Featured manifestation vs gift

It is not for you

 

In Acts 2, lost people heard the believers speak in their own languages. So lost people proved that the tongues were real. In modern times, linguists and other lost scholars have proved many times that various examples of tongues were not real languages. In my mind this is a good thing. Tongues speakers should be happy that the false is proven false.

By the standard of Acts 2, you should happily submit your tongues to lost people to be verified. I'm sure you don't trust me to examine your tongues. But you could go to a linguist at your local state university, which is bound to have a major in linguistics with linguistic scholars teaching the classes. When your tongues are then validated, hopefully, as real languages, wouldn't that be great? Do you have the courage to do this?

I hardly think your speaking in tongues compares to the salvation experience. Speaking in tongues was a sign to unbelievers. Salvation is how we become believers. Apples and oranges.

And again, the tongues in Acts 2 were verified by unbelievers. Will you attempt the same thing? It's a win-win situation. If your tongues are a real language you will be vindicated. If you learn that your tongues are not a real language, you will be led out of error.

Tell you what. You go to a reputable linguist, get him to verify that your tongues are a real language like in Acts 2, and he writes me with the information about his research and verification, then I'll pray myself to speak in tongues just like you. Is that fair to you? The next move is yours.

 

You have touted your experience in seeking the truth about the Charismatic movement over and over on the BB. That makes it fair game for refutation. Don't get all defensive when someone mentions it. It is part and parcel of your argument.

I trust my experience far more than yours. My reason for sitting in a park in Yokohama for hours praying and reading Scripture, fighting off the mosquitos, was to be empowered by God to serve Him. Your self-proclaimed purpose was to win a debate with "full gospel" people, as you put it. Your motive was selfish--to win a debate. God doesn't bless selfish motives, and the Holy Spirit does not lead and teach us when our motives are selfish.

You say you studied the Bible about the Holy Spirit. Did you read and pray about and study every single passage on the Holy Spirit in the Bible? If not, your study was inferior.

Baloney. You got personal with me by telling me that the problems with Charismatics in my church were Satan's fault and not the fault of tongues speakers. That makes me the agent of Satan by rejecting tongues. That's personal. And you accuse us non-charismatics of being unbelieving. That's personal. And you have over and over twisted my words. That's personal.

 

This man said on Youtube, " “Did you know Jesus became a sinner for us and had to be born again.” (http://safeguardyoursoul.com/bill-johnson-false-teacher/) Do you agree with him? If not, how can you possibly recognize him as Spirit filled?

 

This is not for you, why should you bother? If you need to be right, ok John, I'll say you are right. You need to be happy buddy.

 

I don't need to be happy. I have the joy of the Lord, which is far better. If I wanted to be "happy" like most people think of "happy," I sure wouldn't have become a missionary to a Gospel-resistant country like Japan, much less anywhere else. :type:

But you didn't answer the question. Do you agree with your "Spirit filled" man on Youtube that Christ became a sinner?

 

wasn't the acceptable rate of healing in the bible for those gifted to do such by God 100 %?

And isn't their view on what constitutes the real Gospel, per signs and wonders, actually perverts what it really is, and offers people a fake hope due to it being a deficeit Gospel actually?

 

Your right. The Lord is for me. I am content with the Lord Jesus Christ and His Word. He said beware of the leaven of the Pharisees. Beware of those who come to you as wolves in sheep's clothing.

Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

This is where I put that man.
His doctrine is heretical. Just because he can see healing doesn't mean it is from God. Those who don't know Christ can also heal. Those are the very words of Jesus. Beware of false prophets/false teachers.

Matthew 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
--Jesus is not referring to good works here, for even Hindus and Muslims have good works. He is referring to doctrine. I know this man by his false doctrine. I have gone to his website. I have looked at his doctrine, and examined it according to the Word of God. It is not Biblical, if not anti-Biblical. He is wrong. He will stand in judgment of God and give account, a terrible account of the deception that he inflicts on others.

 

If she got healed at such a meeting, then she got healed in spite of him; not because of him.

 

Yes, we always need evidence. Our faith is based on evidence, otherwise it is just blind faith as the Hindus have. They believe in Ganesh, the elephant god. What evidence do they have that such a god ever existed? None. He is just a mythical god. They have not evidence and neither do you. You continue to take Scripture out of context.

My faith is based on evidence. The evidence is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Without that, my faith would be in vain, as Paul says. Our entire Bible is backed up with evidence.

But you are hanging on to a belief, which, like a believe in the god of Ganesh, has no evidence. In that respect your faith is blind. It is no better than the blind faith than that of Hindu.

 

Please ask John about Shintoism since he lives in a nation that practices it. They practice ancestor worship. In the evening by faith they put out in front of their doors food for the spirits of their deceased ancestors believing that by pleasing them, they will protect their houses. In the morning they awake and see the evidence that they have been protected for that night.

That is precisely how your "faith" works. It is not established on the Word of God. It is blind. You look for so-called "evidence" afterward.

The evidence of my faith is already established. It is based on the resurrection of Christ, which was witnessed by over 500 witnesses. I cannot go back and call them all liars. The resurrection is one of the most well-established facts in all of history. I can establish that.

But no one can establish any evidence for your style of speaking in tongues. No one has ever established that it is a language that you speak in. It doesn't measure up to NT truth. It is fraudulent by NT standards. You have no evidence that you speak in an actual foreign language as the NT believers did. You have no evidence. It is just a sham.

 

This is a circular argument: your tongues are real because they are a sign of the pouring out of the Holy Spirit. And what is the pouring out of the Holy Spirit? It is tongues?

So it matters not whether the tongues were understood or not? They would have been a sign even if they were not understood?

You misunderstand. I'm not asking for evidence that the tongues of the book of Acts were genuine languages. I accepted that by faith long ago. Asking for proof of modern tongues has nothing to do with my faith. I'm asking for proof that YOUR tongues are a genuine language, not the tonues of the Bible.

The early Pentecostals struggled with this, even if you don't. A Pentecostal historian wrote an article in a theological journal about this: "Glossalalia at Azusa Street: A Hidden Presupposition?" by Charles S. Gaede (Southwestern Assemblies of God College) in the Westminster Theological Journal of Spring, 1989. In an honest attempt to follow the pattern of Acts 2, they struggled deeply with the issue of xenoglossalalia--whether or not their tongues could be used in evangelism. You would be wise to imitate their struggle.

I think the Great Commission is clear in Mark 16:15-18 that tongues are for evangelism. Everything in the Great Commission is for evangelism.

Tell me what I should do, then, once you prove that your tongues are a genuine language.

 

There is no command in Scripture to defend your church. We are told, "ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." (Jude v. 3).

I have told you over and over again where you had me saying something I did not, where you twisted my words, whether intentionally or not. (And I never said it was intentional.) In no case have you even answered me, much less apologized. Now Christ taught that if we are offended we are to go to the person an make it right (Matt. 18:15), and if someone is offended by us we are to make it right (Matt. 5:23-24). I've been obeying Christ every time you were offensive. But you have not made it right a single time. I've apologized and been apologized to quite a few times on the BB. I've never noticed you apologizing to anyone here! Do you think we are disembodied Internet spirits with no feelings?

I've been discussing the Word. I've referred to Acts 2:6 and 1 Cor. 14:22. And I hardly think making things right is immaturity.

 

Not everything is written in the Word of God.
Creation is written in the Word of God, and we accept it by faith. It speaks of the origin of the universe.
Evolution is not written in the Word of God, and many people believe in the Big Bang theory. Since it speaks of the origin of the earth it falls outside the realm of science and within the realm of metaphysics or faith. It must be accepted by faith, just as the Bible's account of Creation. The question then becomes which theory: the Big Bang, or Biblical Creation, is more credible? We believe Creation is. Not only because science backs it up, but because God says so. We believe it by faith. It is credible. It has credibility to it.

Belief in Ganesh, the elephant god, has no credibility because it is a mythical god. It has no basis in history or in reality.

The only ones required to see Christ personally are the apostles. That is why there are no apostles today. No one today has seen personally the resurrection, and therefore there are no apostles.
I know Nero lived.
I know Pilate lived.
I know the Apostle Paul lived.
And I certainly know that Christ lived and rose again from the dead. I didn't have to see him. I can't see you. Do you live? I have as much evidence that Christ rose from the dead, as I have that you are alive. I have never met you. There is technology today that could be answering my posts for me. You might be just another computer. I have no real evidence that you are who you say you are, and are a living being. I have more evidence that Christ is alive then I do that you are alive. And that is the truth!

No the Word of God has not established what you believe. It only established what the believers of the first century did. The Word of God established what miracles Moses did. It never promised you could do the miracles of Moses, or Jesus, or the Apostles. No such promise was ever given. It never gave you the promise of having the gifts of the Spirit. Those were promises given to NT believers, not to us who are over 2,000 years removed from those events. So no, your faith is not based on the Word of God.

Your faith is based on the faith of NT believers, which is not Biblical.