***That is a big IF There is no one that is speaking in a heavenly or angelic language. There is no such thing, at least as far as humans are concerned. Angels speak in the languages of angels; humans speak in the languages of humans, and when a human claims to speak in an angel's language he is grossly deceived. ***
So the question is, who should I believe, you or the apostle Paul in divinely inspired scripture. Show me chapter and verse from scripture for your assertion that no one speaks angelic language, or that there is no angelic language.
Paul was the one who suggested speaking in the tongues of angels. Based on the way the passage is worded, a reasonable man would at the very least leave open the possibility of speaking in tongues of angels. Your opinions in the above paragraph are not based on scripture. Please do not try to 'explain away' the verses we are discussing instead of really dealing with them.
***I don't "try" to make it say that. It is my conviction that with honest and objective Bible study that that is what the Bible teaches.****
JW's will look at that verse about 144,000 from Israel being sealed and they are convinced that this verse refers to the best JW's, but the passage says no such thing.
***1. The most important reason is given in 1Cor. 14:21,22, a fulfillment of a prophecy given in Isa.28:11,12, which Paul quotes. Paul says that tongues are a sign for the unbelieving Jew. Look at verse 21:
1 Corinthians 14:21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
--"In the law it is written" Paul is quoting from Isaiah 28. "With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people. Who is "this people?" The people being referred to is the nation of Israel. That is who Isaiah was addressing in Isaiah 28, and that is who Paul is referring to here. With men of other languages will I speak to the nation of Israel, the Lord says. And yet in spite of this sign they still will not hear me. That is what the Scripture plainly says. The people referred to are the Jews that crucified the Lord in the first generation. They were the same ones that Peter preached to on the Day of Pentecost. They were the Jews of that generation. They did not heed that sign, and thus judgement came, as was prophesied in Isaiah 28. ***
One major problem with your argument-- it has NOTHING to do with tongues ceasing. If I were to accept your premise that Paul is saying that tongues serve as a sign for the Jews, it doesn't mean that tongues have ceased. There are still Jews afterall, and they still have a part in God's plan. (I assume you believe that, too, since you seem to be against Replacement Theology.)
How was this verse in Isaiah fulfilled the first time, in the short term? Wasn't it fulfilled when the Jews were carried off to Babylon, and all throughout the captivity, even AFTER the temple had been destroyed. The Jews kept hearing God's judgment upon them through the foreign languages of their oppressors after Jerusalem's walls were razed.
Secondly, you are assuming here that the ONLY purpose of tongues was for a sign. If there is a purpose for tongues other than as a sign, then it doesn't make sense that tongues would cease. The passage is clear that there IS another purpose for tongues-- edification. Without interpertation it edifies the speaker, and with interpretation, it edifies the church.
In fact, the POINT Paul is making in this passage is that tongues need to be interpreted, and he is giving arguments for this. One argument is that tongues without interpretation does not edify believers who hear it. Another is that tongues tend to cause unbelievers to respond in unbelief. This is where the verse from Isaiah comes in, 'and yet for all that, they will not hear me' describes how unbelievers react to tongues. Notice Paul says unbelievers and not only Jewish unbelievers. Paul's point is the effect of tongues on unbelievers. You are taking the passage from Isaiah out of context and making a point with it that Paul clearly does NOT make in the passage. Paul's point is that tongues need to be translated.
And in the context of the passage, we clearly see Paul arguing for other purposes for speaking in tongues besides as a sign specifically for the Jews (something he does NOT point out in his commentary on the Isaiah verse in this passage.)
So your tongues for a sign argument does not hold water. Show me where the passage says that tongues will cease at the destruction of Jerusalem/the temple/some other point in the past? You can't do it because you get this part of the theological puzzle from your own human opinion. Human opinion is no basis for doctrine. Toward the end of the passage, Paul writes '...forbid not to speak with tongues.' Do you have an obedient attitude when it comes to this scripture?
**1 Corinthians 14:22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.
--Verse 22 is connected with verse 21 by the connective "wherefore." It is a continuation of the same thought. Tongues is a sign. It says so right here, as it infers in verse 21. Who is it a sign to? "To them that believe not." Put in context tongues are for a sign to the unbelieving Jews. Nothing could be any more clearer than the teaching of these two verses***
A better answer is 'to them that believe not.' That is what Paul says, and not 'to the unbelieving Jews.' It doesn't take a PhD in logic to figure out that 'them that believe not' refers to unbelieving Gentiles as well as Jews. Gentiles can be unbelievers as well. Paul does not specify an unbelieving Jew when he speaks of the unlearned or unbeliever coming into the meeting and responding to all speaking in tongues by thinking that they are mad. It is not unreasonable, nor is it a misuse of Old Testament scripture for Paul to use a verse showing that unbelieving Jews in the past responded to God speaking through foreign languages with unbelief, and use it to illustrate that unbelievers in general in his own time would respond to speaking in tongues with unbelief.
The point Paul is making is that tongues need to be interpreted. That is a point he makes _before_ he quotes Isaiah. It is a point he is still making _after_ he quotes the passage from Isaiah. He does not comment on the temple being destroyed or other eschatological issues in the context of this quote from Isaiah. Let us read what Paul is saying instead of reading our own ideas into the passage-- exegete not eisegete.
****2. The Charismatic churches exalt the gift of tongues as the most important of all the gifts, and yet Paul puts it as the least of all the gifts.***
First of all, your statement is not universally true. Many Charismatics do not teach that tongues is the most important gift, and teach that prophecy is more important. There are Charismatics who do overemphasize tongues in relation to the other gifts. But all of this is beside the point. It is a rabbit trail. What does it have to do with whether there are genuine tongues today? it is irrelevant.
Btw, Paul never says that tongues is the least of the gifts. He puts it at the end of a list of gifts, followed by interpretation which we might think is a higher gift. But there is no reason to think that this gift is exhaustive, or even to think that all the gifts that God could possibly give are listed specifically in scripture. God may give out gifts that are lower than tongues. Scripture does not tell us that there is no gift lower than tongues, so we should not assume it is the lowest gift. We should give thanks to God for all of His gifts.
*** It was the least important. Ironically the Charismatics put it as the most important gift, some of them say that it so important that you cannot be saved without it (Oneness Pentecostal, for example). ***
Especially if you are using 'Charismatic' with a capital 'C' it does not make sense to call Oneness Pentecostals 'Charismatics.' I would imagine a lot of them would resent the label, and their beliefs on tongues necessary for salvation and the Trinity are not typical of Pentecostals either.
**3. Women are not permitted to speak in tongues, yet it seems that in this age more women than men speak in tongues.***
The verse you quote about women's silence does not say that women cannot speak in tongues. Paul makes allowance for the one speaking in tongues to keep silent in the church and to speak to himself and to God.
**4. History itself bears out that tongues ceased after the first century. There is no reliable evidence of the gift of tongues being spoken after the first century.**
These kind of comments are disingenuous. You obviously haven't studied the issue out or you wouldn't be making such statements. Here is the statement
This is from Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, Book V, chapter VII, from the website, <
http://www.bibledb.com/EcclesiasticalHistory05.php>
***************
Chapter VII. Even down to those Times Miracles were performed by the Faithful.
These things Irenaeus, in agreement with the accounts already given by us, records in the work which comprises five books, and to which he gave the title Refutation and Overthrow of the Knowledge Falsely So-called. In the second book of the same treatise he shows that manifestations of divine and miraculous power continued to his time in some of the churches. He says: "But so far do they come short of raising the dead, as the Lord raised them, and the apostles through prayer. And oftentimes in the brotherhood, when, on account of some necessity, our entire Church has besought with fasting and much supplication, the spirit of the dead has returned, and the man has been restored through the prayers of the saints." And again, after other remarks, he says:
"If they will say that even the Lord did these things in mere appearance, we will refer them to the prophetic writings, and show from them that all things were beforehand spoken of him in this manner, and were strictly fulfilled; and that he alone is the Son of God. Wherefore his true disciples, receiving grace from him, perform such works in his Name for the benefit of other men, as each has received the gift from him. For some of them drive out demons effectually and truly, so that those who have been cleansed from evil spirits frequently believe and unite with the Church. Others have a foreknowledge of future events, and visions, and prophetic revelations. Still others heal the sick by the laying on of hands, and restore them to health. And, as we have said, even dead persons have been raised, and remained with us many years. But why should we say more ? It is not possible to recount the number of gifts which the Church, throughout all the world, has received from God in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and exercises every day for the benefit of the heathen, never deceiving any nor doing it for money. For as she has received freely from God, freely also does she minister." And in another place the same author writes: "As also we hear that many brethren in the Church possess prophetic gifts, and speak, through the Spirit, with all kinds of tongues, and bring to light the secret things of men for their good, and declare the mysteries of God." So much in regard to the fact that various gifts remained among those who were worthy even until that time.
***********
The time period under discussion in Eusebius' treatment of Ireneaus works is late second or early third century, probably late second century. This is about a hundred years after Paul died, or possibly more.
There are plenty of accounts of other spiritual gifts besides speaking in tongues. Prophecy is a prime example. In the early second century, Justin Martyr wrote his dialogue with Trypho, a Jew. One argument Justin made was that the gift of prophecy had ceased among the Jews, but still continued among Christians.
****Those are just a few of the reasons why we know that tongues have ceased. Another major reason that comes to mind, is that ever since that Charismatic movement has come into existence it has spawned nothing but heresies and false doctrine. That is not of the Holy Spirit, it is of Satan. False doctrine does not come from God. Thus how can this movement be of God? It cannot.***
The early church had gifts of the Spirit and true prophets. Yet there were false teachers, heretics, false prophets, etc. who would lead entire households astray and teach false doctrine. Did the false teachers, false prophets, etc. make the early church false? Of course not. It is probably easier for a false prophet to decieve more people if he is among people who reckognize the gift of prophecy as a Biblical gift. Imagine if some first century Christians did not believe in the gift of prophecy. They would reject false prophets, but they would also reject true prophets. But the false prophet would probably be able to do a lot more false 'charismatic' things among groups of believers that believed in prophecies. Paul wrote to the Thessalonians-- who may have been 'burned' in the past-- to despise not prophesyings. Even if there are people who teach false doctrine claiming to do gifts of the Spirit, we should not reject the gifts. The presence of counterfeit doesn't mean that the genuine article does not exist. If there were no real dollar bills out there, then there wouldn't be much reason to counterfeit dollar bills.
We are talking about a theological position here. Charismatics believe that God gives gifts to his church today. Charismatics are not one uniform group with a central headquarters. It's like Calvinists. Some Baptists are Calvinists, but a lot of Calvinists practice infant baptism. Calvinists are not some unified group. It is a term used to apply to a theological position on a certain issue.
Having a wrong belief about predestination does not necessarily lead to disobeying the Lord. If you don't understand predestination correctly, that may hold you back in your knowledge, but it probably won't make you sin by disobeying the Lord's commands. If you hold to some wrong ideas about eschatology, that doesn't necessarily lead you into sin either.
But it is difficult to be a cessationist--who believes that the gifts have ceased-- without disobeying scripture. The Bible commands '...covet to prophesy and forbid not to speak with tongues..." It is hard for a Cessationist, if he gets the chance, to not forbid speaking in tongues. It is a whole lot harder to believe that prophecy has ceased, and still obey the direct command of scripture 'covet to prophesy.' How can you be a Cessationist and obey the command to covet to prophesy? Also, the Bible commands 'Despise not prophesyings.' But holding to a Cessationist position on prophesy makes it difficult to hear prophesyings without despising them. Cessationism is one of those few common theological positions that can directly lead someone to sin.
Btw, Jehovah's Witnesses are Cessationists and believe the gifts have ceased. If your claim that there is a lot of error in the Charismatic movement is proof that gifts have ceased (and your argument holds no water if you compare the situation to that of the early church) then you should reject Cessationism because JW's are Cessationists, and you do not want to be like them.
*** They base their theology on their experience rather than the Word of God. For a phenomena that only started in 1906, I find it very gullible and naïve that so many Christians would buy into such a phenomena that was unheard of for 1800 years. ***
First of all, you do not know what you are talking about. There was speaking in tongues before 1906. There was speaking in tongues in the Athens Georgia area during a Methodist revival around 1801 or 1802. There was speaking in tongues in certain parts of England in that century, and in some parts of the Holiness movement in the late 1800's. There was also some speaking in tongues in 17th century England. That is what I know of post-Reformation tongues before Pentecostalism off the top of my head and there are probably plenty of other examples.
I would like to ask you again, why do you use the figure '1800' years? Do you believe the tongues in 200 AD were genuine? Considering your interpretation of scripture, why would tongues have ceased as late as 200AD? If they lasted that long, why do you believe they would not last for today.
****You want me to look at testimony from people like Jack Hayford. I would like you to look at the teachings of Jack Hayford:****
You showed me a quote that Heyford spoke at a certain Pentecostal conference? What's wrong with that? What is your quote supposed to show about Heyford's theology?
q
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/news1/an010601-23.html#top
********
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our God is a faithful God. He will be faithful to complete His plan for His people, Israel. We cannot rush this or force it into happening just because we want to see the ''Kingdom Now''. It will happen only in God's timing. The idea that the church can perform actions that will ''bring back the King,'' as Jack Hayford said, is replacement theology and is incompatible with the Bible.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/r06a50.html
The above shows that Jack Hayford believes in the heretical doctrine of Replacement Theology.******
First of all, the website you mention says nothing about Jack Heyford. I do not know where you got that quote.
Second, if Jack Heyford said something about bringing back to the king (what? evangelizing the world) what does that have to do with replacement theology? Replacement theology is saying that the church replaced Israel. A lot of people who hold to Latter Rain eschatology are not true adherants of Replacement Theology. Some of them hold to literalist interpretations of eschatology as well. (Some seem to have a dual interpretation of passages.) The brief quote you gave in regard to Heyford isn't proof that he holds to a Latter Rain eschatology either.
Thirdly, 'heresy' comes from a Greek word that refers to division. Romans 14 shows us that there is room for some difference of opinion, even on matters that relate to doctrine, that we can have and still be in unity. Who has the divisive attitude? Is Heyford the one with the divisive attitude toward you, or are you the one with the divisive attitude toward Heyford? Btw, do you believe that someone has to hold to the same understanding of all doctrines as you do in order to be orthodox? Are you the only person in the world who is not a heretic?
Besides, I find it unlikely that Heyford would hold to either Replacement Theology or a post or a millinealist eschatology, considering his Pentecostal roots and seemingly conservative bent. Pentecostals are generally Dispensational, and a lot of them are (unfortunately) pre-trib. (I am talking about Pentecostals, not Charismatics or Third Wavers.)
Fourth, and very important here, is that this whole red herring you are throwing out is beside the point. Even if Heyford were a Replacement Theologian who held to a Kingdom Now view of eschatology, it still would not invalidate his testimony about something he experienced in his life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Latter Rain doctrine of a united, global church is behind the movement's desire to unite all churches, and their disapproval of what they call a ''denominational spirit.''
''If and when we finally lay down these petty doctrinal and traditional differences and JOIN TOGETHER as an awesome UNITED body and force, all hell will finally retreat into the abyss, and, together, we will bring back the king! ... When will we realize that the enforcement of Christ's Victory is UP TO US?
(Jack Hayford)
_________________________________
Website commentator wrote,
***Jack Hayford no doubt means well, but since when are doctrinal beliefs about the person of Christ, the role of the church, or how one is saved ''petty'' ?***
Heyford said petty doctrinal and traditional doctrines. He did not say doctrinal beliefs about the person of Christ, the role of the church, or how one is saved. The author seems to be putting words in Heyford's mouth.
*******quote from web page****
Then I uttered a phrase something like this: "Keil ama tondo ramala indiksia."
I had no clue what I was saying. It sounded stupid
DHK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6545 | From: Edmonton, AB | Registered: Jul 2000 | IP: Logged |
atestring
1,000 Posts Club
Member # 973
posted December 01, 2004 10:01 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by DHK:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by atestring:
can you provide Greek Pastors name that is from the vancouver area that heard a person saying things about the devil.
This made up story is usually about a chineese laundryman and has been circulating all of my life without proof and names that can be validated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes I can document it. In other words, I can provide the names that you are looking for, the dates, and the name of the church. But I won't. A man is entitled to his privacy. It would be unethical for me to post a person's name on a board like this without permission to do so.
DHK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you sure it wasn't the chineese laundryman?
BTW were you at the meeting that this happened or is this 2nd or 3rd hand hearsay?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 1014 | From: USA | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged |
DHK
Moderator
Member # 152
posted December 01, 2004 10:08 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Second, Those that spoke in tongues spoke in real languages. That is evident from Scripture.**
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not debating this point.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**If you hear a genuine language being spoken, you probably hear someone who is demon possessed. Otherwise it is psychological phenomena that has its roots in an event in Kansas in 1906, and previous to that date was unknow in church history. If it is for today, why was it unknown for 1800 years. I guess the "filling of the Holy Spirit" was deprived to those people and only applicable to thos of the 20th century onward. That has the markings of a cult--to claim knowledge that was previously unknown in the church. **
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tongues was not unknown to the church. It is in the Bible that has been used for nearly 2000 years.
You say that tongues were unknown for 1800 years. Does that mean that you allow for the idea that tongues in 200 AD in Ireneas day were genuine?
Also, there are other accounts of tongues since 200 AD. Look in _The Spirit and the Church: Antiquity _ by Burgess for a lengthy treatment for this and other issues that uses real quotes from primary sources (or English translations of such quotes.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You will have to provide more evidence than that. Exact quotes would be preferable. I find that when Charismatics try to find historical evidence of speaking of tongues in history (usually via the church fathers) they only refer to vague references to the filling of the Holy Spirit (something we are all commanded to do), and the baptism of the Holy Spirit (a doctrine in which there is much debate). Neither one of them has to directly with tongues, except by their own presuppositions. They read into those quotes only what they want them to say.
Many of the church fathers advocated false teachings and some were outright heretics. Origen was the Father of Arianism, for example. And Ireneas, who you refer to above, believed that Jesus lived to the ripe old age of 80. As for me I would rather get my doctrine from the Bible.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your paranoia about tongues as real languages always being demonic doesn’t square with what Jesus said in Luke 11. Many people speak in tongues after diligently seeking God and asking to be filled with the Spirit—which is a good thing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't have a paranoia. I have the Word of God, which needs to be rightly divided without presuppositions by ALL.
Luke 11:
11. If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?
12. Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?
13. If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?
[QB]
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, I do not believe that tongues is the exclusive evidence of filling with the Spirit, so I would not say it was restricted to people who lived after the 20th century.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above passage has nothing whatsoever to do with tongues although Charismatics love to quote it out of context in the defence of tongues. The filling of the Holy Spirit is a command that is given to all believers and has no relation to tongues whatsoever. It is a command given in Eph.5:18.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**The passage is very clear. Every statement is conditional. Every statement starts with "though" or "if." It is like saying, "If I had a million dollars I would buy property in Hawaii and live there." But I don't, and probably never will. "If I have my own space shuttle, I would take a trip to the moon" It's not going to happen. It's conjecture. It's conditional.**
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is such a thing as a million dollars. It is not something made up. Space shuttles exist. You are assuming here that tongues of angels do not exist, which isn’t consistent with the examples you give.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, I have explained this before. Tongues of angels do exist. Man doesn't speak the tongues of angels nor has any reason to. How does an angel speak? He is a being of perfection, and when sent to do God's bidding can speak in any language to the person sent to. In fact he can speak all languages, perfectly, in perfect grammar, with all knowledge concerning vocabulary and grammar in all the languages of the world. No man has that ability, nor does he need it. That is not the gift of tongues; it is what angels are able to do. Paul never had that ability. The statements are conditional. Paul was saying that even if he had such abilities, and did not have love, then such abilities would be useless. Read the chapter! They are conditional statements.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
** All of Paul's statements were just like that. If Paul spoke with angelic tongues then he also gave away all his money to the poor--NOT, and he also gave his body to be burned--NOT!! IF: those are conjectural statements. They did not happen, and never would. Paul did not speak with the tongues of angels, could not speak with the tongues of angels. It was impossible to do so. **
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinion opinion and no scripture. Was it possible for Paul to give away all his money? Yes. Was it possible for Paul to give his body to be burned? Yes. Was it possible for Paul to have all faith to remove mountains. According to Christ, yes. (If ‘moving mountains’ is a figure of speech, then it would be possible to move mountains in this figurative sense. If Christ meant it literally, then it is possible to do literally. So no matter how you interpret it, the answer should be ‘yes.’)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no opinion involved here. It is a proper exegesis of 1Cor.13:1-3. The fact plainly is that it was not possible for Paul to accomplish all the things mentioned in the first verses of 1Cor.13.
--speak in the tongues of angels: not possible.
--have the gift of prophecy so that he could understand ALL mysteries: not possible
--have all knowledge: not possible; if it were he would be God.
--have all faith…not possible. No man has ALL faith. Paul was not a perfected being.
These were conjectural statements. They were conditions. Paul never spoke in angelic tongues. He never said he did. He never made any such claim. For you to even suggest such a thing is reading into Scripture something that is not there.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Think about Paul’s life. He traveled around preaching and did not accumulate houses, etc. It is very possible that he gave his last dinari away to feed a poor person on many occasions. Could Paul have given his body to be burned? Of course. The ‘if’ parts of these statements are all things that are possible, so why would speaking in the tongues of angels be impossible?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact is that these things didn't happen. Paul died a martyr's death, beheaded by the hand of Nero. There is nothing to suggest that he gave up all his estate or belongings before then, and nothing to suggest that he gave whatever he had to the poor. The things that he did have (such as scrolls of the Scriptures) he would have given to a young pastor like Timothy.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**First, that is anectodal; can't be proven. Second, if it did happen, it is the exception not the norm. Third, can give or provide a man an ability if He so desires. But that does not negate the Biblical teaching that the gift of tongues has ceased. **
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are being inconsistent here. I gave an example of a man who prayed in tongues—a known Charismatic, and the people who were praying for knew what he was saying because he was speaking in their language. And you say if it happened, then the gift of tongues has still ceased. If God gave the man the ablity to speak in Maori, then the man had a _gift from God.
**Here is anecdotal experience by Heyford that cannot be proven.**
It could conceivably. You want to argue that real tongues do not exist. You are bold enough to make such statements, but when you hear accounts like this, you do not have the gumption or the commitment to go to California, look up Heyford, do some research, find the guy he spoke in tongues to, and get his side of the story. The Old Testament says by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established. If you were committed enough to learning about this, you could do some research.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I gave you my research on Jack Hayford. He is a heretic. I have documented the things that he believes in quite thoroughly. Need I say more. My stand is on the Word of God, not on the experience of some heretic.
DHK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6545 | From: Edmonton, AB | Registered: Jul 2000 | IP: Logged |
DHK
Moderator
Member # 152
posted December 01, 2004 10:10 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do not plan to do this kind of research. But I am not the one making statements that assume that I have all knowledge of everything going on in the world. I do not say that there is no genuine speaking in tongues today. You are the one promoting this position. When shown wrong, you should either stop making such statements, or else be willing to go do the research to show that the cases that prove you wrong are not true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You ought to do research. It will open your eyes to what is going on. Why didn't you research out heretics like Jack Hayford before quoting him as a source?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
** The same preachers tell us how they have been transported up to heaven and back down to Hell again. Why should I believe them?**
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“The same preachers…” You judge people by categorizing them in ways God does not. Show me a quote from a Heyford sermon or book where he ever claims to have gone to heaven or hell. And show me some scripture that says that this cannot happen to preachers who claim to have experienced it. My Bible shows me that a man was shown the Third Heaven, so I cannot deny that such things are possible.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure we categorize. Charismatics rely on experience rather than the Word of God for their theology. That is a given. The more extreme the experience, the more spiritual the person. That is the going assessment among Charismatics. If you want the quote from the preacher who claimed to go to heaven and hell I can give it to you. I never said it was from Hayford. Here is an example from Percy Colette, a leading Charismatic and some of the outlandish experiences that he has claimed to have.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The claims these people make just go on and on. I don't know if you read about Percy Colette (sp.) a Charismatic Medical Missionary, claims that in 1982 he was transported to Heaven for five and a half days. A newsletter describes the story,
He adds one more detail, "While I was traveling back to earth, I saw two girls, one brunette and one a redhead. We stopped to talk to them, that is their 'soul bodies' on the way back. We had asked them what had happen to them? And they indicated that they had gotten killed in a car accident on the California Highway and their physical bodies were in a funeral home.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/CHAOS1.HTM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
** I don't trust in experiences that cannot be proven; I trust in the Word of God. The Word of God is my foundation not experience. You can't build a foundation on experience.**
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can’t prove your case from the Bible. Even many of your fellow cessationists, particularly those who know Greek, disagree with the way you interpret I Corinthians 13.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I trust the Word of God. It is my foundation, not experience. And yes I can prove my case through the Scriptures:
Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Nowhere in the Bible is experience spoken of as our foundation. The Bereans searched the Scriptures before they would take Paul's word that what he said was true. The Scriptures were their foundation. It was their guidepost. If it was not according to the Word of God, Isaiah said to reject it. Much of what the Charismatics teach is not according to the Word of God, and needs to be rejected.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**You heard; but can't verify. More experience. My theology is based on the Word of God, not someone's experience.**
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you want to verify it, do some research. Find some witnesses.
You sure use a lot of experiential arguments in your posts, a lot more than your arguments from scripture so far.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I compare the outlandish experiences of Charismatics (as documented above) to the Word of God. I am the one that uses the Word of God. I challenge you to do the same thing. Use the Word of God to compare what the Charismatics are doing.
DHK
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Paul was correcting the abuse of tongues in Corinth. In doing so he said, "I thank God that I have spoken in tongues more than you all." Why do you suppose that he said that? The Lord took Paul on three missionary journeys through several parts of Asia, Asia-minor, Europe, etc., and he established over 100 churches. The Lord gave Paul the gift of tongues so that he would have been able to minister to these people in their own language.**
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinion, opinion. Where is the scripture to back up what you are saying. When Paul said he spoke in tongues more than all the Corinthians, it is in the context of a passage in which he says that no one understands the speaker in tongues without interpretation. There is no evidence in scripture that tongues were used to preach the Gospel or that the Acts 2 experience was ever repeated. You are just conjecturing here. You do not have any scripture to back up your opinion. If Paul ever used tongues in evangelism, the Bible does not record it. Guesswork is not a basis for doctrine.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no conjecture and no opinion. What I have said to you is straight from the Scriptures, especially the teaching given in 1Cor.14. What was the purpose of speaking in tongues. It was always for the understanding and edification of the whole church, never for just one individual. It was a gift given for the church's edification. Whether the message communicated by tongues was in the form of teaching, preaching, or prophesying is totally irrelevant. It was for the edification of the church. A prophet can either preach or teach, depending on the prophet and his manner of communication. That is his choice. Different people have different gifts. The fact is that the gift of tongues was used to communicate a gift to a people of a different language as is evidenced in Acts 2: "How hear we every man in our own language?" Paul was given this gift for this purpose. That is obviously why he had the ability to speak in tongues more than them all. Read and study the fourteenth chapter of 1Corinthians. Like I also said, it was also a sign to the unbelieving Jew at the same time. God had his purpose in it all.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
** But remeber that wherever he went that the Jews had been scattered abroad throughout all the nations. It wasn't just a matter of preaching in another tongue for the sake of another people. The universal language at the time was Greek. It was a sign to the Jews as well; those Jews that did not believe the gospel message was for the Gentiles. **
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul never says tongues were sign specifically for the Jews. He said they served as a sign to unbelievers, and showed how unbelievers reacted to them with unbelief. Paul was trying to persuade men. It seems more likely he would have preferred to use the gift of prophecy in evangelism, based on what he writes in I Corinthians 14.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes Paul said that tongues were a sign to the Jews. If you don't believe that you don't believe what the Bible says. It is so plain in 1Cor.14:21 it cannot be missed.
1 Corinthians 14:21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
--"With men of other tongues…I will speak to this people" "This people" is Israel. God told them that he would speak to them in tongues as a sign. He told them that even when He did, that they still would not believe. And thus it was. The prophecy came true. They heard and saw the sign. They did not believe. Verse 22 goes with verse 21. They were the unbelieving Jews.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**It is very typical of the Third Wave Movement. There is plenty of it going around. They bark like a dog, roar like a lion, hiss like a snake--all of which is supposedly a sign of the Holy Spirit.**
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you are reading some old websites. I’ve been to Toronto. This like this seem to come and go, and I would doubt if this kind of stuff was going on a lot at Toronto anymore. The Vineyard let Toronto go pretty quickly when this started. The Vineyard is considered ‘Third Wave.’ This stuff was controversial within ‘Thid Wave’ churches when it was going on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can do the research for you. But I think you should do your own. It still goes on today. People think they are more spiritual when they do such things. The more outlandish, the more spiritual. That is the philosophy.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If I am not mistaken, the term ‘Third Wave’ was something C. Peter Wagoner came up with to describe evangelical churches that believe in the gifts that were not a part of the historical Pentecostal movement or the Charismatic movement. Some churches categorized as ‘Third Wave’ are rather conservative. I am not sure if Wagoner would categorize Calvary Chapel as Third Wave. The only difference between one Calvary Chapel church service I went to and a lot of Baptist churches I have been to is the style of music.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, you are entirely wrong. The Pentecostal churches came out of the holiness movement which originated with the Methodist churches. The Pentecostal Movement could be considered as the First Wave. Out of the Pentecostal Movement arose the Charismatic Movement which could be considered as the Second Wave. And now more recently we have the Third Wave, a progression from the Charismatic Movement. The difference is that the Third Wave puts even a greater emphasis than the typical Charismatic on miracles and the supernatural, even dabbling dangerously in the paranormal. It is all about experience. Remember: the greater the experience, the more spiritual you are. Theology really doesn't matter any more. This is evidenced by Benny Hinn's nine-person trinity.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pentecostals have come under fire for faking healings or running financially amok, as occurred with Jim and Tammy Bakker several years ago. Some Christians dispute their theology, arguing that the age of miracles is over. But Pentecostals are also beginning to win broad public acceptance, thanks in part to a new focus on social ministry.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So what! SDA's Mormons, and J.W.'s can claim the same thing. Social work means nothing when you don't have your salvation straight.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a global study of rapidly growing churches with social ministries, USC sociology professor Donald Miller found that nearly 90% of them were run by Pentecostals.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are over one billion Muslims, and about a billion Roman Catholics. In the light of that the number of Pentecostals are infinitesimal.
DHK
.
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/127/story_12789_1.html*****
***This is the typical Charismatic experience—the repeating of certain syllables over and over again. It is not a language, and in no way resembles what happened in the New Testament. ***
As someone with a degree in linguistics who has studied several languages, I can say that these sounds look like they could be words in a real language. I can't say one way or another just based on what is written. There is not enough of it to identify consistent phonemes or morphemes, but it doesn't look like pure babble.
