Speaking in Tongues Volume 4...

[DHK]

Originally posted by D28guy:
DHK,

Here is some good information concerning the sign gifts after apostolic times.

I dont have a link...it was sent to me as is. I was told that the book this came from continued on right on through the centuries after this...right up until current times.

This is just an excerpt.

Since I cant give a link a moderator may delete it before you see it. If so I'll send it to you through PM or in an email.

Here it is...

The Charismatics have their own view of history, sometimes revised according to their own liking. But to be fair, as you know when discussing things with the Catholics the Church Fathers were confused on many things. Sometimes they seemed to be saying one thing, and sometimes another. I posted a link previously which gave plenty of evidence, and quotes from the church fathers which indicated that they were totally against speaking in tongues. So who to believe? I am not prone to believe the Charismatics version of history because of all the outlandish claims they make and false claims they are already caught up in. False prophets such as Benny Hinn abound in the Charismatic movement.
DHK

 

[D28guy]

Brian,

(I have intalicised your scripture references)

Mike, Below are verses in the order they were written in 1 Cor. Remember, in the Corinth church they were so messed up that people were standing up in the assembly and cursing the name of Jesus.

They were also being divisive, getting drunk during the Lords Supper, and being permissive of sexual immorality.

" Paul was being forward to them and rebuking them.

There are without question rebukes in this epistle. I have never denied that.

"Read the verses below and see that the edifying of oneself, in this context is wrong.
Read this verse from 2 Cor 2, which shows what Paul was thinking when he wrote 1 Cor.


"4For out of much affliction and anguish of heart I (F)wrote to you with many tears; not so that you would be made sorrowful, but that you might know the love which I have especially for you.

Paul wrote 1 Cor. in tears. The evidence is overwhelming that the whole of 1 Cor. is a rebuke and must be read as such.

Only...when...he...is...rebuking them.

How about this, from the same epistle...

"1:4
I thank my God always concerning you for the grace of God which was given to you by Christ Jesus,

1:5
that you were enriched in everything by Him in all utterance and all knowledge,

1:6
even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you,

1:7
so that you come short in no gift, eagerly waiting for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ,

1:8
who will also confirm you to the end, that you may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Is he rebuking them there?

And he is not rebuking them when he wrote...

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.

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 he is not rebuking them for speaking in tongues, even as a personal prayer language. He is simply instructing them as to what is best in a gathered assembly.

"1 Cor 10
23(AL)All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable All things are lawful, but not all things (AM)edify.
24Let no one (AN)seek his own good, but that of his neighbor."

Could agree more. Pentecostals and charismatics are in full agreement.

"33just as I also (AZ)please all men in all things, (BA)not seeking my own profit but the profit of the many, (BB)so that they may be saved

1 Cor. 12
7But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit (L)for the common good.

Ditto.

1 Cor. 14
4He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.

And where is Pauls rebuke?

Paul told them...

"For you indeed give thanks well, but the other is not edified.

...concerning a personal and un-interpreted prayer language.

So he is clearly not rebuking them for something that he compliments them for doing well.

He simply shares that that praying in such a way in a gathered assembly is not the best way.

"Mike, the verses below are all very negative and directly follow the verses you say are not negative."

All of these verses are negative when they clearly are. Not when they clearly arent.

"We must stay in context to understand what Paul is saying. Too many people slide right by the obvious."

You took the words right out of my mouth!

I was going to post that to you.

1 cor. 14
6Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?

7And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped?

8For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?

9So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.

10There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification.

11Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.

12Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.

I couldnt agree more. Pentecostals and charismatics couldnt agree more. To have a message in tongues interpreted is the better way in a gathered group.

Grace and peace,

Mike

 

[Ray Berrian]

DHK,

You said, 'The Charismatics have their own view of history, sometimes revised according to their own liking.'

Do you mean like the Baptists tracing their spiritual history back to John the Baptist? Or do you mean like they trace Christian history back to the Apostolic times?

Sorry, no baptismal tanks were found right out side the Philippian jailor's prison when he got saved, because people had to go to the well for water to drink, cook, and wash clothing. Yes, they had to carry the water home on their heads or by hand with their wooden pales[John 4:15]. Do you remember the women and the well who ignored the 'woman at the well' who had several men in her life? And please, we do not anyone saying that newly converted people to the Christian faith could be immersed in public pools. The Pharisees and Sadducees would have pronounced that unclean.

Nevertheless, many churches have accepted three modes of water baptism. Sprinkling, immersion and pouring of the water over the head of the convert.

A lot of religious groups twist history to meet their denominational needs.

.

 

[Ray Berrian]

Someone said, 'so that you come short in no gift, eagerly waiting for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ.'

This means that the Corinthian church was blessed with people who had so many gifts of the Spirit. In I Corinthians 14:12 God speaking through Paul says that this church was 'zealous of spiritual gifts.' This is what is meant where Paul says, '. . . so that you come short in no gift, eagerly waiting for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ'

.

 

[D28guy]

BaptistBoard member Ed Edwards posted a little something on one of the previous volumes of this topic that I thought was good.

Here it is...

""Let me see. Paul wrote in 56AD some instructions that are for Jews only. In 70AD the instructions were invalid, for these sign gifts passed away
when Jesus came the first time.


So from 56-70 = 24 years, we have an instruction.

In 325AD when the canon was finalized, the 'instruction' written in 56AD but only good until 70AD was included.

255 years after the instruction was invalid
it was finally legally included.

Sorry, can you see I'm not buying this at all?"

Mike

 

[EdSutton]

Less my own addenda the two question I wrote are floating. I'll repeat:

" One was a statement, to the effect that, 'Paul was more spiritual than some (or the) others. - whatever that means, in this thread. Outta' curiosity, where does Paul (or Luke or Peter, writing about him) ever make any claim to be 'more spiritual' than anyone?

Second, when speaking of I Cor.14:4, I noticed that text says that that "...he who speaks... edifies himself...". Someone wrote to the effect of self-edifying is important. Where is that found in Scripture? I checked my concordance, but am not able to figure out from whence this arises. I see where the active sense is used that we are to edify the church and other individuals. I see where the passive sense is used and we are edified. Aside from stretching I Cor.14:4 like a rubber band around the aforementioned barrel, I see nothing that implies edify self, and in fact I would suggest that Scripture seems to warn against exactly that."
Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Less my own addenda the two question I wrote are floating. I'll repeat:

" One was a statement, to the effect that, 'Paul was more spiritual than some (or the) others. - whatever that means, in this thread. Outta' curiosity, where does Paul (or Luke or Peter, writing about him) ever make any claim to be 'more spiritual' than anyone?

Second, when speaking of I Cor.14:4, I noticed that text says that that "...he who speaks... edifies himself...". Someone wrote to the effect of self-edifying is important. Where is that found in Scripture? I checked my concordance, but am not able to figure out from whence this arises. I see where the active sense is used that we are to edify the church and other individuals. I see where the passive sense is used and we are edified. Aside from stretching I Cor.14:4 like a rubber band around the aforementioned barrel, I see nothing that implies edify self, and in fact I would suggest that Scripture seems to warn against exactly that."
Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Sorry, Double entry and posting. That was not intentional.

The word addenda was intentional and correct. I DID NOT mean agenda.
Ed

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Do you mean like the Baptists tracing their spiritual history back to John the Baptist? Or do you mean like they trace Christian history back to the Apostolic times?

As I said: Back to Apostolic times.

Sorry, no baptismal tanks were found right out side the Philippian jailor's prison when he got saved, because people had to go to the well for water to drink, cook, and wash clothing. Yes, they had to carry the water home on their heads or by hand with their wooden pales[John 4:15]. Do you remember the women and the well who ignored the 'woman at the well' who had several men in her life? And please, we do not anyone saying that newly converted people to the Christian faith could be immersed in public pools. The Pharisees and Sadducees would have pronounced that unclean.

And was the Philippian jailor a Pharisee or a Sadducee? How about the Ethiopian Eunuch, the woman possessed with a spirit in Acts 16? Lydia, the seller of purple? These were all Pharisees in your mind? Baptizing in a font is not a Baptist distinctive. Either learn about the Baptist faith first and then post intelligently or don't post at all.
It is not that you can't post. You just show your lack of knowledge and embarass yourself in public.

Proverbs 29:11 A fool uttereth all his mind: but a wise man keepeth it in till afterwards.

When "Pharisees" like Saul got saved, they left their Judaism and their old religious system behind and became a Christian. They were no longer bound to what was clean and unclean. Do you not remeber Peter and John and the disciples walking through the corn fields plucking corn on the Sabbath day with unwashen hands? There they had violated two of the levitical laws. They also were Jews.

I have baptized converts in rivers. There is nothing that constrains us to use baptismal tanks.

Nevertheless, many churches have accepted three modes of water baptism. Sprinkling, immersion and pouring of the water over the head of the convert.

Many churches, yes; but not Baptist churches--not churches that held to those distinctives which we hold to be Baptistic.

A lot of religious groups twist history to meet their denominational needs.

And so they do. Roman Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Church of Christ, are all among them.
DHK

 

[Ray Berrian]

DHK,

I did not think I would have to explain to you that Pharisees and Sadducees were groups that evolved out of Judaism and were not aligned with Jesus' beliefs and teachings.

The Jewish leadership tried at every point to stop Jesus' new teaching and sect, as they viewed it. I was saying they would not allow for new Christians to be immersed in their public fountains. It just would not have happened.

So where did all these converts get all their water for immersion? Most usually they immediately were baptised in water.

So Baptists trace their faith back to Apostolic times as you said.

This is no better than Assembly of God churches and Pentecostal churches tracing their start back to the Day of Pentecost.

In both cases this is error and is ascribing teachings about denominationalism back to first century Christianity.

Nevertheless, there are good Christians within Baptist churches as well as the Assembly of God churches.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
DHK,

I did not think I would have to explain to you that Pharisees and Sadducees were groups that evolved out of Judaism and were not aligned with Jesus' beliefs and teachings.

The Jewish leadership tried at every point to stop Jesus' new teaching and sect, as they viewed it. I was saying they would not allow for new Christians to be immersed in their public fountains. It just would not have happened.

How do you disallow someone from being saved?
How do you disallow the spread of Christianity?
Please read Church history, and your Bible!

Acts 8:3-4 As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison. Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word.

Some of the greatest revivals taking place today are taking place in third world countries that are either under communist rule, like in China, or under Islamic nations. You may not read about them often. But many are turning to Christ in these nations. And yet for a Muslim to turn to Christ in an Islamic republic such as Pakistan, they face the death penalty for converting to Christ as is often evidenced by their baptism. Even before that time their own families may take it upon themselves to murder them because of the reproach that they have brought upon the family name.
Such was the case in the time of the Apostles. A new convert was not only persecuted by their own family, the Jewish nation, but also by the Roman government. So what! You cannot prevent the salvation of a soul. You cannot prevent the spread of Christianity! Neither could the Pharisees and Sadducees prevent the resurrection of Christ!

So where did all these converts get all their water for immersion? Most usually they immediately were baptised in water.

Did you read about John and Jesus baptizing in the Jordan River? It flows "deep and wide."

So Baptists trace their faith back to Apostolic times as you said.

I do not believe in "apostolic succession." I believe that in every age there were believers of like faith and order such as we are--those that held to the basic tenets of the same faith that Baptists hold today. God has never left himself without a witness.

This is no better than Assembly of God churches and Pentecostal churches tracing their start back to the Day of Pentecost.

The Assembly of God churches didn't come into existence until the 20th century. Their history can be well documented.

In both cases this is error and is ascribing teachings about denominationalism back to first century Christianity.

No it is not error. Pentecostalism had its beginnings in the first part of the 20th century. That is a fact. The Assemblies of God grew out of that movement. Look it up in encyclopedias and other church history books. Look the facts up for yourself. Get an education.

Nevertheless, there are good Christians within Baptist churches as well as the Assembly of God churches.

There may be good and bad within both. No church is perfect. But the Assembly of God holds to aberrant error. the error of speaking in tongues and their position of the gifts of the Spirit, is contrary to the Word of God, and puts them dangerously close to becoming a cult, like Oneness Pentecostal have become.
DHK

 

[Ray Berrian]

DHK,

I do not think you have trouble understanding English, you simply ignore what other people say to you. Most of Israel/Palestine is not noted in every part of their land as being like the many lakes in Minnesota. Yes, there was the Jordan River but not every new Christian could be immediately transported to said river for immersion. So I said so where did all these converts get all their water for immersion? Most usually the new converts were immediately baptised in water

.

You said, 'Did you read about John and Jesus baptizing in the Jordan River? It flows "deep and wide."

Correct, but the Jordan River does not fork going toward the Mediterranean Sea, nor did it go toward the Gaza area or toward Egypt.

You said, 'I believe that in every age there were believers of like faith and order such as we are--those that held to the basic tenets of the same faith that Baptists hold today.'

So beyond immersion are you suggesting Baptists were Calvinists or Arminians, as to their basic theology? For your theory above I will need to see your documentation in a volume on Christian theology and not one that is put out by a Baptist Press.

.

You said, 'The Assembly of God churches didn't come into existence until the 20th century. Their history can be well documented.'

And Pentecostals will claim the same thing as you do about a basic Baptist faith going back to the time of the apostles and for Pentecostals --the Day of Pentecost. Obviously, Paul believed in 'tongues' and the 'interpretation' as Pentecostals believe today.

I just read about how present day Pentecostal came into mainstream Christianity. There roots were within Methodism, then to the holiness churches, and then people who believed and experienced 'tongues' & 'interpretation' broke off from the holiness movement. The biggest beginnings began in California though it started in the mid-west of our United States.

In both cases this is error and is ascribing teachings about denominationalism back to first century Christianity.
The major break came back in 1517 when Luther broke away from the mother church, and yet there were always a remnant who believed on in the Bible and had a genuine love for Jesus our Lord back to apostolic times, including the Waldenseans

.

You said, 'No it is not error. Pentecostalism had its beginnings in the first part of the 20th century. That is a fact. The Assemblies of God grew out of that movement. Look it up in encyclopedias and other church history books. Look the facts up for yourself. Get an education.'

Yes, both of us are always learning if we are growing in our understanding of Christian history and other things as well

.

Berrian, Th.D.

 

[Don]

Originally posted by D28guy:
And he is not rebuking them when he wrote...
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.
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 he is not rebuking them for speaking in tongues, even as a personal prayer language. He is simply instructing them as to what is best in a gathered assembly.

Dude, stop bolding the parts you like, and bold the whole thing.

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.

That "and" conjunction means "both," as in "I'll do both of the things mentioned."

One other thing: You started quoting at verse 15; take a look at verse 14 to put verse 15 in context:

For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

-----

You honestly don't see the rebuke in Chapter 14? It's pretty obvious from all of 1 Cor 14 that they're being chastised for doing something incorrectly. I mean, look at verse 1:

Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.

Then there's verse 3:

But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.

Rather that ye may prophesy...to provide edification, and exhortation, and comfort. Looks like we're supposed to be thinking about our fellow men, not ourselves.

I would that ye all spake with tongues but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

Hey, there's that emphasis on thinking about our fellow men rather than ourselves again.

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

Whoa, there it is again.

Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.

Wow, yet another emphasis on others instead of ourselves.

Let all things be done unto edifying.

And yet another.

Shucks, let me throw just a few at you:
Matthew 22:36-39 Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Romans 15:1 We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves.

James 1:27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

Remember, that's just a few. With all this scripture that emphasizes we should be concerned about others, I have to wonder where all this justification for a "personal" prayer language came from.

 

[Ray Berrian]

'I have to wonder where all this justification for a "personal" prayer language came from.'

The answer is from the Lord God. Read I Corinthians 14:2a,b.

'For he who speaks in an unknown tongue speaks not to men (people) but to God.'

Oh, 'and forbid not to speak with tongues' [I Corinthians 14:39d]

Do you suggest that we forbid people from speaking in tongues, if the Lord has gifted them in this part of their spiritual life?

.

 

[Don]

Ray, read the post and then the question again.

The emphasis is on doing something for others; the question is then, why are you encouraging people to seek a "personal experience" and therefore emphasizing doing something for the self?

Do I want to be part of a church where tongues is spoken, and not be able to partake of that gift? On the contrary; I'd feel left out, and would examine myself to find out why I'm not "being blessed." I would be seeking that gift, possibly to the exclusion of all else.

Don't you see? Encouraging someone to seek a gift for individual fulfillment is contrary to what 1 Corinthians 14 is all about.

Do I forbid speaking in tongues? Nope. Do I encourage people to seek a blessing for themselves? Rather, I encourage them to be a blessing to others, for in this manner will they receive blessings.

 

[D28guy]

Don,

"Dude, stop bolding the parts you like, and bold the whole thing.

Dude, your free to not bold if you dont want to. I'm free to bold certain parts if I want to.

And I'm bolding the parts that I want to emphasise. Have you ever noticed how in normal conversation its common for people to raise their voice a little, or maybe..speak..a..little..slower.. when saying the part they want to emphasise?

Do you say to them...

"Dude, use even modulation when you speak, and never change the pace of your speaking"?

Comprende?

"That "and" conjunction means "both," as in "I'll do both of the things mentioned."

One other thing: You started quoting at verse 15; take a look at verse 14 to put verse 15 in context:

OK, here is verse 14 and 15...

"14:14

For if I pray in another language, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful.
14:15

What then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with my understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with my understanding."

Adding verse 14 does not effect my point in any way shape or form.

You honestly don't see the rebuke in Chapter 14? It's pretty obvious from all of 1 Cor 14 that they're being chastised for doing something incorrectly. I mean, look at verse 1:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy."

</font>[/QUOTE]Paul is telling them that prophesying is more profitable in a gathered assembly. Just as he has been telling them that speaking in tongues, with the interpretation, is more profitable in a gathered assembly. I'm not argueing against that, and never have. Pentecostals do not have a problem with that. Charismatics do not have a problem with that.

Then there's verse 3:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort."

Rather that ye may prophesy...to provide edification, and exhortation, and comfort. Looks like we're supposed to be thinking about our fellow men, not ourselves.</font>[/QUOTE]I have never argued against that. I myself, Pentecostals, and Charismatics are in total agreement with that.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"I would that ye all spake with tongues but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying."

Hey, there's that emphasis on thinking about our fellow men rather than ourselves again.</font>[/QUOTE]Yeah, I know. Its something the scriptures speak about multitudes of times. In the old testament, gospels, epistles. Christ was real big on that issue.

(by the way, whats the deal with all of this bolding you are using. STOP THAT!)

I have never argued against what you are bringing up here. Pentecostals, and Charismatics are very strong on that principle. Among the strongest I've ever encountered, to be honest.

The gift of speaking in tongues, in all it variations, is not in conflict with that at all. Paul is not saying to them "Quit speaking in tongues! Its evil!", as some here would want us to believe. He was telling them...clearly...CLEARLY...that all forms of tongues are legitimate and good, and that they "do well" to seek that gift...in all its variations.

But when in a gathered assembly, its better to give an interpretation.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church."

Whoa, there it is again.</font>[/QUOTE]I know, I know! Its wonderful, isnt it!

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue."

Wow, yet another emphasis on others instead of ourselves.</font>[/QUOTE]I cant get enough of it, can you? And I'm glad Pentecostals and Charismatics are so strong on that as well. Tongues of course, when properaly used, do not contradict any of this in the least.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"Let all things be done unto edifying."

And yet another.</font>[/QUOTE]Yep.

Shucks, let me throw just a few at you:

Matthew 22:36-39 Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Romans 15:1 We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves.

James 1:27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

Great passages of scripture there!

Remember, that's just a few. With all this scripture that emphasizes we should be concerned about others, I have to wonder where all this justification for a "personal" prayer language came from.

OK...can I assume you are against having a personal devotional and prayer time each day, and being personally edified by it?

You are against listening to worship music while driving in your car, and being personally edified by it?

You are against lifting your arms(or not lifting them) and soaking in the blessings of God as your heart worships Him during the Worship time at your church, and being personally edified by that?

If you say "of course I'm not against that" to all of those, then you dont have any case at all against being personally edified by a personal prayer language in an unknown tongue.

The only problem Paul is adressing is believers gathering and everyone is speaking in this way, no interpretation is given, and its left just like that. In a gathered assembly, either those speaking in that way should do it quietly to themselves, of if they "broadcast" it, an interpretation should be given.

God bless,

Mike

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
I do not think you have trouble understanding English, you simply ignore what other people say to you. Most of Israel/Palestine is not noted in every part of their land as being like the many lakes in Minnesota. Yes, there was the Jordan River but not every new Christian could be immediately transported to said river for immersion. So I said so where did all these converts get all their water for immersion? Most usually the new converts were immediately baptised in water

.
Israel isn't even as big as Minnesota!!

Israel is one of the tiniest nations on the face of the earth... only about 8,000 sq. miles, 2½ times the size of Rhode Island and only slightly larger than the Canary Islands! It is only 260 miles at its longest, has a 112-mile coastline, is 60 miles at its widest, and only between 3 and 9 miles at its narrowest.

I don't think people would have a problem finding a place to be baptized between the Dead Sea, the Sea of Galilee, the Jordan River, and the Mediterranean Sea, as well as many other water outlets and bodies of water in this tiny land.

Correct, but the Jordan River does not fork going toward the Mediterranean Sea, nor did it go toward the Gaza area or toward Egypt.

The Ethiopian Eunoch was immersed in the desert while on his way back to Egypt. So?
If you want to start a thread on baptism so be it. Go ahead. But this thread is on tongues. Why the red herring?

You said, 'I believe that in every age there were believers of like faith and order such as we are--those that held to the basic tenets of the same faith that Baptists hold today.'

So beyond immersion are you suggesting Baptists were Calvinists or Arminians, as to their basic theology? For your theory above I will need to see your documentation in a volume on Christian theology and not one that is put out by a Baptist Press.

Go the C/A forum and see. You will find Baptists in both camps, and some in neither.

You said, 'The Assembly of God churches didn't come into existence until the 20th century. Their history can be well documented.'

And Pentecostals will claim the same thing as you do about a basic Baptist faith going back to the time of the apostles and for Pentecostals --the Day of Pentecost. Obviously, Paul believed in 'tongues' and the 'interpretation' as Pentecostals believe today.

No, not as the Pentecostals do today. The Pentecostal movement began in the beginning of the 20th century. You might call it the advent of the "Gibberish Movement." Paul never spoke in gibberish. He spoke in actual foreign langauges--national languages.

I just read about how present day Pentecostal came into mainstream Christianity. There roots were within Methodism, then to the holiness churches, and then people who believed and experienced 'tongues' & 'interpretation' broke off from the holiness movement. The biggest beginnings began in California though it started in the mid-west of our United States.

Yes, you are partly right there. Methodism began with Charles Wesley, who was very "methodic" in his theology, in his study, in his devotions, etc. Wesley required discipline in the Christian life, as their should be.
Out of the Methodist movement came the holiness movement, with their belief in entire sanctification. But by the time the holiness movement was born, Methodism was well established. In other words, the holiness movement is relatively recent compared to Methodism. Out of the Holiness Movement came the Pentecostal Movement as you say (which began near the beginning of the first century). The progressive thinking was that to gain sanctification, or to get to that stage of greater spirituality one had to speak in tongues to do it. And thus the Pentecostal Movement was eventually born when it all climaxed around the beginning of the 20th century. Again, Pentecostal history is not that old.

In both cases this is error and is ascribing teachings about denominationalism back to first century Christianity.

AOG is a denomination with a definite beginning. There are varying views on the beginning of Baptists. Under the Baptist name there are many kinds, some denominational (SBC) and some not. I do not belong to a denomination. I never have since I have been saved. The Apostle Paul didn't establish denominations. He didn't establish AOG churches nor Pentecostal churches. The first distinctive of the Baptist faith is that the Bible is our sole authority of faith and practice; not our experieences as most Charismatics believe. You yourself have demonstrated the same thing. "It must be true because I have experienced it," is your basic theology, or because they are good people who have exerienced it. The experience has more authority than the Word of God in your mind.

The major break came back in 1517 when Luther broke away from the mother church, and yet there were always a remnant who believed on in the Bible and had a genuine love for Jesus our Lord back to apostolic times, including the Waldenseans.

The Waldenses existed long before the Lutherans and long before the Reformation ever took place, possibly as far back as the Apostle's themselves, and up until the 12th century. They have absolutely nothing to do with Luther's religion. Luther was a Catholic, who tried to reform the Catholic Church from within. It was the Catholic Church that kicked him out, but he never completely divested himself of all Catholic doctrine. He "protested" against much of it, but still retained some of it, like infant baptism, and a form of transubstantiation.
Yet your one stattement is true. There has always been, in every age, true believers, faithful to the Word of God. Those believers have been the Baptist forefathers. A Baptist is simply a Bible-believing Christian, when you get right down to basics. We add nothing to the Bible; we take nothing away.

You said, 'No it is not error. Pentecostalism had its beginnings in the first part of the 20th century. That is a fact. The Assemblies of God grew out of that movement. Look it up in encyclopedias and other church history books. Look the facts up for yourself. Get an education.'

Yes, both of us are always learning if we are growing in our understanding of Christian history and other things as well

As long as one is open to the truth.
DHK

 

[Don]

Man, I did not mean to get caught up in this discussion.

Mike (D28), check out my response to Ray Berrian, page 13.

 

[EdSutton]

Always a pleasure to see one take the bait someone tossed out. But I got two observations/questions. What does the length and/or direction of the flow of the Jordan have to do with any 'question of "tongues'"?
What does the size of the font used have top do with whether or not someone answered the question or correctly cited something? FTR, I would suggest that "'proper internet protocol'" has absolutely nothing to do with Scripture, or its interpretation.
What does the citing about the place of and what was the law in Matthew 32 (uh, excuse me I think I musta' mislocated this- I mean Mat.39:36-22 or something like that anyway)have to do with a question about 'tongues'? Certainly the passage in Matthew 22: 22-39 (should include verse 40 for the context, and yes, I could find and cite correctly to start with, but did that for effect) has an awful lot to do with loving God and loving your neighbor, but nothing to do with the original premise, as far as I can see.

My feeling are not hurt, and I'm not upset, but I still would like an answer to the questions I now pose for the third time:

" Less my own addenda the two question I wrote are floating. I'll repeat:

" One was a statement, to the effect that, 'Paul was more spiritual than some (or the) others. - whatever that means, in this thread. Outta' curiosity, where does Paul (or Luke or Peter, writing about him) ever make any claim to be 'more spiritual' than anyone?

Second, when speaking of I Cor.14:4, I noticed that text says that that "...he who speaks... edifies himself...". Someone wrote to the effect of self-edifying is important. Where is that found in Scripture? I checked my concordance, but am not able to figure out from whence this arises. I see where the active sense is used that we are to edify the church and other individuals. I see where the passive sense is used and we are edified. Aside from stretching I Cor.14:4 like a rubber band around the aforementioned barrel, I see nothing that implies edify self, and in fact I would suggest that Scripture seems to warn against exactly that.""

I submit that these are (still) fair questions and germane to the topic.
Ed

 

[atestring]

Ed
Jude 20 talks about building up yourself in your most holy faith, Praying in the Holy Ghost.