning, but the denotative meaning is determined by usage. NT usage clearly indicates doctrine. And I've been clear on this thread that I've been talking about false doctrine. And I believe tongues to be truly a false doctrine.
I've not disagreed with this, but clearly stated that heresy depends on doctrine. However, if the standard for who is a heretic is whether or not they are saved ("one Christ has received") then you have real problems. You then have to be the one who judges whether or not a person is really saved. Are you ready to do that? The Bible is clear that there are "false brethren" (2 Cor. 11:26, Gal. 2:4) and false teachers (2 Pet. 2:1) in the churches.
However, in Rev. 2-3, we read specifically of the doctrine of Balaam (2:14), the teaching (doctrine) of Jezebel (2:20) and the doctrine of the Nicolaitans. In every case these people were judged and rejected according to their doctrine, not whether or not they were born again.
Okay, once more, do you have Scripture backing your definition of heresy? And what doctrines would label someone not-Christian?