Speaking in Tongues Continued

[D28guy]

Ray Berrian,

Check your inbox. I just sent you a private message.

Mike

 

[Ray Berrian]

Bible-boy,

You said, 'No I'm not God. So... who on earth today has been in the presence of the exalted Christ, saw His physical presence, heard His audible voice with their own physical ears? Anyone?'

So God the Holy Spirit is not God to you as portrayed in Acts 9:3-4? Orthodox Christianity says that God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are God. Saul saw God in the brilliance of the Light and fell under the power of His being. This, then, is what theology has come to term being 'slain in the Spirit.'

 

[Ray Berrian]

DHK,

You said, 'What Hinn does is not of God. He is not a Christian. Any person who believes the atonement is in the devil is not of God.'

This is not a true statement of what Hinn believes and the rest of you hateful thoughts are just that. Listen to his messages in English and you will never hear your diatribe or that of Dr. Mac Arthur who himself is the poorest representation for true Christian theology.

 

[Bible-boy]

Of couse I believe in traditional orthodox Christain Trinitarian Monothiesm. That is not what is in question here. However, the text of Scripture makes it clear that all three members of the Godhead do not always manifest themselves at the same time and/or in the same place.

For example: In Luke 24:36-49 The Resurrected Christ is speaking to His disciples. He tells them, "I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high" (Luke 24:49, ESV).

Claerly, God the Son, Jesus, was present and speaking to His disciples and God the Holy Spirit was not there because Jesus said that He was going to send the promise of the Father (i.e. the Holy Spirit) to them and they were to wait in the city until that happened. It happen in at Pentecost (Acts 2).

 

[Ray Berrian]

Bible-boy,

You said, 'The text does not say about being slain by the Spirit.'

Neither does I Thessalonians 4:16 speak in the text as the Rapture and yet that is what Christians use as a term to describe Christ coming for His church.

Same kind of pattern in Acts chapter 9:4. So too with being 'slain in the Sprit,' as was the experience of the Apostle John early in Revelation. [End Quote].

 

[Bible-boy]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
So God the Holy Spirit is not God to you as portrayed in Acts 9:3-4? Orthodox Christianity says that God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are God. Saul saw God in the brilliance of the Light and fell under the power of His being. This, then, is what theology has come to term being 'slain in the Spirit.'

The text clearly says that when Saul asked who was speaking to him the Lord replied, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting" (Acts 9:5b, ESV). This is the exalted Christ. He did not say, "I am the Holy Spirit" or "I am Jesus and this is My Holy Spirit." Stick with the plain meaning of the literal, historical grammatical reading and understanding of the text.

 

[Bible-boy]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Bible-boy,

You said, 'The text does not say about being slain by the Spirit.'

Neither does I Thessalonians 4:16 speak in the text as the Rapture and yet that is what Christians use as a term to describe Christ coming for His church.

Same kind of pattern in Acts chapter 9:4. So too with being 'slain in the Sprit,' as was the experience of the Apostle John early in Revelation. [End Quote].

Apples and oranges again. You are ignoring the full context of the 1 Thes. passage in order to try and make a point. Bad hermeneutics. The full context of 1 Thes. 4:13-5:11 makes it clear that what we refer to as the "rapute" is what is being discussed.

The experience of Saul on the Damascus Road (Acts 9) and John (Rev. 1ff) do not support the personal experience that you have described previously as being slain in the Spirit. They in no way correspond. You can force that meaning onto the texts if you like. However, it is bad hermeneutics that results in eisegesis of the Scripture. Stick with the plain meaning of a literal, historical grammatical reading and understanding of the text.

 

[Ray Berrian]

Tam and I have experienced this moving of the Holy Spirit on our lives. Ed Edwards correctly interprets I Cor. 12 & 14 and may or may not have this Biblical experience ministered by the Holy Spirit. It would be interesting to know if he and others who believe the Biblical interpretation, if they have been overcome by the Spirit of God.

 

[Ray Berrian]

gb93433,

Let me add one word to what you said which would make it correct. 'It is the {correct} use of the gift which gives glory to God or not.'

Your statement was 'It is the use of the gift which gives glory to God or not.'

In the Corinthian church some spoke in tongues without an interpretation following. This was in violation of the Lord's use of the gift, because without the 'interpretation' no person understood the message thus no edification of the saints.'

A gift was used but wrongly used. God corrects these things through Paul's instruction in his first epistle of Corinthians.

 

[Ray Berrian]

Bible-boy,

You said, 'Apples and oranges again. You are ignoring the full context of the 1 Thes. passage in order to try and make a point. Bad hermeneutics. The full context of 1 Thes. 4:13-5:11 makes it clear that what we refer to as the "rapute" is what is being discussed.

The experience of Saul on the Damascus Road (Acts 9) and John (Rev. 1ff) do not support the personal experience that you have described previously as being slain in the Spirit. They in no way correspond. You can force that meaning onto the texts if you like. However, it is bad hermeneutics that results in eisegesis of the Scripture. Stick with the plain meaning of a literal, historical grammatical reading and understanding of the text.'

Nice try but you are wrong. It does not matter if this being over powered is experience in the Presence of Christ, the Holy Spirit of the Father. In either occurance God would be involved in ministering the blessing.

Millions of Christians have experienced this. Just because you have been taught it is wrong does not make the personal experiences of people wrong. [End Quote].

 

[Bible-boy]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Tam and I have experienced this moving of the Holy Spirit on our lives. Ed Edwards correctly interprets I Cor. 12 & 14 and may or may not have this Biblical experience ministered by the Holy Spirit. It would be interesting to know if he and others who believe the Biblical interpretation, if they have been overcome by the Spirit of God.

The personal experience that you have described does not correspond to the biblical experiences you cite as references. Therefore, I must reject the doctrinal position you are attempting to build based on your personal experience as error. You agreed with me that such was/is the case and a good principle. Now I ask you to not just give it an intellectual nod, but to actually put it into practice. If our personal experiences do not line up with and correspond to experiences described in the Bible there is no objective truth to measure them by and no good reason to construct a doctrine around them. As such our biblically unverified personal subjective experiences and $4.00 will get us an over priced cup of coffee at Starbucks. However, they do not support sound Christian doctrine.

 

[Ray Berrian]

I meant to say ' . . . the Holy Spirit or the Father or God the Father.'

Each Person of the Godhead is God, and of course, Jesus.

 

[Bible-boy]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Bible-boy,

You said, 'Apples and oranges again. You are ignoring the full context of the 1 Thes. passage in order to try and make a point. Bad hermeneutics. The full context of 1 Thes. 4:13-5:11 makes it clear that what we refer to as the "rapute" is what is being discussed.

The experience of Saul on the Damascus Road (Acts 9) and John (Rev. 1ff) do not support the personal experience that you have described previously as being slain in the Spirit. They in no way correspond. You can force that meaning onto the texts if you like. However, it is bad hermeneutics that results in eisegesis of the Scripture. Stick with the plain meaning of a literal, historical grammatical reading and understanding of the text.'

Nice try but you are wrong. It does not matter if this being over powered is experience in the Presence of Christ, the Holy Spirit of the Father. In either occurance God would be involved in ministering the blessing.

Millions of Christians have experienced this. Just because you have been taught it is wrong does not make the personal experiences of people wrong. [End Quote].

When one of those millions of people come forward and describe a personal experience that lines up with and corresponds to an experience described in the Bible then we will have something to talk about. Thus far you are making an appeal to an inappropriate souce of authority (subjective personal experience) over the objective final authority, which is the Word of God.

You say it does not matter if it is the presence of Christ or the Holy Spirit of the Father, that in either occurance it is God involved. I would agree to that if you cited an example of the type of experience you are describing from the Bible where it expressly says that the Holy Spirit caused such an event. However, the only references you have given make it clear that the exalted Christ alone was present [manifest].

[I edited this to add the word manifest at the end of the above sentence for clarity of meaning.]

[ December 21, 2005, 05:15 AM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]

 

[Bible-boy]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Nice try but you are wrong. It does not matter if this being over powered is experience in the Presence of Christ, the Holy Spirit of the Father. In either occurance God would be involved in ministering the blessing.

Furthermore, follow this line of reasoning out to its logical conclusion. If what you are saying is correct then we should expect to see people "falling out" every time God the Father, God the Son, or God the Holy Spirit have interactions with (or draw near to) people throughout the Bible. However, it simply does not happen.

[ December 21, 2005, 04:38 AM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]

 

[Ray Berrian]

Bible-boy,

You said, 'However, the only reference you have given make it clear that the exalted Christ alone was present.'

It is hardly orthodox to divide up the Godhead by saying that only Christ was present when Saul was saved. Was the Father and the Holy Spirit off on a vacation, and I say this will all reverence?

When Jesus was baptized was it just Jesus who was present as He came up out of the water? Matthew 3:16-17 indicates that all three Persons of the Godhead were in attendance. So too in Acts chapter nine. Yes, Jesus was there at the conversion of Saul. But the Holy Spirit and the Father were not up in Heaven all by Themselves.

When Jesus was on earth He was the Personification and reality as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Jesus said in John 10:30, 'I and My Father are one.' So if Jesus was present at Saul's salvation experience, so too was God the Father and the Holy Spirit.

I do not think you are saying that God is not Omnipresent are you? Unintentionally, this is what you are telling us.

Go and think.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by D28guy:

This is in spite of the fact that these passages of scripture...and there are of course hundreds if not thousands of others as well...that use the word all in *precisely* the same way...

I have also answered the same post before. Perhaps you missed it. In the verses you quoted all did indeed mean all.

I have become all things to all people"

The verse is to be taken literally. Paul wasn't lying. He did become all things to all people. Look at the context. To the Jew I became a Jew. To those under the law; I became as under the law. To the uncircumcized I became as one uncircumcized. I am all things to all people so that I might win some. All means all. He is speaking of culture. Have you heard of the expression: "When in Rome, do as the Romans do." In other words: speak as the Romans speak; eat as the Romans eat; wear what the Romans wear, etc. Adopt their culture and way of life. That is the only way you can effectively become a missionary to any nation. That is true of any country. One must be able to adapt to the cultue. And that was what Paul was saying. He became all things to all people. He could adapt to any situation in any place that he went--whether Jew or barbarian. All means all.

"Let him who is taught the word share in all good things with him who teaches"

Again Paul is not lying when he says this. He means what he says. All means all. We are to share ALL the good things that we are taught to those that we teach. That is a very simple concept. Why wouldn't you follow it. Paul did. He says he did in Acts 20. "I have not shunned to declare unto you ALL the counsel of God. All means all. What he knew he imparted unto others, and expected them to impart that knowledge to still others. That is the principle taught in 2Tim.2:2. Thus all means all.

"Indeed, I have all and abound"

This was Paul's own testimony. Would you call him a liar? He was speaking of his situation that no matter where he was God provided for his needs, which was very true. If he was in a place of abundace he was satisfied. If he was in a place of poverty he was satisfied. In whatsoever situation he was he had learned to be content. Why? God provided ALL his needs. And thus he abounded in ALL things. All means all.

"Because of the word that the woman testified, 'he told me all that I ever did'."

...and in none of those cases is the word "all" to be taken as you want to take the word "all" in the 1st passage

In this passage we have the testimony of an adulterous woman who exagerrates her testimony--a common thing to do. In that it is inspired Scripture only means that it is accurately recorded as such. The devil's lies are also inspired Scripture, in that they are accurately recorded. See Genesis 3 where Satan says "Thou shalt not surely die." Her statement was an obvious exagerration, not meant to teach any doctrine.

In adition...why are you choosing to ignore the passages that do no use that word?

This argument makes no sense. Silence to Scriptures is no argument at all.

"Though I speak with the tongues of men"

He doeasnt say "ALL the tongues of ALL mean, as if I were God Himself"

Context!! He plainly says: "Though I speak with the tongues of men and {b]of angels[/b]" The phrase is one phrase. It would be a claim of deity since only an angel would be able to speak all the languages known to mankind, and would only do so on the command of God. Paul did not say he had this ability. It was a hyperbolic hypothetical statement stating that no matter what you do, if you do it without love it is meaningless.

"though I have the gift of prophecy"

He doesnt say "have ALL the gift of prophecy that is possible, as if I were God Himself"

Context!! Don't take things out of context. "Though I have the gift of prophecy and speak all mysteries." The gift of prophecy led to the speaking of myteries. The speaking of ALL mysteries would again be a statement of omniscience--a statement of deity. Paul made no such claim. He never said that he could speak ALL mysteries or know all mysteries. Such a statement would be heresy. You are putting words into Paul's mouth. The statement is hyperbolic hypothetical. It means even if he could do that, without love it is meaningless.

" though I give my body to be burned"

Nothing about being God Almighty there. Simply being a martyr.

Whatever your interpretation of this part of the verse is, it has no foundation in history. We know that Paul didn't give his body to be burned. He was beheaded by the Roman government. So this didn't happen. Why suggest that it did? Again the statement is hypothetical. It didn't happen. Paul is saying that though none of these things happened, even if they did, if they weren't done in love they would be meaningless. It is evident that most, if not all, could not be done. They were exagerrations.

Paul makes no great and mighty claim with those, just like he makes no great and mighty claim regarding having knowledge, having faith, or understanding mysteries. He is clearly bringing up many many things which are possible for us to participate in...including speaking in a heavenly language by gifting of the Holy Spirit...and he is making the point that all of it is secondary to love.

[/quote}
Everything spoken here is secondary to love, that much is true. The claim to have all knowledge is clearly a claim to omniscience which Paul never made. It is hyperbolic hypothetical statement, conditioned by the word "though" or if. He could not nor never would have "all knowledge. NO man ever would or will have all knowledge. That attribute belongs only to God. Even to suggest the possibilty that man could possess it is heresy. The statements were all hypothetical in nature. There is no such thing as a heavenly language, and Paul never said he spoke in one.

Nothing that you have posted disturbs in the least bit the point that the scriptures, and those such as myself and several others on this thread are making, regarding the gift of tongues. You are taking the interpretation of men regarding these passages, found in some commentaries and in some denominational seminaries...men who for whatever reasons are biased against these gifts...and imo taking their word for it, rather than simply reading the scriptures as written by God.

In my explanation to you I have not looked at a commentary. I have taken the Word of God literally. The word "though" makes the statement hypothetical, conditional. That is very simple grammar. Any high school student can see that very clearly. Even my Junior High school daughter can see it. Paul never, never, claimed to speak in an angelic tongue. You cannot get that out of that Scripture. It is impossible. Thus you are the one taking a preconceived idea and forcing it into the natural reading of the Scripture. It doesn't take a commentary to figure this out. Just read it with an objective mind.

This is exactly what the Catholics do regarding what they are told they must believe from the Hierarchy of their false church!

You are the one acting like the Catholic. You are towing the line of the Charismatics and closing your mind to all objective study of the Word of God. I have not taken any denominational teaching here. I have not studied commentaries to come to this conclusion. This is a straightforward conclusion based on my own study of the Word of God. It is so simple. Tongues have ceased because the Bible teaches that it is so. They were a sign. The purpose of the sign is finished, and the sign has been properly removed.

I'm not trying to put you down in the least, brother. I'll proudly stand shoulder to shoulder with you in any number of situations...as you know I have in other threads here at this fine forum site(such as the Catholic ones)...and if some heathen or pagan wants to go toe to toe with you they will have me to deal with as well. I'll "have your back" as the kids say.

I know you will. And I have appreciated that.

But so many brothers and sisters on this thread have given scripture after scripture after scripture after scripture after scripture, and yet you say things like "you have offered no scriptural proof".

Many haven't. One argument I have gotten is look at such and such church and see how it is growning. Sorry, but the Muslims are the fastest growing religion in the world. That doesn't mean they are the ones being blessed of God. Experience is not a valid test of truth.
I often give Scripture, and it is not refuted. The answer comes across with a "But what about this..." It doesn't answer the argument presented.
DHK

 

[Bible-boy]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Bible-boy,

You said, 'However, the only reference you have given make it clear that the exalted Christ alone was present.'

It is hardly orthodox to divide up the Godhead by saying that only Christ was present when Saul was saved. Was the Father and the Holy Spirit off on a vacation, and I say this will all reverence?

I already addressed this. I guess you missed it. So here:

Of couse I believe in traditional orthodox Christain Trinitarian Monothiesm. That is not what is in question here. However, the text of Scripture makes it clear that all three members of the Godhead do not always manifest themselves at the same time and/or in the same place.

For example: In Luke 24:36-49 The Resurrected Christ is speaking to His disciples. He tells them, "I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high" (Luke 24:49, ESV).

Claerly, God the Son, Jesus, was present and speaking to His disciples and God the Holy Spirit was not [manifest] there because Jesus said that He was going to send the promise of the Father (i.e. the Holy Spirit) to them and they were to wait in the city until that happened. It happen in at Pentecost (Acts 2).

Origibally posted by Ray Berrian:
When Jesus was baptized was it just Jesus who was present as He came up out of the water? Matthew 3:16-17 indicates that all three Persons of the Godhead were in attendance. So too in Acts chapter nine. Yes, Jesus was there at the conversion of Saul. But the Holy Spirit and the Father were not up in Heaven all by Themselves.

Nope... you are reading your presupposition into the text of Acts 9. The difference is that Matt. 3:13-17 plainly and clearly states that all three members of the Godhead were present there at the same time (manifest in the physical presence of the Incarnate Christ, the voice of God the Father from heaven, and the Holy Spirit descending in the form of a dove). Acts 9 does not say this same trifold manifestation occurred. It only says that the exalted Christ was there.

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
When Jesus was on earth He was the Personification and reality as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Jesus said in John 10:30, 'I and My Father are one.' So if Jesus was present at Saul's salvation experience, so too was God the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Again, the difference is that the text of Scripture in the passage you reference does not say that each member of the Godhead was manifest at that specific time. It only speaks to the fact that God the Father and God the Son are one (of the exact same essence).

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
I do not think you are saying that God is not Omnipresent are you? Unintentionally, this is what you are telling us.

Nope... that is not at all what I am saying. However, I am saying that when one person of the Triune Godhead is present it does not mean that all three are always manifest right there at the same time.

Go and think.

I already have.

[ December 21, 2005, 06:24 AM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]

 

[Bible-boy]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
When Jesus was on earth He was the Personification and reality as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Jesus said in John 10:30, 'I and My Father are one.' So if Jesus was present at Saul's salvation experience, so too was God the Father and the Holy Spirit.

I do not think you are saying that God is not Omnipresent are you? Unintentionally, this is what you are telling us.

Again, let's follow this line of reasoning out to its logical conclusion. If what you are saying about the nature of the Triune Godhead and God's omnipresence is correct, then because He is everywhere all the time and at the same time we should all be in a continual state of "falling out" (being slain in the Spirit) because His presence is all around us at all times. Right? It simply does not happen. However, we do have two clear biblical examples where people (Saul and John) fell down when they were in the presence of the exalted Christ. Please be sure not to take me out of context here and note what I said in answer to your questions in my immediate previous post.

[ December 21, 2005, 06:18 AM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]

 

[Ray Berrian]

Bible boy,

You sound like a cult in Lancaster Country, Pennsylvania called, "Jesus Only." Are you one of them. Apparently, you are trying to dismanel the Trinity to prove your erring view.

Go check with your theology professor about the Three Persons of the Godhead and see if he allows you to divide up God in three Persons.

That is why when Saul saw the light it was the Godhead who was approaching him as he was knocked or fell to the ground.

Saul only heard about the Lord who he was persecuting and had not yet learned the Trinitarian truth that you are in this passage of Acts nine are trying to deny. The entire Godhead was in the mysterious light.

 

[Ray Berrian]

'Furthermore, follow this line of reasoning out to its logical conclusion. If what you are saying is correct then we should expect to see people "falling out" every time God the Father, God the Son, or God the Holy Spirit have interactions with (or draw near to) people throughout the Bible. However, it simply does not happen.'

Here again you are trying to place God in your mold and say that He has to minister in the venue that you lay down. God ministers to people in diverse ways even in bring people to conviction and convincing them of their sins.

In church you may feel a special closeness to the Lord on one Sunday and your best friend might not always experience what the Lord was doing in your life at that moment.

Remember He is sovereign in His ministrations [I Corinthians 12:11].