Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
That's not what I said. I said scripture says tongues are a sign for the unbeliever, which is what 1 Cor 14:22 says. Why are you twisting my words?
The people in Cornelius' house. Read carefully; they hadn't believed on Jesus yet. It was after Peter preached Jesus to them that they received the Holy Spirit.
ok, I see that...I am answering so many threads about the same subject. THis thread is " are tongues the same" My answer is still yes, same manifestation, different languages for the same purpose..magnifying God! Speaking to God! Every example shows the people speaking to God! PRaising God Mangnifying God. Do unbelievers witness this? Yes! That is a sign that it is real! But if it is not interpreted then it will be a sign then of judgement and they will think we are mad! That is why Paul corrects the church so that everything is done right...not forbidden! Now until you can show me where tongues were not speaking to God...like vs 2 in Cor. 14 says! then we will just have to disagree!
My point is that you said it was always for a sign to the unbeliever, when the saved Gentiles started speaking in tongues...where were the unbelievers? THe whole house was saved believers.
Not everyone speaks by the Spirit of God. That was the problem. There were Corinthians that were speaking by "another spirit" unwittingly calling Jesus accursed. They were doing that without knowing it, until someone recognized the language they were speaking in. You could be doing the same thing, since you have no understanding of what you are saying. In 1Cor.14 they were real languages, but the Corinthians did not understand the languages that they were speaking, and sometimes, out of their own carnality, they were praising Satan rather than Christ without realizing it. Can you give definitive proof that you are not doing the same thing?
This was a rebuke. He said if you speak in tongues and no one knows what you are saying they don't even know when to say Amen! How foolish is that!! I am a missionary. Before I learned the language I felt awkward in such situations also. They would speak and pray in a language I didn't know. In fact it was hard to discern when they would say "Amen" at times. I know what Paul is talking about. There is no understanding. It is foolish to talk in a language when no one can understand you.
DO NOT FALSELY ACCUSE!
If tongues has ceased they are not of God; there is only one other source left isn't there? Satan is a great imitator.
The purpose of it was to edify the church. Edification came through teaching. It was to teach. They taught through tongues because the Word of God was not yet completed. Tongues always had to be interpreted, always. It was that way so that all could be taught and edified.
To those who believe we have proved; to those who believe not, they don't accept it. Their hearts are hardened to the truth of God's Word.
You are wrong. Your doctrine (which always needs to come first) does not back up your experience. Your faith is blind, not based on the Bible. You are like the Muslim who has blind faith. He believes that if he straps a bomb on himself, blows himself up as a "martyr," that then he will guarantee himself a place in paradise. That is blind faith. What does he base that on? What guarantee does he have? The word of a man? That is a flimsy guarantee. My faith is not blind. It is backed up by the historical death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Christ lives today. His tomb is empty. My faith is based on facts. Your faith is blind. You don't even know what you are saying. Faith in what?
No. We base our beliefs on the Word of God; you base your beliefs on your experience. Thus you have gone astray from God's word into heresy.
That is an inferred false accusation.
Good. Give us some examples. What languages have you spoken in?
Maybe Satan isn't opposing you. You haven't convinced me yet.
You haven't been where I have been, because you don't know where I have been.
The question is, what is it that you think we're disagreeing about? You seem to think that we're supposed to magnify God in a foreign tongue; I say tongues were given to the people in Acts in order to show God's miracles to the unbelievers, not as a requirement of some kind.
I disagree; when were they saved? Before Peter preached Jesus to them, or after?
When was the last time you spoke in a tongue, and someone said, "How is it that you know my native language?"
No offense, but you seem to know very little about the Charismatic Movement. Its original impetus was to go into already established churches (as the original newsletter had as a goal, which I've already established) and make them into Charismatic churches (often splitting them in the process, something you've never said is wrong to do). And the whole movement was founded on ecumemenicalism. Therefore there are Charismatic Baptist churches (like yours), there are Lutheran ones, Catholic ones, etc., as well as strictly Charismatic churches (a later development in history).
No this is not missing, and once again you are being presumptuous. How would you know what is taught in most of our Baptist churches? I believe most of them teach an excellent doctrine of the Christian walk with God, and I've preached in about 50 of them in the past year of furlough.
I said nothing at all about the Middle Ages. You are jousting at a windmill. I believe there have always been Bible believing Christians.
Huh? Do you even understand what I'm writing here? Of course you never said the rest is falsehood. I did! Once again, if the Charismatics are mistaken on tongues, the rest of Charismatic doctrine is false. You know, if you are going to continue to attempt to be an advocate for Charismatic doctrine, you really should study it out a lot more.
We can live the abundant life, the life of power in the Holy Spirit, entirely without Charismatic doctrine, and we do. To say otherwise as you are intimating here is arrogant--makes you look like you think you are better than we are. Yes you do come across as prideful by such statements.
Where in the whole Bible does it say the Corinthians were speaking by ANOTHER SPIRIT?? It doesn't! THey were speaking well, giving thanks WELL...the assembly just was not being edified. He did not tell them to quit speaking in tongues. He told them to keep silent IN THE CHURCH, and SPEAK TO GOD. That was the purpose of tongues...speaking to God. Just in the church to have an interpretation.
Exactly! that is why they are saying IN THE SPIRIT. Becasue it is the Spirit that gives the utterance. In other words, you are speaking the perfect will of God in "praying/speaking in tongues."
I am not disagreeing with Paul! But he also said you give thanks well! So praying in the spirit is good JUST IN THE ASSEMBLEY make sure you have interpretation.
But in showing that through tongues...the ones speaking in tongues were speaking to God! THe unbelievers that heard this with interpretations this was the sign. Where we diagree is that you do not admit they were magnifying God, praising God in tongues! That was TOO God, not to man.
When the spirit fell upon them during the preaching, but they did not speak in tongues until after they were saved, right? So who were the unbelievers present?
Yes, but what we are discussing on this thread are are they all the same (tongues) and the Gentiles were praising God (speaking to God) just like the Jews did on the day of Pentecost.
I have never been called to speak in the assembly, not all are called to do that!
Yes! But what we disagree with is what that sign is.
I have never said that tongues were not a sign to the unbelievers! Unbelievers hear them speaking in tongues with interpretation and they know it is from God! IF like Paul said that tongues are done WITHOUT interpretation they will think it is a sign of judgement.
You are right! I know very little about most charismatic churches! I just looked up some history of the baptist.
point taken!
I explained the Scripture in detail to you, and now you say "where in the whole Bible does it say the Corinthians were speaking by another spirit." That is rather insulting! If I explain this to you again it will be at least the third time. Will you pay attention now? Or just pass it off again and disregard it as usual?
This goes with 12:3. Note carefully "No one can say that Jesus Christ is Lord but by the Holy Spirit." Why did Paul say that if an unsaved Catholic can do it, or even a Muslim can do it? Because they were speaking in tongues. That is why I made the statement. It was in the context of 12:3. Read carefully.
Tongues were a gift just for the assembly. They were not to be used outside of the assembly. That was the instruction given to the church at Corinth. It was a gift given for the church. Check 1Cor.12:28ff. That passage makes it very plain. If it is given to the church it had to have interpretation. Even you go against this because you don't have interpretation, and therefore your tongues are unbiblical.
In the Bible tongues are foreign languages. Look at another translation.
The Bible does say tongues will cease.
I give you Scripture; you simply ignore them.
It seems that you don't understand faith. You are like the Charismatics, like the Third Wave in particular who put faith in their faith. The object of my faith is Christ. Faith always has an object. The object of the Muslim's faith is Allah. What is the object of your faith? The object of your faith is your experience in tongues.
From what I have experienced, and read, yes.
This is false. I give you Scripture after Scripture and you just ignore it all. In fact I just explained 1Cor.15:3,4, and you didn't even recognize it (the gospel), from which my experience is based on. But your doctrine is based on your experience isn't it. You believe what you believe because you speak in tongues. It shapes your doctrine. You allow your experience to dictate the doctrine you believe. Your foundation is experience not the Bible.
Modern day speaking in tongues is a heresy, unknown to Christianity until it started up in 1905. John of Japan has been trying to educate you in this history, but you have been reluctant to accept it. From then end of the first century to the beginning of the 20th century no such phenomena has been recorded except among cults and pagan religions.
I only need the Word of God. Like the RCC who tries to convince me of infant baptism I simply need the Word of God to show me it is wrong. Like some who say you need to become a drug addict to reach a drug addict, I only need the Word of God to show me it is wrong. I simply need the Word of God to show me it is wrong. I tell the person who says that I need to become a drug addict to reach the same, that I don't have to stick my head in a garbage pail to know that it is dirty. I don't have to speak in tongues to know that it is a polluted doctrine and heretical.
Right! And Paul used the internet too??
I did; you ignored them.
In Acts 2, who provided the interpretations? In Acts 10, who provided the interpretations?
That is correct; and I admit that Acts 10 doesn't specify unbelievers being present. However, Acts 10 specifies that the Jewish believers were astonished by the Gentiles speaking in tongues. So that leads to my question: Why were they speaking in tongues? In this case, to show the Jews that God favored the Gentiles as well.
Correct. Acts 2 is very specific about which languages were heard; are you saying that the same languages were heard in Acts 10?
So you've never spoken in tongues?
1 Cor 14:22 very clearly says tongues are a sign for unbelievers; thus, scripture says the sign is tongues. So how can you disagree on what that sign is?
First, if it's done without interpretation, it's not a "sign of judgment"; Paul says (verse 23) that if it's done without interpretation, unbelievers will think you are insane.
Your problem is that by buying into Charismatic doctrine as you have, you open yourself up to so many excesses. If you're going to be an advocate for Charismatic doctrine, you need to be much better informed, because there are so many awful Charismatic doctrines out there.
Fine. But do you believe in a second blessing that makes you a better Christian? You haven't answered me on that yet.
Well that's a new debate technique. You misunderstand me, so I say so, then you apparently are saying your misunderstanding points to my misunderstanding. How strange!
I just got a spam email about prophecies from four Charismatics. A female preacher, Sharon Bolan Yerby says, "For my Spirit is moving through the land, searching for those who will honor and obey Me; those who will stay pure in the midst of the defilement, only they shall be saved." This is Manifest Sons of God doctrine. You've said you believe in revelation beyond the NT (you didn't put it that way). Do you agree with Yerby? If not, how do you know her prophecy is a false one?
No, we don't see eye to eye. You have accepted another religion as far as I am concerned and have repudiated the historical stand of Baptists. Look through the statements of faith of various Baptist Churches. Some are more detailed than others. Many of them will repudiate the Charismatic movement outwardly. For example, here is one that is from my own file:
[FONT="]The fact is that you haven't been able to answer the Scripture that I have put forth. You haven't been able to give satisfactory answers to questions put forth to you.
no one! They spoke in languages that were understood by the ones listening!
They heard it as a witness that they had received what God had promised in Acts 1:8.
Yes, as a witness that they had received the same as Acts 2...The tongues were the same, used for the same purpose. Praising, magnifying God (praying to God) for a witness to the unbelievers or Jews that what was promised in Acts 1:8 was real and available to all. Jew and Gentile..
No, am saying it was for the same purpose, as I said above.
Never in a church service
THe sign was given as evidence that Acts 1:8 was here and available..was real! All that Christ had promised has come to pass for the believer and was availabe to all...those of that day, to their children, to those that were far off, as many as the Lord our God shall call. (vs39).
I will post this again..
I see it happening both ways!