Speaking in Tongues Volume 4...

Yes it does need to be repeated. The Great Commission is given in every gospel and in Acts. Not once is is accompanied with signs, except in 2Cor.12:12 where Paul says that the signs are the signs of an apostle. You avoid your own principles of hermeneutics here and take on the same type of interpretative principles that Oneness, Catholics, and COC use.
You defend well Justification by faith,
You refute well the heresy of baptismal regeneration.
You realize that when scores of verses teach that one is "justified by faith alone," and the reader comes across a verse like "Baptism doth also save," you realize that it has another meaning, another context, does not contradict the scores of other verses which say that man is justified by faith.
But now I see you use the same argument as the above groups (COC, Oneness, Catholic, etc.) They cling to their one verse which goes opposite to everything else taught in the Bible, take it out of its context, and base their theology on that verse alone. You disregard all the other places where the Great Commission is used. You disregard all the other contexts in which signs and wonders are used. You hang onto this one verse. The Oneness people could not show the way of salvation outside of the Book of Acts, and you cannot prove your theology without this passage in Mark. Did it ever occur to you that it has a different meaning? That the meaning is tied to the historical context in which the verse is found. Why do you ignore verse 20?

Mark 16:20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.
--And the Apostles went forth and preached every where the Lord working wirh the Apostles and confirming the word with signs following.
--The signs spoken of in the previous verses were the signs of an Apostle and tied to the Apostolic Age. All you need to do is look at the context.
Scripture does not contradict itself. You are making it contradict itself. You are using the same hermenutic that the cults, that you used to refute, used.

Look how you contradict that what you used to post on this board. What follows those who believe:

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."

Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Again you hang on to one verse in the Bible, and go against hundreds of other verses. You are using that same cult-like hermeneutic which you once so despised. What follows belief? Not signs, but rather salvation!!

No I don't disbelieve. I ask for evidence that you cannot provide. If you had any evidence of Biblical signs and wonders (done on a regular basis) then you would provide it.
Peter walked on water. What about today?
Both Christ and the Apostles raised the dead? And today??
Both healed organic diseases--people with obbious infirmities that they had had since birth--like being crippled or blind from birth?
The could heal ALL that came to them.

These signs and wonder do not happen today, and no one on this board has been able to provide any evidence of such.

If they were continuing you would be able to provide evidence but you can't. You can't because they ceased by the end of the first century.

simple rationalization at your convenience.

Rather you reject some of God's promises because you know that God will not protect you. God will not protect you because those gifts were for the first century only--like all the other gifts. But again, your cult-like hermeneutic comes into play here, only emphasizing a very small portion of Scripture in comparison to the whole.

If you exercised any wisdom at all you would stay as far away as possible from the pagan practice of speaking ecstatically--a practice found only among pagan religions. The real Biblical gift was speaking in genuine foreign languages that edified all that were there. The languages were identifiable.

How convenient an answer! So tongues are for all Charismatics today, but drinking deadly poison is for no Charismatic today. Thus not all have all the gifts. If that is your take, here is mine. Not all have all the gifts. Meaning, None have any of the gifts. It is just as valid and just as logical.

You have no evidence--not Biblical, not even experientially. What miracles? What signs? What Biblical tongues? Show me. I have not seen the evidence yet. It appears that most on this board haven't seen anything close to what the Bible describes as signs and wonders or Biblical tongues either.

You are adding to the Scriptures. Jesus did not say that. Jesus said that signs and wonders would follow the Apostles to whom he was speaking with.
Jesus said that salvation would follow or be given to them that believe. "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.
DHK

 

DHK,

.

 

Yeah, we keep forgetting that the Holy Spirit forgot to add "unknown" to "languages", so man had to help him out.

 

Hope of Glory,

.

Hope of Glory said, 'Yeah, we keep forgetting that the Holy Spirit forgot to add "unknown" to "languages", so man had to help him out.'

Dr. Berrian, Th.D.

 

I don't have "presuppositions." I believe what the Bible says. The Bible also correlates with history. The Pentecostal/Charismatic movement did not come into existence until the beginning of the 20th century. By default then, your belief is that the Holy Spirit was dead or at the very least totally inactive for the 1800 years between the end of the first century and the beginning of the 20th century. I don't believe in such heresy. I believe it was Archbishop Sheen that subscribed to the "Death of God" theology. Do you also? Was God dead for 1800 years?

First, read what I said.
I said tongues ceased or began to cease at 70 A.D., for that is when God judged Israel. Tongues was the specific sign to Israel. I have consistenltly said that the other gifts ended near the end of the first century when the Bible was completed. That would be around 98 A.D. with the completion of the Book of Revelation by the Apostle John.
You attack with vain words. I give you Scripture. You refuse to look at the Scripture I give you. You refuse to refute it because you can't.
The signs of an apostle are signs and wonders and the gifts of the Holy Spirit (Heb.2:3,4; 2Cor.12:12). Either you believe the Bible or you don't.
1Cor.14:21 teaches that tongues (foreign languages are a sign to the nation of Israel. Either you believe the Bible or you don't. You must not believe the Bible because you don't have any explanation of these verses.

Gladly--I expect the same from you.

Where do you get this heretical idea from. Glossa means langauge, and that is all. It is wrong for you to add to the word of God and insert the word "ecstatic" in there. Ecstatic speech is a practice of pagans, and only pagans and heretics. It is not a Christian practice. Ye do err not knowing the Scriptures neither the power of God.
The miracle of the Day of Pentecost was that they spoke in other languages as it says in Acts 12:4. Either you believe the Bible or you don't. The languages they spoke in are listed in the same chapter. The Bible clearly says they spoke in different tongues or languages. What do you have to say about that? Lie and say that it didn't happen?? Are you in denial? They spoke in other languages. The Bible says they did.

There isn't a verse in the Bible that encourages one to pray in tongues. The Biblical gift of speaking in languages was given to the church, for the edification of all the church. Like all gifts they were given to the whole church. No gift was ever given for an individual or selfish purpose.

That was indeed one purpose on speaking in foreign languages as Paul went on his missionary journeys, and had need to speak in other languages. But in Corinth there was a misuse of this gift. There wasn't always someone in the congregation that needed it. Thus they spoke in mysteries where no one understood them. No one but God, for God understands all languages. Of course no one, not even God can understand nonsense syllables--that which makes no sense to anyone--gibberish--that fad of Charismatics today.

The very fact that you don't shows that you can't. You cannot give Scripture to back up your opinion because that is all that it is--opinion and not Scriptural truth.

So you don't take the verse in its context. This is a rebuke. Paul says because you are only speaking to yourself and supposedly to God, then don't do it. The gift is to be used for the entire church. If it doesn't edify the whole church the gift is not to be used. It is to edify the entire church. That is the principle.

It doesn't say that. That is a rebuke. Don't use it for prayer or edification for a single person. That is wrong. It is only to be used for the edification of the entire church. Remember you are not permitted to speak in tongues without an interpreter. How then can it be for private prayer?

These are verses dealing with the gift of speaking in a foreign language if you check the Greek. Look carefully at the word "unknown" It is not in the Greek. In your KJV it is in Italics. That means it is not in the Greek. They are languages. They that speak in languages--real languages, foreign languages, national languages, etc. The word is not ecstatic. That is your presupposition. It is adding to the Word of God. It is heresy. It is paganism. It is something that only comes from paganism.
DHK

 

AMEN

DHK

AMEN

 

Don't forget, DHK, the word "unknown" is not in there, but apparently they really were unknown. That can be inferred from Strong's description of "unacquired". That inference can easily be made by experiential activities.

Experience must trump the Bible.

 

DHK,

.

 

Hope of Glory,

Nope, sorry, I can't sit back and let that one pass.

1) If experience contradicts the Bible, and experience "trumps" the Bible, then the Bible is worthless.

2) Your inference about "unacquired" is almost correct; it's more correct to say "unlearned," which also more accurately explains the event in Acts 2. And I have to ask you to forgive me, but I can't find this reference in Strong's about "unacquired." Perhaps I'm using a more condensed version than you?

"Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual [gifts], seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church."

 

DHK,

You ignored totally all of the Scripture on page 9 the third post down, which would say, Ray Berrian.

Like I said you cannot explain all those Scriptures except to butcher them, as though you had little training in Scriptural interpretation.

 

Look and read carefully. I answered each verse, (not necessarily each reference) that you posted.
DHK

 

And the churchs known as "Baptist" came into existance...when?

And "Protestantism" came into existance...when?

Are those two groups illegitamite?


Born again people have understood the truth in spite of the hellish errors of Catholicism for 2000 years now. Some gave their life for it.

All that happened 500 or so years ago, that we call the "protestant reformation", was that God orchestrated an explosion of the great truths truths that Rome had repressed.

In like manner, born again people have been given these gifts by God for 2000 years now.

All that happened 100 or so years ago was that God orchestrated an explosion of these wonderful gifts that had been mostly ignored for a long time.

You applaud the 1st...even though it is a relatively new thing, yet you condemn the 2nd...because IT is a relatively new thing?



Both the great truths of the protestant reformation and the "sign" gifts of the Holy Spirit have been understood and in evidence for 2000 years now, but have seen a "resurgence" in recent times.

Why? I believe its because we are approaching the end of all things. God is doing wonderful, freeing, liberating things in these important times in which we live.

Praise God! \o/

Grace and peace,

Mike </font>[/QUOTE]Some time when you get a chance read a little book called The Reformers and Their Stepchildren by Leonard Verduin. He makes a great case for the fact that there have always been "reformers" who held to the truth of God's Word particularly since the rise of the Roman Catholic Church following Emperor Constantine. Then he goes on to make the case that today's Baptists can be traced back to these various "reforming" groups throughout history.

 

I was using satirical lampoonery to make the exact point that you are stating, simply because no matter how many times you point out that there is no such thing as "unknown" languages, they come back with, "yes, but they are really unknown".

Much like those who claim that salvation is not by works, but faith without works is not faith.

 

My bad; sorry.

 

"Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church."