Speaking in Tongues Volume 4...

[DHK]

Originally posted by D28guy:
Because it doesnt need to be repeated in the other passages. The gifts of the Spirit are brought up in other places then Mark, such as 1st Corinthians and Acts.

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.

And the message included that these signs that He described, would...follow...those...who...believe, not that they would follow you apostles. Then, in adition to that, we find that lo and behold, those very things have been in evidence for 2000 years now.

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!!

You are not only dis-believing the testimony of Christ and the other scriptures, but also what is happening before your very eyes.

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.

"The signs and wonders were the signs and wonders of that age."

Then why are they continueing on? Is God getting old and feeble and He forgot to hit the "stop" button in 70AD?

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.

"You claim by faith promise of speaking in tongues, and do so at any time your heart desires."

No...it is because of the testimony of Gods scriptures.

simple rationalization at your convenience.

"But you fail to claim by faith the promise of taking up deadly serpents or drinking any poisonous substance any time your heart desries. Why the discrepancy?"

Because...just like Christs reprimand of Satan, I reject you guys demanding the same thing of us because I will not "tempt the Lord my God"...as Christ said to Satan.

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.

"You are being hypocritical."

No...we are excercising wisdom.

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.

"You claim one of the promises by faith and yet avoid the others. If all the gifts were for today you would be able to exercise all of them with no problem."

Not all have all the gifts, DHK.

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.

But they aren’t for today.

The testimony of God found in the scriptures, and the evidence of what we can see happening, both contradict what you say.

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.

"They were for the Apostolic Age and ceased at the end of that age."

Jesus said they would follow those who believe. We still have believers, so they are still with us.

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

 

[D28guy]

DHK,

"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."

And I praise God that you and others defend those things well as well.

"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."

But its not one verse!

Its reams and reams of passages of scripture. In the gospels, in Corinthians, in Acts. Alluded to in the old testament.

Its not one verse.

Grace and peace,

Mike

 

[Ray Berrian]

DHK,

You cannot explain these verses as they stand in the Word of God and still believe your presuppositions and present philosophy of Scripture. I say your theory because no where in the Bible does it speak anything about the 'gifts' ending in 70 A.D. In fact a passage in the N.T. says that the Lord weeped over the unbelief of His own Israelite people. You and others like you cannot paint over the Word of God and then give us extra-Biblical ideas, the thoughts of men for us to swallow.

Start explaining brother.

'The Biblical tongues and interpretation has nothing to do with nationalistic langugages, the language of each country. Your first mistake, is because of your presupposition that 'tongues' is a national language.

Tongues were for the edification of the Christian who prays to God through this utterance.

Tongues plus the 'interpretation of tongues' was for proclaiming Biblical truth to the church before they received their epistles from Paul, plus to edify the Body of Christ, the local church--when God speaks through His two people to the congregation. The first person with the 'gift of tongues' and the second Christian to give the 'interpretation of the Divine message.'

I can give you Scripture to back this truth but I doubt if it will assimilate into your mind or heart.

I Corinthians 12:10,28,30
I Corinthians 14:2--the person speaking in 'tongues' is speaking to the Lord not you or the rest of the congregation.

14:4 Tongues is for the edification of the person praying.

14:5 & 14:6 In this verse 6 & 13 & 14. Notice the Apostle Paul says, 'If I pray in an unknown tongue. . .' Also, 18,26,27,39. Here are about 14 verses dealing with this 'gift of the Holy Spirit.'

.

 

[Hope of Glory]

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

 

[Ray Berrian]

Hope of Glory,

You are right about the word, 'unknown' it is not in the Greek. But the word, 'tongue' in the Greek is phonetically sounded, 'glossa' being the basic word. In I Corinthians 14:2 it is the word, 'glossia' meaning as Dr. James Strong says is 'an unacquired tongue,' suggesting a language not connected with any national language or tongue.

We are used to some people ignoring the scholarship of our very best men and women of God. I am sure this will not quell your desire to live within the realm of quasi-spiritual error.

Also, because the Apostle Paul says in the same verse that the person with the 'gift of tongues' speaks 'mysteries' clearly indicates that this 'tongue/language' is not from this earth.

There is some indication, though only said once, that it might be the language of Heaven and of angels. [I Corinthians 13:1a]

.

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.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
You cannot explain these verses as they stand in the Word of God and still believe your presuppositions and present philosophy of Scripture.

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?

I say your theory because no where in the Bible does it speak anything about the 'gifts' ending in 70 A.D. In fact a passage in the N.T. says that the Lord weeped over the unbelief of His own Israelite people. You and others like you cannot paint over the Word of God and then give us extra-Biblical ideas, the thoughts of men for us to swallow.

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.

Start explaining brother.

Gladly--I expect the same from you.

'The Biblical tongues and interpretation has nothing to do with nationalistic langugages, the language of each country. Your first mistake, is because of your presupposition that 'tongues' is a national language.

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.

Tongues were for the edification of the Christian who prays to God through this utterance.

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.

Tongues plus the 'interpretation of tongues' was for proclaiming Biblical truth to the church before they received their epistles from Paul, plus to edify the Body of Christ, the local church--when God speaks through His two people to the congregation. The first person with the 'gift of tongues' and the second Christian to give the 'interpretation of the Divine message.'

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.

I can give you Scripture to back this truth but I doubt if it will assimilate into your mind or heart.

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.

I Corinthians 12:10,28,30
I Corinthians 14:2--the person speaking in 'tongues' is speaking to the Lord not you or the rest of the congregation.

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.

14:4 Tongues is for the edification of the person praying.

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?

14:5 & 14:6 In this verse 6 & 13 & 14. Notice the Apostle Paul says, 'If I pray in an unknown tongue. . .' Also, 18,26,27,39. Here are about 14 verses dealing with this 'gift of the Holy Spirit.'.

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

 

[Rev. Lowery]

AMEN

DHK

AMEN

 

[Hope of Glory]

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.

 

[Ray Berrian]

DHK,

Your theory is so far off the scope I am not going to explain line for line because the truth has been reject by you.

But I do want to say have you ever prayed a private prayer in church? This is what Paul meant in I Cor. 14:2. The prayer was a mystery even to the person praying the prayer. Though it was wrong to do this some did do this, and some do it yet today in churches. This is wrong unless someone can 'interpret the message from the Lord God.' Though I agree with you that 'the gift of tongues' should not be spoken in church unless there is an 'interpretation of tongues' which will edify the entire congregation. But, even in this you and I are speaking about two completely different ideas.

If tongues where a language of nations then God could give this to missionaries so they would not have to take linguistics before going to their mission station. Your theory is wrong or this would be used of the Lord by all missionaries.

.

 

[Don]

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."

 

[Ray Berrian]

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.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
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

 

[D28guy]

DHK,

"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."

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

 

[Bible-boy]

Originally posted by D28guy:
DHK,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"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."

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.

 

[Hope of Glory]

Originally posted by Don:
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."

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.

 

[D28guy]

Brian,

"Hi Mike, I am very sorry I missed your answer on page two. My apologies for saying that you hadn't answered me."

No problem at all.

"In 1 cor. 12:7, which is obviously before 1 Cor. 14 Paul gives an intruction on the Spiritual Gifts. He very directly says that the Gifts are given as a benefit for the whole "body".

Actually, in 1st Corinthians he says that the more profitable thing in a gathered assembly is for the gift of tongues to be interpreted. He does not condemn the one who speaks in a heavenly(or "tongues of angels) tongue as a private prayer language, and is personally edified as a result.

"Earlier in 1 Cor. he also said that we are not to seek to please ourselves but our goal is to love others as more important as ourselves."

I agree. But that does not mean we are to refuse to be personally edified or blessed by anything.

Do you refuse to gather in a christian assembly because you are personally edified by that?

Do you refuse to have personal devotions at home because you are personally edified by that.

Do you refuse to listen to worship music in the car while driving because you are personally edified by that?

If you say no to those questions, why try and put your brothers and sisters on a guilt trip for speaking in a private prayer language because they are personally edified by it?

"In one of the other threads I used the Corintian verses and others to bring this point to light. Anyway, self-edification by use of Gifts is not taught in the Bible but Paul clearly said that the Gifts edify the "body"."

Thats not true. I have posted the passages.

Here, I'll repost them again, by way of "copy and paste" from my page 2 post...

-------------------------------------------------------------
14:1
Pursue love, and desire spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy.

14:2
For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries.

There is simply no rebuke there.

"14:3
But he who prophesies speaks edification and exhortation and comfort to men.

14:4
He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church.

Again, not even the hint of a rebuke.

"I wish you all spoke with tongues, but even more that you prophesied; for he who prophesies is greater than he who speaks with tongues, unless indeed he interprets, that the church may receive edification."

There is no rebuke there. Both tongues in an assembly for the edification of all, and a personal prayer language for personal edification, are identified as 100% legitimate. Along with that the point is made that to be interpreted is more profitable in a gathered assembly.

More...

"14:13
Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret.

14:14
For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful.

14:15
What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding.

Clearly, both are perfectly acceptable.

"14:16
Otherwise, if you bless with the spirit, how will he who occupies the place of the uninformed say "Amen" at your giving of thanks, since he does not understand what you say?

14:17
For you indeed give thanks well, but the other is not edified.

Clearly, the one praying in tongues personally is giving thanks well, but its not best for a gathered assembly.

In both passages, there is absolutly no rebuke there. Both tongues in an assembly for the edification of all, and a personal prayer language for personal edification, are identified as 100% legitimate. The rebuke must be read into it by those who are distressed by this gift of the Spirit, for some odd reason.

Along with the complete legitimacy of both forms of this gift, the the point is made that to be interpreted is more profitable in a gathered assembly.

"Paul was speaking in a negative tone."

Only in the sense that the more profitable way is for the tongues to be interpreted in a gathered assembly.

"He continued that tone and rebuked those who were speaking in tongues to self-edify or better, who after speaking in uninterpreted tongues were edified."

He simply never did that. Its just not there. I just quoted the passages of scripture. No rebuke exists in these passages of Gods scriptures.
--------------------------------------------------------------

I would argue that self-edifing in anyway is not Biblical.

Then having a personal prayer time, or personal devotion time, or listening to worship music by yourself is not biblical???

"Now, I agree that prayer, bible reading, singing God's praises, do make us feel closer to god and can lift our spirits and give us joy."

But you are against it if one brings one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit into it???

You are saying...

"Its perfectly OK to be personally blessed, just dont ever let the Holy Spirit be involved!"

"But that feeling we get should never take over the more important thing, which is to love others and give them more value then we give ourselves."

I agree! We pentecostals and charismatics agree! We are not against any of that in the least.

"If we seek to edify ourselves we open ourselves up to "pride"."

Yeah...and if we help others we open ourselves up to pride.

"Wow, I sure did help a lot of people today. I sure did put others before myself a lot today. I sure was "selfless" today. Why, I've never been so selfless as I was today!"

Brother, the work of the Holy Spirit is to "glorify Christ"! If you bring the Holy Spirit into anything we are involved in, and we become prideful, the fault is ours...and not the Holy Spirits.

"How many Tongue speakers have felt that based on their tongue speaking they are closer to God then someone that doesn't speak in tongues?"

I have no idea.

How many people believe that because they are a missionary, or because they are a Sunday school teacher, or because they are a deacon or they are a pastor that they are closer to God?

"Many, and that is pride."

Sure is. Just like all those other non-tongue talkers I mentioned.

"I say that because I have been told that my wife and I have not been Baptized in the Holy Spirit and we are missing out on a blessing."

Well, you are missing out on a blessing.

Just like I've never been to a foreign country to preach the gospel so I'm missing out on that blessing. I've never spoken in tongues so I'm missing out on that blessing just like you!

But God has gifted me in other areas and those who speak in tongues, but dont have my gift, are missing out on this blessing that I experience.

And those that spoke with you might be missing out on the blessing that comes as a result of areas where you and your wife have been gifted.

"If one person has been baptized by God's Holy Spirit it is easy to see that they would feel they are closer to god then one who hasn't."

Just exactly like missionaries, Sunday school teachers, pastors or evangelists.

"No, Paul would not have spoken about edifing ourselves in a positive light, especially based on the fact that he was speaking about Spiritual gifts.

As I hope you can see from the excerpt I have shared here from the previous post, there simply...is...no...rebuke...anywhere...in Pauls teachings there. Only saying that the one is more profitable in a gathered assembly.

Grace and peace to you,

Mike

 

[D28guy]

Bible-Boy,

"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've never read that book, but I have read material that was similar to what you describe. I'll try and find it somewhere.

God has never been without a witness, has he not?

They may have been small in number, but through the centuries there have always been little pockets of Gods true born again people. Some of them looked very "Baptist", some looked very "evangelical", or very "Church of Christish", or "Pentecostalish" or "Charismatic".

But they stayed small of course....

"Fear not, little flock. For it is your Fathers good pleasure to give you the Kingdom!"

...but then its kinda hard to grow when the men in armor keep coming and killing everyone, isnt it?

Praise God...there is coming a day.

God bless,

Mike

 

[Don]

Originally posted by Hope of Glory:
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.

 

[Don]

Posted by D28Guy:
Actually, in 1st Corinthians he says that the more profitable thing in a gathered assembly is for the gift of tongues to be interpreted. He does not condemn the one who speaks in a heavenly(or "tongues of angels) tongue as a private prayer language, and is personally edified as a result.

...But that does not mean we are to refuse to be personally edified or blessed by anything.

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

 

[D28guy]

Don,

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

Pentecostals, Charismatics, and I personally wholeheartedly agree completly with that.

There is not the slightest contradition between that and someone gifted with a personal prayer language, and being personally edified by that.

Just like someone having a personal devotion time and being edified by that.

God bless,

Mike