tragic_pizza
New Member
bump
-
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!
Pentecostal Man’s Glossolalia Echos NBA Rosters
- Thread starter Joseph_Botwinick
- Start date
tragic_pizza, I have just wandered by this thread and have read the last three pages and all I can say is that two things are obvious:
1) You are doing all of the arguing and instead of explaining why your position is supposedly correct you are putting down others because they disagree with your position.
2) You are making yourself out to be the victim. I see this a lot in my line of work.
Why don't you cool down and try to defend your position instead of pouring hot coals on gasoline?
1) You are doing all of the arguing and instead of explaining why your position is supposedly correct you are putting down others because they disagree with your position.
2) You are making yourself out to be the victim. I see this a lot in my line of work.
Why don't you cool down and try to defend your position instead of pouring hot coals on gasoline?
tragic_pizza
New Member
I have explained my position with Scripture, Philip. Read further than three pages back, certainly, but note the Scriptures I have offered in my last few posts.Originally posted by Phillip:
tragic_pizza, I have just wandered by this thread and have read the last three pages and all I can say is that two things are obvious:
1) You are doing all of the arguing and instead of explaining why your position is supposedly correct you are putting down others because they disagree with your position.
2) You are making yourself out to be the victim. I see this a lot in my line of work.
Why don't you cool down and try to defend your position instead of pouring hot coals on gasoline?
I have been reading. I went back and read the first four pages and all I found was that "tongues" are "languages". The babble called "tongues" today is not what the Bible was describing. This is very clear if you just read the verses relating to tongues.
I cannot say for certain that tongues have completely ceased because I have actually heard of a couple of cases where missionaries have told a story of speaking in their language and the natives hearing in their own tongue. I have only heard of this two or three times, so I don't know if it is true or not, but if it was, yes, this probably came from God.
I see nothing in the scripture you pointed out that refers to the modern day babbling.
I cannot say for certain that tongues have completely ceased because I have actually heard of a couple of cases where missionaries have told a story of speaking in their language and the natives hearing in their own tongue. I have only heard of this two or three times, so I don't know if it is true or not, but if it was, yes, this probably came from God.
I see nothing in the scripture you pointed out that refers to the modern day babbling.
Well, let us assume that it is one of the at least 3500 languages that are spoken on this Earth.
If there is no one in the room speaking that particular language, then obviously, it is useless.
The gifts in the Bible were for a purpose; allowing those who cannot understand the language to understand. In this case, obviously, it would be a difficult stretch to believe that someone would be in the room to understand the gift.
Is this really all that difficult?
P
Providential
Guest
And there you see it! Someone railing against a gift of the Spirit, and he cusses his brother! Boy you really proved that those who spend hours worshipping Jesus and praying in the Spirit are not of God while you claim to have the real thing and give a brother the middle finger! Jmaes, you need to repent.
Joseph_Botwinick
<img src=/532.jpg>Banned
I have no idea who you are talking to or what you are talking about. Please explain.
Joseph Botwinick
Joseph Botwinick
P
Providential
Guest
James Newman said to a Pentecostal way back on page One:
"How bout you tell me [edited] I'm holding up, then I'll tell you your dream and interpret it for you"
Basically, the Baptist, who said tongues is of the devil, was telling the Pentecosatal to guess which finger he was holding up to him! Yup. That sure will prove to a Pentecostal he is of the devil, and that the baptist has the real goods when it comes to the Holy Spirit!
"How bout you tell me [edited] I'm holding up, then I'll tell you your dream and interpret it for you"
Basically, the Baptist, who said tongues is of the devil, was telling the Pentecosatal to guess which finger he was holding up to him! Yup. That sure will prove to a Pentecostal he is of the devil, and that the baptist has the real goods when it comes to the Holy Spirit!
Well, let us assume that it is one of the at least 3500 languages that are spoken on this Earth.
If there is no one in the room speaking that particular language, then obviously, it is useless.
The gifts in the Bible were for a purpose; allowing those who cannot understand the language to understand. In this case, obviously, it would be a difficult stretch to believe that someone would be in the room to understand the gift.
Is this really all that difficult? </font>[/QUOTE]I Corinthians 14;2may shed some light on this.
That is correct, it does explain it. Paul has been coming down hard on the Corinthians for their abuse of all kinds of things, including tongues. This is the reason he keeps telling them it would be better to prophecy. Otherwise, if they are speaking a language that only God and they themselves can understand it doesn't do anybody any good. Plain as day.
Prophecy as used by Paul is more tied with teaching or explaining things to the people. So, basically he is saying it is not edifying anybody but yourself unless you teach to the people and they can understand it.
This is what amazes me about the people who use the babbling tongues today. They take Acts, which clearly explains that it is people understanding in different languages.
Then they sprinkle in Paul jumping all over the Corinthians and saying it is better not to use tongues, but if you do --- then he restricts its use so that it could hardly be used. It certainly is not used in churches today in the non-confusing manner Paul restricts it to.
Tongues is VERY clear, if only a person would read the scriptures in context.
Simple. Isn't it, atestring? Thanks for the scripture.
Prophecy as used by Paul is more tied with teaching or explaining things to the people. So, basically he is saying it is not edifying anybody but yourself unless you teach to the people and they can understand it.
This is what amazes me about the people who use the babbling tongues today. They take Acts, which clearly explains that it is people understanding in different languages.
Then they sprinkle in Paul jumping all over the Corinthians and saying it is better not to use tongues, but if you do --- then he restricts its use so that it could hardly be used. It certainly is not used in churches today in the non-confusing manner Paul restricts it to.
Tongues is VERY clear, if only a person would read the scriptures in context.
Simple. Isn't it, atestring? Thanks for the scripture.
Below is an answer to a question about the different uses of Biblical tongues and its uses then and now. I think it is very enlightening.
MEE
**The confusion regarding the two types of tongues is clarified in Scripture. Break out the Strong's and look up the word "gift" used in Acts 2:38 (this was referring to the sign of tongues as the initial evidence of the infilling of the Holy Ghost that had just occured prior to Peter delivering his Acts 2 sermon.)
The Greek word for "gift" as in "ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost", is dorea, designating the free, unmerited gift of salvation given only by God.
Now go to 1 Corinthians 12, where Paul begins speaking of the spritual gifts that should be in operation in the Church. Look up the word used for "gift" in this reference and not surprisingly, it derives from a differnt Greek word than the translation in Acts 2:38.
The Greek word used for "gift" in Corinthians is charisma, meaning a spiritual endowment given to believers.
In short, you cannot have the charisma gift of tongues unless you have first experienced the dorea gift of tongues. The dorea gift of tongues is that which accompanies the infilling of the Holy Ghost, and the charisma gift of tongues is given by God to some, but not all, believers, as Paul attests when he asks the question, "Do all speak with tongues?"
The same Spirit provides the utterance and operation of both kinds of tongues, but they are very different in purpose.
MEE
**The confusion regarding the two types of tongues is clarified in Scripture. Break out the Strong's and look up the word "gift" used in Acts 2:38 (this was referring to the sign of tongues as the initial evidence of the infilling of the Holy Ghost that had just occured prior to Peter delivering his Acts 2 sermon.)
The Greek word for "gift" as in "ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost", is dorea, designating the free, unmerited gift of salvation given only by God.
Now go to 1 Corinthians 12, where Paul begins speaking of the spritual gifts that should be in operation in the Church. Look up the word used for "gift" in this reference and not surprisingly, it derives from a differnt Greek word than the translation in Acts 2:38.
The Greek word used for "gift" in Corinthians is charisma, meaning a spiritual endowment given to believers.
In short, you cannot have the charisma gift of tongues unless you have first experienced the dorea gift of tongues. The dorea gift of tongues is that which accompanies the infilling of the Holy Ghost, and the charisma gift of tongues is given by God to some, but not all, believers, as Paul attests when he asks the question, "Do all speak with tongues?"
The same Spirit provides the utterance and operation of both kinds of tongues, but they are very different in purpose.
tragic_pizza
New Member
Phillip, I will explain this yet again: I am not attempting to say anything at all about tongues, glossolalia, Oneness, or any other branch of Pentecostalism. My contention has been, from page one, against the defamation, ridicule, and open bigotry against fellow Christians.
Phillip, please read the verses I posted again, not in the light of Pentecostalism but in the light of Christians showing love for one another as a testament to nonbelievers of our fellowship in Christ.
This is not a negotiable position, this loving our Christian brothers and sisters. You do not get to decide that you don't have to love someone just because you don't like their doctrine. You have to love them, and part of loving is not making fun of them. Part of loving them is not dismissing them to perdition out-of-hand.
Honestly, the age some of you folks are, you think you'd know this by now.
When studying tongues, don't just pull one verse out. Read the whole chapter. If you will read the whole chapter you will start to realize that Paul has the true gift of speaking in tongues because he is a missionary traveling to many different churches. The people want a gift so bad that they start speaking in another language and he says, it won't do you any good unless you teach something and also unless you have an interpreter. Simple.
Notice that he mentions other languages (tongues) of the world.
Also, the fact that it is foreign languages is confirmed by his statement that it is a sign to unbelievers. In other words, if you are standing on a street corner preaching in one language and different people are hearing it in their own language. Low and behold, THAT is a sign from God. Wow, I can understand what that guy is saying in my own language. But, an unbeliever who walks into a church where they are all muttering different languages is hearing nothing but confusion. Paul explains this.
Does this not describe the churches that abuse tongues today? Is it not clear?
If the churches believe that these gifts are still around, then why aren't they doing what Paul said and prophecying in their churches instead of speaking in tongues? Why is tongues a sign of anything? It is only a sign for unbelievers? AND, when they hear their own LANGUAGE.
This is so clear that it is clear why the tongues movement only started only in the 19th century.
Notice that he mentions other languages (tongues) of the world.
Also, the fact that it is foreign languages is confirmed by his statement that it is a sign to unbelievers. In other words, if you are standing on a street corner preaching in one language and different people are hearing it in their own language. Low and behold, THAT is a sign from God. Wow, I can understand what that guy is saying in my own language. But, an unbeliever who walks into a church where they are all muttering different languages is hearing nothing but confusion. Paul explains this.
Does this not describe the churches that abuse tongues today? Is it not clear?
If the churches believe that these gifts are still around, then why aren't they doing what Paul said and prophecying in their churches instead of speaking in tongues? Why is tongues a sign of anything? It is only a sign for unbelievers? AND, when they hear their own LANGUAGE.
This is so clear that it is clear why the tongues movement only started only in the 19th century.
tragic_pizza
New Member
Please address my post, Phillip.
tragic_pizza
New Member
this post:
Phillip, please read the verses I posted again, not in the light of Pentecostalism but in the light of Christians showing love for one another as a testament to nonbelievers of our fellowship in Christ.
This is not a negotiable position, this loving our Christian brothers and sisters. You do not get to decide that you don't have to love someone just because you don't like their doctrine. You have to love them, and part of loving is not making fun of them. Part of loving them is not dismissing them to perdition out-of-hand.
Honestly, the age some of you folks are, you think you'd know this by now. </font>[/QUOTE]And "tragic_pizza" is just a name. I like the way it sounds is all. Maybe it's a play on "Mystic Pizza."
Anyway. Please address my post.
Phillip, I will explain this yet again: I am not attempting to say anything at all about tongues, glossolalia, Oneness, or any other branch of Pentecostalism. My contention has been, from page one, against the defamation, ridicule, and open bigotry against fellow Christians.
Phillip, please read the verses I posted again, not in the light of Pentecostalism but in the light of Christians showing love for one another as a testament to nonbelievers of our fellowship in Christ.
This is not a negotiable position, this loving our Christian brothers and sisters. You do not get to decide that you don't have to love someone just because you don't like their doctrine. You have to love them, and part of loving is not making fun of them. Part of loving them is not dismissing them to perdition out-of-hand.
Honestly, the age some of you folks are, you think you'd know this by now. </font>[/QUOTE]And "tragic_pizza" is just a name. I like the way it sounds is all. Maybe it's a play on "Mystic Pizza."
Anyway. Please address my post.
Originally posted by tragic_pizza:
this post:
Oh, I don't have a problem with this. I thought the thread was primarily regarding the validness of speaking in tongues as used by modern day churches. No I don't think defamation, ridicule and open bigotry is right against fellow Christians, but I do see nothing wrong with stating facts about doctrines that we do not believe; not attacking the person; however.
I don't know who you are complaining about. I don't think that I have shown you contempt. I disagree with your interpretation of tongues and I highly disagree with your beliefs on "eternal security" (if you follow the rest of the Assemblies of God and other similar church groups.)
I do not see anything wrong with stating that. This is a debate site and we do debate and sometimes it comes across as harsh, but most of the time people are using "tongue-in-cheek" lines. If someone has indeed treated you badly then you have a right to report that to the administrators.
As far as talking about the doctrine, "Well, THAT will be debated here." No doubt about that. That's is why we are here, to hash out beliefs.
As far as the joke on the first page, I don't see it any worse as the joke about the Methodist, Catholic and Baptist who were fishing and the Methodist decided he was hungry so he "walked on the water to the edge of the pond", got a sandwich, walked back to the boat and sat down. The Catholic did the same. The Baptist was praying hard that he had their faith and he stepped out of the boat and swiftly sank.
He climbed into the boat, somewhat "not happy" and the Catholic just grinned and said, "Yah, gotta know where the rocks are."
I also do know that one of the local full-gospel churches puts it on the line that if you die and dislike any brother in Christ you will go to hell. Well, eternal security takes care of that issue. God will still deal with you for not liking your brother and you will never get close to God if you hate you brother, but it certainly is not a major doctrine that will send a person to hell; because nothing can pluck one from the hands of Jesus.
This is another sin, very much like any other sin. All sin makes a chain, if one link breaks the entire chain falls. So, as sinners we are definitely in need of the grace of Jesus Christ, but I would sure hate to live my life worrying about whether my sins stack up heavier than my good things and wondering just "when" do I sin enough to loose my salvation. Doesn't make sense, not Biblical, but I will not hate a person who believes it, but we will have major differences of opinion on that issue because it is such an important doctrine.
I hope that clarifies my point and position and I hope that you didn't perceive that I ridicule a brother over their beliefs.