What has ceased?

[DHK]

Originally posted by MEE:
It doesn't say that a woman shouldn't speak in tongues!

It doesn't??
1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Tell me what it means. You have two choices. Pick one:
1. Women are not allowed to speak in tongues.
2. Women are to shut up completely.
Take your choice.

If that is so, then Mary (mother of Jesus) and the other women were out of order when they received the baptism of the Holy Ghost, evidenced by speaking in tongues, in the upper room, on the Day of Pentecost.

Acts 1:13&14

13) And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room,....

14) These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with THE WOMEN, and MARY the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

While in the upper room... Acts 2:2...there came a sound from heaven..

Acts 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Sorry, can't leave the women out!

MEE

Sorry, you read too much into Scripture.
At the end of chapter one, we read of the disciples choosing the twelfth disciple, Matthias, to take the place of Judas. It is interesting to note in chapter one that they were commanded to wait
wait for the promise of the Father,
but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.
Never is any one ever commanded to seek for the gift of tongues, or for the baptism of the Holy Ghost: only to wait, and that was just before the Day of Pentecost.

Who spoke in tongues on the Day of Pentecost. Some believe it is all. I do not believe it was. Look at the reaction of the crowd.

Acts 2:13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.

What can we conclude:
1. We may be sure that the Holy Spirit came upon all. That is for sure. This is the one day that the Holy Spirit's ministry ceased from coming upon men, and started indwelling man.
2. We may conclude that not ALL spoke in tongues. It does not say that all spoke in tongues. In fact it infers that they all did not. The refer only to the men as being drunk, when mocking them. Thus it is probable that only the Apostles spoke in tongues. It is unlikely that any women spoke in tongues. And certainly there was no mandate that they all HAD TO speak in tongues.
3. We also not that just as they did not all speak in tongues, all did not preach. Only one preached, and that was Peter. Thus, the progression.
All were filled with the Spirit.
Some spoke in tongues.
Only one preached.
DHK

 

[BobRyan]

DHK said --
Back to verse 21: Tongues was a sign to the nation of Israel. You cannot divorce this verse from verse 22.
Verse 22 clearly says tongue are for a sign to the unbeliever.

And Tongues are (also) for a sign to Israel.

That much is true.

So can we then assume that Tongues are a sign just for unbelievinb Jews? Obviously not.

We have to use the conditions at Corinth to make such a case. And nothing about them suggests that the term "unbelievers" and "ungifted" were used only of Jews.

Nothing about the church at Corinth shows that Paul divided the city between "believers and non-believers" such that all non-believers are Jews and all believers are Gentiles.

There is nothing in the NT about the church at Corinth that shows that Paul used the terms "Gifted vs non-gifted" such that Jews are always "the non-gifted" and gentils are always 'the gifted'.

I am sorry - but there is just no way to get those divisions to mean "just jews" as you have been trying to do.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:

I am always amazed as to what people believe and do not believe. The interesting one under this topic is that some Christians believe that the 'gift of tongues' in Acts and I Corinthians 12 & 14 has to be in one of the nationalistic human languages. How stupid an idea is that one! But, I guess if a person is brought up in a tradition and has this idea pounded into his mind, for mega years, I guess they would believe this to be the zenith of truth in this matter.

My theory is that when the 'gift of tongues' is used and is genuine--that it is probably the language used in Heaven and/or by the angels. [I Corinthians 13:1a]

Why do you think that the tongues of Acts 2, or in 1Cor for that matter, may not refer to a nationalistic language? The only kind of unknown language is a foreign language unknown to the one who is speaking it, but known to the "nationals" that are hearing it.
"How hear we every man in our own language (tongue)." What does this statement mean? Why are the words tongue and language used interchangeably in Acts 2?

Just what is a heavenly language? Can you define a heavenly language from 1Cor.13? Does it in anyway pertain to tongues?
Paul said: "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of 'angels' and have not charity..."
BUT, he also said,
"Though I sell all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned and have not charity..."
I suppose if Paul spoke in the tongues of an angel then he also gave his body to be burned?
DHK

 

[MEE]

Originally posted by DHK:
[QB]

Who spoke in tongues on the Day of Pentecost. Some believe it is all. I do not believe it was. Look at the reaction of the crowd.

**It says, Acts 2:4) And they were ALL filled with the Holy Ghost and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
ALL means ALL of the 120 that were in that upper room, on the Day of Pentecost.

Acts 2:13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.

**Keep in mind that when the crowd came together it was three hours later, after the Holy Ghost had been poured out upon both the men and women that were in that upper room. Acts 2:15) For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day. Since there were about 17 different nationalities and 120 in the upper room, it possibly may have been the men that spoke in the different languages when the crowd came together. If not, then some must have doubled up on languages, but I have my doubts.

What can we conclude:
1. We may be sure that the Holy Spirit came upon all. That is for sure. This is the one day that the Holy Spirit's ministry ceased from coming upon men, and started indwelling man.

**I agree!

2. We may conclude that not ALL spoke in tongues. It does not say that all spoke in tongues. In fact it infers that they all did not. The refer only to the men as being drunk, when mocking them. Thus it is probable that only the Apostles spoke in tongues. It is unlikely that any women spoke in tongues. And certainly there was no mandate that they all HAD TO speak in tongues.

**You just said that they ALL were filled with the Spirit. As I said it is possible that after three hours when the multitude came together that the apostles were the ones doing the speaking.

**Yes one will speak in tongues when they receive the baptism of the Holy Ghost and that includes the women!

3. We also not that just as they did not all speak in tongues, all did not preach. Only one preached, and that was Peter. Thus, the progression.
All were filled with the Spirit.

**Yes, it says that they were ALL (as in the 120 in the upper room) filled with the Holy Ghost and began to speak with tongues! Correct, ALL did not preach.

Some spoke in tongues.

**No, they ALL spoke in tongues!

Only one preached.

**Correct!

MEE

 

[DHK]

Acts 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Acts 2:13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.

Acts 2:2-3 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.

1 Corinthians 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

Now MEE, consider the above Scriptures. It does not say definitively that Mary, or any other woman, or in fact all the 120 spoke in tongues. Acts 2:4 is qualified with the phrase "as the Spirit gave them utterance," leaving room for the possibility that the Holy Spirit did not give all present "utterance." In view of Acts 2:13, that seems to be the case, since only the men are singled out to having spoken in tongues, possibly only the Apostles. At any rate--only the men are mentioned by the crowd.
Even if we concede your point as possibly being true, it is still moot. It doesn't matter. The Day of Pentecost is the day that the church began. It is a historical event, an event that will never again happen in history.

On this day (the Day of Pentecost) 3 things happened:
1. There came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind.
2.there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire
3. And they spoke with tongues or foreign languages--not gibberish--but actual languages.

These three events never happened again in all of history as they did here. This was the baptism of the Spirit that was prophesied of in Acts 1. This is what Jesus said in Acts 1:8, when He said "And ye shall receive power after that the Holy Spirit is come upon you."

Now, just a few years later we read of the same baptism of the spirit in 1Cor.12:13.
"By one Spirit are we all baptized into one body."
Well look at that! The baptism of the Spirit and there is no speaking in tongues, no sound of a mighty rushing wind, no cloven tongues of fire--just absolutely nothing; nada, zero. The baptism of the Spirit was evidence with nothing. And so it is today.
Acts chapter one was the very last mention of Mary in the Bible. Acts chapter two is the beginning of the formation of the church. After that there are definitely no women that ever speak in the church for it is forbidden for them to do so. And if you do you are in disobedience to the Word of God.
DHK

 

[MEE]

Originally posted by DHK:
[QB] Acts 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

**I agree!...it says "ALL" were filled with the Holy Ghost! ALL, as in the 120 that were in the upper room. Acts 1:13-14

1 Corinthians 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

**Women included! If not, we aren't entitled to be given salvation.

Now MEE, consider the above Scriptures. It does not say definitively that Mary, or any other woman, or in fact all the 120 spoke in tongues.

**Yes it does! Acts 2:4) And they were ALL filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Acts 2:4 is qualified with the phrase "as the Spirit gave them utterance," leaving room for the possibility that the Holy Spirit did not give all present "utterance." In view of Acts 2:13, that seems to be the case, since only the men are singled out to having spoken in tongues, possibly only the Apostles. At any rate--only the men are mentioned by the crowd.

**..leaving room for the possibility, and seems? To me there is doubt in you post. The men were mentioned three hours after ALL were filled with the Spirit of God.


Now, just a few years later we read of the same baptism of the spirit in 1Cor.12:13.
"By one Spirit are we all baptized into one body."
Well look at that! The baptism of the Spirit and there is no speaking in tongues,..

**I think the people that Paul preached to knew what being baptized in the Spirit meant, after a few years. If not, then he wasn't a very good minister..was he? I've been on the board for a few years and I sure know what 'you' mean when you talk about the baptism of the Holy Ghost. BTW, it doesn't correspond with the apostles.

Acts chapter one was the very last mention of Mary in the Bible. Acts chapter two is the beginning of the formation of the church.

**Yes, Mary was mentioned in Acts 1:14, but it also says she was in the upper room with the other women when, in Acts 2, they were ALL filled with the Holy Ghost...

**DHK, this is getting old. Say what you want, but I don't think a lot, even some of the Baptists, on this board, agree with a lot of things that you post. You are hateful to them as well as to me. Sorry, but you came too late in trying to tell me something that is not Biblical!

MEE

 

[Ray Berrian]

DHK,

You said, 'Sorry, you read too much into Scripture.
At the end of chapter one, we read of the disciples choosing the twelfth
disciple, Matthias, to take the place of Judas. It is interesting to note in
chapter one that they were commanded to wait
wait for the promise of the Father,
but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.
Never is any one ever commanded to seek for the gift of tongues, or for
the baptism of the Holy Ghost: only to wait, and that was just before the
Day of Pentecost.'

Ray is saying, 'Everyone knows this; so what is the point. The Lord sovereignly brought to these men and women this most unique phenomenon.'

You said, 'Who spoke in tongues on the Day of Pentecost. Some believe it is all. I do
not believe it was.'

Ray is saying, 'You are teaching that God filled these 120 in different ways. The men were special and 'spoke in tongues' and the women, the inferior just sat there and God filled them without the same sign. You have a big, stretch going on with this theory.'

You said, 'Look at the reaction of the crowd. Acts 2:13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.'

Ray is saying, 'Since probably 100 out of the 120 were men, it would be only natural to say that 'these men are filled with new wine.'

You said, 'What can we conclude:
1. We may be sure that the Holy Spirit came upon all. That is for sure. This is
the one day that the Holy Spirit's ministry ceased from coming upon men,
and started indwelling man.'

Ray is saying, 'Your statement is correct except your narrowing the ministry of the Holy Spirit, in your last sentence to just the male gender. God could care less about the male or female features; Jesus is concerned with women as well as men. In Acts 17:30 only mean that men should repent and not women? I am sure you get the point.

You said, '2. We may conclude that not ALL spoke in tongues. It does not say that all
spoke in tongues. In fact it infers that they all did not.'

Ray is saying, 'You are dead in your tracks wrong. Forget what your denomination teaches, and I don't know your denominational affiliation. Read Acts 2:4 which says just the opposite of what you are strongly encouraging us to believe. 'And they were ALL filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.' This is not a difficult passage to interpret.'

You said, ' . . . refer only to the men as being drunk, when mocking them. Thus it is probable that only the Apostles spoke in tongues. It is unlikely that any women spoke in tongues.'

Ray is saying, Think my friend. Were the mockers in the Upper Room to experience this unprecedented experience in the lives of the men and women? Acts 1:14 tells us something. These mockers did not sit with them several days until God came in His mighty power on the 120. But, someway they knew they were different because God had filled them with His own Self. Perhaps they heard from the streets their 'speaking in tongues.' It may be that when they left the Upper Room that they staggered under the mighty power Who rested on their body, soul, and spirit.'

You said, 'And certainly there was no mandate that they all HAD TO speak in tongues.'

Ray is saying, 'Here you are right. They probably did not know what God was going to do in their midst. But, He did rest on each of them as recorded in Acts 2:4.'

You said, '3. We also not that just as they did not all speak in tongues . . . '

Ray is saying, 'This is antithetical to what the Bible says in Acts 2:4.'

You are saying, ' . . . all did not preach.'

Ray; error again. The whole point of Acts 2:5-11. Apparently, teach of the 120 spoke in a tongue that these people from various nations could understand something. What was it? Verse 11 says, that these sinners from all nations mentioned heard the disciples of Jesus speaking ' . . . in our tongues the wonderful works of God.' This is not trigonometry class here in the reading of the Bible, the Word of God.'

You said, 'Only one preached, and that was Peter.'

Ray is saying, 'I agree with you that the recorded preaching of Peter's sermon/message is duly written down for even us now to read. I am sure that the people from many nations also heard his message, but Peter was not the only one to give messages to the out of town pagans, as noted in Acts 2:11.

You said, 'Thus, the progression. All were filled with the Spirit.

Ray is saying, 'I agree with you.' [Acts 2:4a]

You said, 'Some spoke in tongues.'

Ray is saying, Your statement above is not accurate. 'All were filled and all spoke with other tongues.' [Acts 2:4]

You said, 'Only one preached.'

Ray is saying, 'Each disciple preached truth to a particular person from a foreign nation, as duly noted in Acts 2:11. {We are understanding what they say in our own tongue}
The Apostle Peter's message is recorded in Scripture as you have told us.'

Women are not second class citizens now, here on the earth, or will they be in a lower realm of power in Heaven. {Now, please don't correct me and say there will be no gender in Heaven; I know this too} What I am saying, as I recall in the 50's that most of the Christian missionaries and nurses going to Africa, India and other foreign nations were women. There witness and preaching to the lost was noted by God and their service will be rewarded above. Some of God's chosen mouthpieces do not shave their faces each morning and yet proclaim the Gospel werever they walk.

You cannot just make unstudied statements; someone is always going to 'pick you up' on your incorrect logging into your mind, as to what you have come to believe.'

Regards,
Ray

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by MEE:
**DHK, this is getting old. Say what you want, but I don't think a lot, even some of the Baptists, on this board, agree with a lot of things that you post. You are hateful to them as well as to me. Sorry, but you came too late in trying to tell me something that is not Biblical!

MEE

MEE, I am not being hateful. Look what I said in my previous post:

Even if we concede your point as possibly being true, it is still moot. It doesn't matter. The Day of Pentecost is the day that the church began. It is a historical event, an event that will never again happen in history.

In other words, I am not going to be dogmatic on whether or not all spoke in tongues on the Day of Pentecost or not, or whether women spoke in tongues on the Day of Pentecost or not, because it really doesn't matter. Even if they did, it wouldn't affect what is later said about church order and discipline. Paul gives direction to the church, and says let everything be done decently and in order. Part of doing things decently and in order were for women to keep silent in the church (in the context of tongues--in the fourteenth chapter of First Corinthians). Tongues would indeed cease if all the women were silent about tongues and did not speak in tongues

My point simply is: you can't keep the stipulations that Paul put in place in 1Cor.14, and still claim to speak in the Biblical gift of tongues. You haven't demonstrated that.
Having said that, please tell me what I have said that is not Biblical.
DHK

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:

You said, 'Who spoke in tongues on the Day of Pentecost. Some believe it is all. I do
not believe it was.'

Ray is saying, 'You are teaching that God filled these 120 in different ways. The men were special and 'spoke in tongues' and the women, the inferior just sat there and God filled them without the same sign. You have a big, stretch going on with this theory.'

Ray I don't put any differentiation between men and women, and don't impy at any time that women are inferior. Please don't take what I say in that manner. God gives each one different roles. God does not allow for women preachers either. The Bible has set forth definite standards for its pastors and leaders. I believe that we ought to go by what God's Word says, and not our opinions.

I don't believe that Bible is specific on whether or not all 120 spoke in tongues or not. I don't think that we can be that dogmatic on it, after giving further thought to it. It is possible that they did; but more likely that they didn't. That is my opinion, based on the verses that I have given. We can agree to disagree on this, because in the long run it won't make any difference, especially in the light of MEE's original question--the role of women in the church. Acts 2 really has no bearing on this question any way. It is a red herring.

Ray is saying, 'Your statement is correct except your narrowing the ministry of the Holy Spirit, in your last sentence to just the male gender. God could care less about the male or female features; Jesus is concerned with women as well as men. In Acts 17:30 only mean that men should repent and not women? I am sure you get the point.

When speaking of the Holy Spirit indwelling man? Surely you know me better than that Ray.
Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
Are women included in the judgment too?
I was not narrowing the ministry of the Holy Spirit, nor was I discriminating against any gender.

You said, '2. We may conclude that not ALL spoke in tongues. It does not say that all
spoke in tongues. In fact it infers that they all did not.'

Ray is saying, 'You are dead in your tracks wrong. Forget what your denomination teaches, and I don't know your denominational affiliation. Read Acts 2:4 which says just the opposite of what you are strongly encouraging us to believe. 'And they were ALL filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.' This is not a difficult passage to interpret.'

I don't think I am quite dead, Ray. Acts 2:4 does say: "as the Spirit gave them utterance," which may indicate that the Holy Spirit did not give all of the 120 "utterance." I don't believe the Scripture is as clear as you think it is in saying that all 120 actually spoke in tongues. I don't think that we can be dogmatic either way. Perhaps I shouldn't have been too dogmatic in first asserting that the women did not speak in tongues, but rather have said that it is likely that they did not, though it is possibly that they did. I don't think one can be dogmatic here.

You said, ' . . . refer only to the men as being drunk, when mocking them. Thus it is probable that only the Apostles spoke in tongues. It is unlikely that any women spoke in tongues.'

Ray is saying, Think my friend. Were the mockers in the Upper Room to experience this unprecedented experience in the lives of the men and women? Acts 1:14 tells us something. These mockers did not sit with them several days until God came in His mighty power on the 120. But, someway they knew they were different because God had filled them with His own Self. Perhaps they heard from the streets their 'speaking in tongues.' It may be that when they left the Upper Room that they staggered under the mighty power Who rested on their body, soul, and spirit.'

They mocked "those that spoke in tongues." That is, they mocked the men, the ones speaking in tongues. That has no bearing on if they were in the upper room or not. The reason they mocked is because they saw MEN that seemed to them to be drunk because of their apparent strange actions. To observe this these mockers did not have to be in the upper room.

Women are not second class citizens now, here on the earth, or will they be in a lower realm of power in Heaven. {Now, please don't correct me and say there will be no gender in Heaven; I know this too} What I am saying, as I recall in the 50's that most of the Christian missionaries and nurses going to Africa, India and other foreign nations were women. There witness and preaching to the lost was noted by God and their service will be rewarded above. Some of God's chosen mouthpieces do not shave their faces each morning and yet proclaim the Gospel werever they walk.

Ray, there is no need to make such unsubstantiated remarks. I never said or even implied that women were second class citizens or inferior to men. Both men and women have their own roles to play in God's economy. When God said that "HE that desires the office of a bishop, desires a good thing, God also went on to say that one of the qualifications must be that he must be the husband of one wife. That kind of eliminates women doesn't it? I didn't write the Bible. I didn't put into effect the restrictions of 1Cor.14, but I know the One who did, and I do my best to obey Him. I don't understand why there are some here who continue to disobey God's word no matter how plain its commands may be.

You cannot just make unstudied statements; someone is always going to 'pick you up' on your incorrect logging into your mind, as to what you have come to believe.'

I agree. But I would also expect the same of others.
DHK

 

[MEE]

DHK, let me commend you on your last two posts! Not that I agree with the things 'you' preach, but to the fact that you sound a "wee bit" nicer this morning.

I'm sure I'm not the first to point out that you are a very harsh person to deal with.

With that being said, keep trying to be kind to people!

MEE

 

[music4Him]

Originally posted by MEE:
DHK, let me commend you on your last two posts! Not that I agree with the things 'you' preach, but to the fact that you sound a "wee bit" nicer this morning.

I'm sure I'm not the first to point out that you are a very harsh person to deal with.

With that being said, keep trying to be kind to people!

MEE

Yes MEE, he sounds a little nicer but........ now for the rest of my story. Sorry, but I was out yesterday helping a dear sweet little neighbor.

Music4Him

 

[Briguy]

Hi Guys, I have purposely not posted here as I felt the thread had run its course. I was just thinking of something but do not have a Greek Bible to look into. "as the Spirit gave them utterance". That statement struck me this morning. Could the Greek be saying that the Spirit gave the tongue speakers the ability to say what they said? Could this be just stating the fact that the gift was given, not when or who used it, especially later when they went out and apparently in public only the men used the gift? Just a thought as sometimes the Greek, when looked at closer, offers other clues to what is meant.

In Christ,
Brian

 

[tamborine lady]

FYI, for all of us to think about.

Luke-18:9 And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:
10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.
11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.


Just a little food for thought.

Everybody have a good day.

Working for Jesus,

Tam,

 

[MEE]

Originally posted by Briguy:
Hi Guys, I have purposely not posted here as I felt the thread had run its course. I was just thinking of something but do not have a Greek Bible to look into. "as the Spirit gave them utterance". That statement struck me this morning. </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

Could the Greek be saying that the Spirit gave the tongue speakers the ability to say what they said? Could this be just stating the fact that the gift was given, not when or who used it, In Christ,
Brian </font>[/QUOTE]Brian, if I'm understanding you correctly, yes that is what it means. They were all (120) given the gift of the Holy Ghost/Spirit and spoke with tongues. Acts 2:4 God did give them the ability to speak. How else would they have known that they had been filled with His Spirit?

Peter told the people in Acts 2:16-17)

16) But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
17) And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh:

The speaking that took place later...to the multitude...was three hours later. They were all filled with the Spirit, Acts 2:1, ...when the Day of Pentecost was fully come,.. which was six o'clock in the morning. By the time the multitude came together it was nine o'clock, or the third hour of the day. Acts 2:15)...seeing it is but the third hour of the day.

If I'm misunderstanding you..please 'splain!

MEE

 

[music4Him]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------
Heres a story and you tell me if this lady did right? A church having a rivial and had a guest preacher to come and speak. The guest preacher, (while preaching) kept calling the children heathens several times and not one man in the congragation stood up and corrected him. (what would you do if someone called your child a little heathen?) Finally this little lady who had her husband and children sitting with her could not sit quietly anymore....She stood up in the middle of service and called the preacher on what he was saying and quoted the scripture...
Matt. 18:6 -
But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

She didn't keep on preaching at him. She told him what he was saying wasn't right and quoted the scripture and sat back down.

Did she do right? Or should she of kept silent?
--------------------------------------------------

First of all the lady was absolutely wrong in what she did. I would never advocate a woman to do what she did. All children need to be saved just as all adults need to be saved. The man was preaching correctly. The children as well as you if you are not saved are heathens until they are saved. There is nothing wrong with that.
The verse that she quoted, she quoted out of context. Jesus wasn't referring to literal children. He was referring to spiritual children--the family of God--His own children by spiritual birith, that is those who are born again.
If you don't agree with what the preacher is preaching don't make a scene. Quietly leave. Go find some liberal church that doesn't preach the gospel, if that's not what you want to hear. Whatever you do don't make a scene.

The real point here is what good would it do for that woman to stand up to the preacher and tell him off in gibberish, the so-called speaking in tongues that you believe in. That is what 1Cor.14 is all about. Take everything in its context. Your out on rabbit trails.
DHK
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

DHK, I have no problem with children being taught, but not in the context that the preacher above was useing (ie..hate preaching).
Matthew 22:37-40
37
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.
38
This is the first and great commandment.
39
And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. [/B]

Matthew 7:12
Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.


The woman in that story was a Baptist (she was not talking a unknown tongue) and she called that so called preacher on his preaching, because he was calling "all kids" (his included) heathens. The story was true and the woman spoken of.... she was my mom. She didn't quote the scripture wrong because she was the childrens Sunday school teacher in that little church at the time and knew the children pretty well.

Heathen is defined as 1.any people not worshiping the God of Israel. 2.anyone not a Jew Christian or Moslem.3.a person reguarded as uncivilized, irreligious,ect. adj.of heathen tribes or culture 2.pagan;hence 3. irreligious.
Irreligious defined means not religious; indifferent or hostile to religion.

If the preacher was speaking the truth and knew each of those children personally it still wouldn't had made what he said to the children right. Would you like a preacher calling you unsaved if you was saved?

**Now for ~The rest of the story~**
The host family of the church that was chosen to be host to the visiting preacher still thought it would be the christian thing to feed him and his family because after all they still came a long way and were guest still the same. Betcha can't guess who the host family was? Yep, my mom & dad and my brothers and sisters.... and when she went to set all the plates on the table for everybody she was informed by him that women and children don't sit with men at the dinner table they eat after the men finish. She sweetly informed him in their house they all sit at the table together or no one eats. Dad agreed on this when he (the visiting preacher) gave my dad a look as to say do you really do this? No more was said and they all sat down and ate. (Mom was a good cook so no one argued LOL)

**Note: This is the story as I vaugely remember it, I was told about this when I was in my teens. (that has been er ummm a several + years* ago)**

Ya'll on this board can say that this story has nothing to do with what has ceased, but to me it does make a point as to (what people belive) has ceased. Tongues, prophecies, knowledge

When the law is not used like it should be used, but to put others back into bondage.......then what catagory does that put all those freedom scriptures? **Music4Him shrugging**

Why the stipulations for law that "Paul" made for the church in Corinth including verse 34? Can anyone describe what was going on with the *women and the *men and the *brethren of Corinth at that time and place while Paul was starting that church?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I noticed that 1Cor.14:26-40 it says brethren.......does brethren in that context mean brothers and sisters in Christ (the belivers)?

26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying. 27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. 28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God. 29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. 30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. 31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted. 32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. 33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? 37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. 38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant. 39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues. 40 Let all things be done decently and in order.

Do you think it is very freeing to told that you cannot speak/be a part of church sevice because you are the wrong gender? But now if they were unsaved or unlearned or still practicing pagan rituals, I can see Paul saying this to them because then you go down a little futher in the same chapter and it says brethren.


Also in 1Cor.chapter 12 is that passage for men only or for brethren (both men and women)? Does anyone see what I'm seeing here?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I appologize for such a long post, but sometimes it takes me while to paint the piture with crayons. (ie old slow computer of mine)

FYI, everything that I have written sould be read with a level tone of speaking and with no sarcasim. So go back and reread it if anything I said sounded that way.

MOHO, I think thats also why we get into tizzy in here on the debate boards. Its kinda hard to read how people are making their post.

Music4Him

 

[Ray Berrian]

Someone said, 'Heres a story and you tell me if this lady did right? A church having a
rivial and had a guest preacher to come and speak. The guest
preacher, (while preaching) kept calling the children heathens several
times . . . '

Ray is saying, 'The fact that the guest preacher repeatedly, spoke of children as being heathen, shows what caliber a man he is within his denomination. The real concern should be what the children thought about -God Who views children at worthless, pagans. I did not hear any expression of God who loves everyone, even little children and that they should believe in Him because He cares for even little children. The clergy is a jerk. Just because Pastor Jerk knows that we all have Original Sin and that children who grow up without Jesus will be lost, does not make him without flaw, because he had no thoughts about God's love for children. This is a 'no brainer.'

Someone said, ' . . . and not one man in the congragation stood up and corrected
him. (what would you do if someone called your child a little
heathen?)

Ray is saying, 'The laity, the Elders have no backbone in letting this man 'run rough shod'over the sensitive and tender hearts/souls/ and spirits of the little children.'

Finally this little lady who had her husband and children
sitting with her could not sit quietly anymore....She stood up in the
middle of service and called the preacher on what he was saying and
quoted the scripture...
Matt. 18:6 -
But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it
were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and
that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

She didn't keep on preaching at him. She told him what he was saying
wasn't right and quoted the scripture and sat back down.'

Ray is saying, 'The woman was exactly right and she called him on the issue of destroying the tender spirit of the little ears and minds.' This was not some adult point in theology that could be corrected after the services by the Elders.

Someone said, 'Did she do right? Or should she of kept silent?'

Ray is saying, 'Thank the Lord that God spoke through this precious mother.'

Ray is saying, 'I would hope that all evangelical and fundamentalist churches would object to this kind of unfeeling kind of quasi-preaching of any minister of the Gospel. I do not think you would ever hear a liberal Protestant pastor speaking about children as heathen or pagans.'
Ray is saying, 'Whoever thinks that in Matthew 18:1-6 is speaking only about adults, needs to attend a Bible College or at least study a good commentary.

The whole passage is dealing with the loving care of Jesus for all little children, as He stands a 'little child' among the adult persons. The Greek word for 'child' in this verse suggests any little one, from an infant to a half-grown boy or girl. The word is (paidion).

I have found, being a pastor, that it in almost every case that you do not have to prove Jesus reality. Children just take it for granted. The point was to teach the adults that they need to have the same simple, trusting, and believing mind and heart as this little child.

Pastor Jerk, if he ever says something like this to children again, should be warned about doing this, and next the superiors in his denomination should take away his license to preach.

 

[Briguy]

Carol, I think I was st getting at that maybe the verse is less then you are thinking it is. Maybe it is just staing a fact that the Holy Spirit gave the gift of tongues, Not that the Holy Spirit made the gift work for them, as gift useage is up to the gift holder. Just a thought.

Also, you quote Peter quoting Joel but I know you don't believe that what Joel said has come to pass do you?? Peter was making a point because there is no way that the rest of what Joel said would happen, happened lest the world be done. Or do you believe that there is more then 2000 years between the first part of the Joel statement and the rest of it. Also, If pentecost shows how all believers receive the Holy Ghost, then why did only the 120 have tongues of fire over them? That should keep happening if it is for every beleiver, right?

I'll give you a whack at those before I go on.

Take care, In Christ,
Brian

 

[DHK]

Here are some questions that I posed to atestring in response to a question that he has. I ask for those that speak in tongues to give honest answers to them. If you can't give honest and direct answers to these questions, without sidestepping the questions, then you should stop it, for it is an obvious unbiblical practice.

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by atestring:
Then why have you ranted about women and used scriptures about women being silent if you believe that neither men nor women are at liberty to speak in tongues.

atestring: My position on tongues has never changed. Tongues have ceased, and they did so by the end of the first century.
1Cor.14 speaks of the conditions imposed on speaking in tongues for the believers in the first century. They don't apply to in the sense that tongues are not for today anyway.
My argument is: For those who say that tongues is Biblical and for today, then go through the fourteenth chapter of 1Corinthians, and apply the same restrictions that Paul imposed on the churches of the first century to the churches of today. If you cannot do it, then obviously you know that what you are doing is not of God. Go through the list one by one.
Do they have an interpreter at all times?
Do they have a maximum of only three people speak in tongues, and never at the same time?
Are the women always silent in respect to tongues.
Are their unbelieving Jews present when speaking in tongues?
Are the "tongues" being spoken acutal real languages, or are they mere gibberish?
Are they spoken, not only with an interpreter, but always in the church, to the congregation, for the edification of the church as a whole--never as a prayer language or singing, etc.

These are just some of the questions that arise out of the 14th chapter to guage whether or not tongues would be Biblical if they were for today. Since so many of you insist that they are for today without Biblical evidence, then here is the Bible. Match up your experience with the Word of God. Compare it. Do you speak in tongues only when all these conditions are set in place or not?
If not, then you know it is not of God.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]

 

[Ray Berrian]

God's ministry to His church, His Body, is still being encouraged through the 'gift of tongues' and the 'interpretation of tongues.' Some of us were not born yesterday and have been in hundreds of services when God uses this as a vehicle to encourage His people who sit in the pew every Sunday waiting to be fed with the Word of God. Sometimes it comes directly from the Lord and other times it comes directly from the Lord by way of the pastor preaching. There is no other Biblical way of looking at this, unless you want to say that I Corinthians chapters 12 and 14 are no longer a part of the precious Word of God. I don't think any of us are so spiritual that we have the right to expunge part of His apparently, important truth for His church. This does not make churches deficient if they do not have this phenomenon, because perhaps it was only the Corinthian Church that exercised these 'gifts of the Spirit.'

 

[BobRyan]

DHK --
1Cor.14 speaks of the conditions imposed on speaking in tongues for the believers in the first century. They don't apply to in the sense that tongues are not for today anyway.

I think you are wrong about that. The 1Cor 12 gifts (include the gifts listed in 1Cor 14 and they apply until the 2nd coming according to Ephesians 4 instructions about the purpose of gifts of the Holy Spirit in general).

DHK said
My argument is: For those who say that tongues is Biblical and for today, then go through the fourteenth chapter of 1Corinthians, and apply the same restrictions that Paul imposed on the churches of the first century to the churches of today. If you cannot do it, then obviously you know that what you are doing is not of God.

That is true.

DHK Said

Go through the list one by one.
Do they have an interpreter at all times?
Do they have a maximum of only three people

#1. Paul complained about the abuse of the legitimate gift of tongues in 1Cor 14 - he did not complain about an unbiblical gift nor did he complain that the problem in Corinth was a "false gift".

#2. There is nothing that said - only 3 people may speak in tongues, or pray , or sing.

DHK
speak in tongues, and never at the same time?

That is the correct format - but when not done that way - it is merely "poor procedure" not "false gift".

DHK said --
Are the women always silent in respect to tongues.

Not mentioned in the text. In fact the text says the "opposite" when Paul says "EACH of you has a tongue" to share.

DHK
Are their unbelieving Jews present when speaking in tongues?

#1. No mention of Jews in the entire chapter, or in chapter 13 or in chapter 12. Nothing in the chapter says "Tongues is for a sign for ungifted jews." but it DOES speak of the problem of the "ungifted" entering and not knowing what is going on if Tongues are not used correctly.

DHK
Are the "tongues" being spoken acutal real languages, or are they mere gibberish?

This is a legitimate quesition that tests the "validity of the gift" not just "the process" that is followed for the correct gift.

This question gets to "The heart of the problem today"

DHK
Are they spoken, not only with an interpreter, but always in the church, to the congregation, for the edification of the church as a whole--never as a prayer language or singing, etc.

This is not a valid test. The chapter clearly says that praying and singing in tongues is allowed.

But going back to your point earlier - if the praying and singing is done in a known language that is not native to the local church (i.e. for the benefit of a visitor) then it does no good to use that gift - If the visitors who know that tongue are not present.

In Christ,

Bob