What new Tongues is Marck 16 14-18 speaking about?

[DHK]

Link,
I don't have the time now to answer every point of your lengthy posts. But I do say this. You have taken much out of context and read into much of the Scripture your own pre-conceived ideas that which is not there. You give an example of one church (AOG) rebuking someone for speaking in tongues, when you know full well that that is the exception and not the norm. Thus your posts are deceitful and do not bring out the truth of Scripture, or the truth of what is going on today in the Charismatic movement.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

There is a problem with your argument. In I Corinthians 14, we see that if someone speaks in tongues 'no man understandeth him' and therefore the message in tongues needs to be interpreted. Interpretation was a gift, and one could pray to be able to interpret (v. 13.) If no one in the church had to naturally understand the message in tongues for it to be real or to be used in church.

We must also take into consideration who the tongue is spoken to. It is not to man, but to God.

1 Corinthians 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

If the tongue is not to man, why then is the interpretation of that tongue as if it were to man?

If it is to God as Scripture clearly shows it is, why is the interpretation always "Thus saith the Lord God..." or "I, the Lord God, have heard thee..."?

Another sign that the tongues spoken in the majority of Pentecostal/Charismatic movements is either not of God or the interpretation thereof is not of God, or both.

 

[Link]

Link,
You give an example of one church (AOG) rebuking someone for speaking in tongues, when you know full well that that is the exception and not the norm. Thus your posts are deceitful and do not bring out the truth of Scripture, or the truth of what is going on today in the Charismatic movement.

DHK,
You should know better to malign someone's character when you have no basis at all. Notice I said that 'Many Pentecostal churches' followed this practice. the AOG is the largest Pentecosal denomination. It is the one I am most familiar with since I spent my teen years in that denomination.

I did not say I was commenting on the general trends of the Charismatic movement. Your calling me deceitful over this should altert you to the fact that you need to guard your tongue, or finger tips. Slander is a sin.

There are a lot of Charismatic churches which are rather reserved. I would not guess whether most of them practice speaking in tongues en mass. When you consider that there is a lot of variety of practice in churches abroad, it makes it even harder to generalize.

Do you try the old ad hominem attack routine because you do not like to be proven wrong? You wrote, "If any Charismatic were to follow all the restrictions placed on speaking in tongues given in 1Cor.14, no Pentecostal or Charismatic church would be speaking in tongues today. " Since plenty of Pentecostal churches do insist that tongues spoken out in the congregation be interpreted, and they still exist, do you wish to retract your statement?

I don't know what the 'typical' situation is with Pentecostals or Charismatics. In a lot of Pentecostal churches, speaking in tongues during the meeting is rather rare. I recall reading someone commenting on the statistics on this. Some Pentecostal and Charismatic church services are relatively indistinguishable from another evangelical service that uses contemporary worship choruses.

If there is a case of my reading into scripture, show me plainly what you are referring to when you get time.

As an exercise of humility and an expression of good will, are you willing to admit that you read into the passage when you assumed that everyone was standing up and doing all those I Corinthians 14:26 things at one time. The passage does not state this? Are you willing to admit to your wild speculation and extreme eisegesis in interpreting Paul's warning that no one speaking by the Spirit of God would say that Christ is accursed was specifically about speaking in tongues, when the Bible says no such thing?

 

[Link]

We must also take into consideration who the tongue is spoken to. It is not to man, but to God.

1 Corinthians 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

If the tongue is not to man, why then is the interpretation of that tongue as if it were to man?

If it is to God as Scripture clearly shows it is, why is the interpretation always "Thus saith the Lord God..." or "I, the Lord God, have heard thee..."?

Another sign that the tongues spoken in the majority of Pentecostal/Charismatic movements is either not of God or the interpretation thereof is not of God, or both.

This is an issue I have wondered about some, too. Some interpretations that I have heard given are prayers. I read an account from the Azusa Street in which an interpretation of a tongue was a prayer, also.

Some comments, though, on tongues addressed the congregation. I am not completely convinced that all tongues have to be prayers. here is one reason I say this:

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

Could Paul be talking about the content of the interpretation that follos the tongue here, that it could be revelation, knowledge, prophesying, or doctrine? I don't know. It isn't clear. Notice also that in Acts, those who spoke in tongues spoke of the 'wonderful works of God.' The passage does not specify if they were doing so in prayer or if they were addressing the crowd.

Be that as it may, if an interpretation of a tongue is addressed the crowd, that is not proof that 'either not of God or the interpretation thereof is not of God, or both.'

It may be that when someone speaks in tongues, that the pause there may give someone with a prophecy-- who cannot tell that his message is a prophecy rather than an interpretation of tongues-- a chance to share the prophecy the Lord has given him. Pentecostal and Charismatic churches have inherited the unwritten liturgy problem from evangelicalism. Instead of seeking to have meetings like I Corinthians 14 instructs, allowing for the saints to use their gifts, they, typically, have an unwritten liturgy. In a lot of these churches, tongues and interpretation or prophecy have to get squeezed in between lulls in the music if they are going to be given.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

since the Scripture says the tongue is to God, the interpretation must be as to God as well.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Notice also that in Acts, those who spoke in tongues spoke of the 'wonderful works of God.' The passage does not specify if they were doing so in prayer or if they were addressing the crowd.

whether in prayer or not, the verse does not say they were speaking words directly from God... it says they were speaking the wonderful works of God.... there is a difference.

 

[DHK]

Tongues is only mentioned in a few places. We have a rather lengthy passage of the gift as it functioned in a local church. Your assertion holds no water. We need to go by what the Bible actually says. Paul teaches that the gifts of the Spirit, are given to profit the whole body. That's Bible doctrine.

Since tongues is only mentioned in a few places it is those places that we must look, not read into the Scripture where tongues is not mentioned. This is your mistake. You are making assumptions. You are reading into Scriptures that which is not there. You are not sticking to the Scriptures where tongues are mentioned. Thus you are going outside of the Word of God. Thus it is your assertions that hold no water.
Paul actually teaches that the gifts of the Spirit are not even for today, so all of your arguments break down right there. Again, you are not teaching Bible doctrine, but only your opinion.

You state your speculation as if it were fact.

That is because I don't speculate.

Paul does not say anything about pagan tongues.

If you read the passage carefully he does.

He does mention the possibility of someone calling Christ accursed and stated that no one would say that by the Spirit of God.

And how would one accomplish that feat except it be by a tongue (language). Tongue always means language.

That does not mean that anyone in the Corinthian church had actually done this. Paul may be using hyperbole here. I would imagine you would argue that Paul was using hyperbole when mentioned tongues of men and of angels when he said, 'though I speak in the tongues of men and of angels.'

No, Paul wasn't using hyperbole in either case. There is no reason to believe that he was. You are just denying the facts of Scripture. Paul said that some were calling Christ accursed. That is a fact. You deny it. You are denying Scripture because you don't want to believe it.
There are tongues of angels. Paul never said he spoke in them. He said; "If he could speak in them." That is not hyperbole, but conjecture. There is a difference.

Some people would say that his talking about having all faith to be able to move mountians and understanding all mysteries and all knowledge are hyperbole as well. So if Paul mentions the extreme case of someone saying Christ is accursed, that is not proof that it was going on in the Corinthian church.

Apples and oranges. In one he says: If I could--that means conjecture, not hyperbole. If you say there is hyperbole in 1Cor.12, you are simply denying the Word of God. Paul said that some were calling Christ accursed. So you don't believe the Scriptures. Quite amazing!

Arguing that people were cursing our Lord in tongues is just plain wild speculation.

Yet that is what it says. You can't speak something without your tongue can you. A tongue is a language, or haven't you learned that yet.

The immediate context does not mention tongues. Paul goes on to list several gifts a few verses later, with tongues at the bottom of the list with interpretation, the furthest gift away from this statement about saying Jesus is Lord or cursing Christ. Prophecy is closer in the list to this statement.

The immediate context is spiritual gifts of which tongues is mentioned as one of them.

It makes a lot more sense, if you want to engage in such speculation, to speculate that someone had 'prophesied' against Christ.

I don't speculate.

If someone had cursed Christ in tongues, no one would have known about it since they could not understand the tongue (without interpretation.) Paul doesn't say anything about cursing Christ in tongues in the passage.

You are just beginning to learn I see. Obviously the greater mass would not have known. But there would have been some with the gift of interpretation, or even some that simply recognized the language being spoken that understood what they were saying. Not all--but some. By their fruits you shall know them. They were thus rebuked and Paul found out about it.

If cursing Christ in tongues were something Paul's readers needed to be concerned about, you would think the book might say something about it. it does not.

It does, you refuse to look at it.

Nowhere does the Bible raise any concerns about demonic tongues, fake tongues, or any such thing. The Bible does show us that we can trust God to give good gifts, particularly the Holy Ghost (in the Luke version), to His children.

Have you read Mat.7?
Matthew 7:22-23 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
--fake tongues? demonic tongues? Today's tongues?
Probably. Jesus said: Depart from me I never knew you.

That is all for now. Like I said your posts are very lengthy.

 

[Link]

whether in prayer or not, the verse does not say they were speaking words directly from God... it says they were speaking the wonderful works of God.... there is a difference.

According to I Corinthians 14, the speaker in tongues mind is 'unfruitful.' But speakers in tongues 'give thanks well', and if their message is edified it edifies the church.

If the speaker in tongues does not know what he is saying, where do his words come from? Set aside the issue of tongues occuring in modern times and answer my question based on the I Corinthians 14 situation.

Paul calls praying in tongues 'praying in the spirit.' The S could be capitalized in translation or not. Acts 2 says that the apostles spoke in tongues 'as the Spirit gave them utterance.' If what they did was the same as in I Corinthians 14, that is if their understanding was 'unfruitful' and they did not understand what they were saying, doesn't it make sense that God gave them the _content_ of what to pray as well?

 

[standingfirminChrist]

It makes perfect sense if one take into account that tongues are for a sign. Not for the believer, but for the unbeliever.

 

[Link]

It makes perfect sense if one take into account that tongues are for a sign. Not for the believer, but for the unbeliever.

The Bible teaches that tongues are not a sign for believers, but it does not say that tongues are not for believers.

Tongues are for believers as one of the gifts that edify the body of Christ.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

When used in accordance with God's Holy Word.

Unfortunately, the majority of the time, they are not.

 

[Link]

Since tongues is only mentioned in a few places it is those places that we must look, not read into the Scripture where tongues is not mentioned. This is your mistake. You are making assumptions. You are reading into Scriptures that which is not there. You are not sticking to the Scriptures where tongues are mentioned.

I made my arguments carefully from scripture. I did not insert extrapolations from how I imagined it might have taken place, like imagining the Corinthians were all speaking in tongues, teaching and singing at the same time when the scriptures don't say that.

Thus you are going outside of the Word of God. Thus it is your assertions that hold no water.

You can say that all day, but if you can't specifically show what arguments you believe went outside the word of God and show how, then you are just filling up bandwidth.

I did not go outside the word for theological arguments. I did talk a little about the AOG, because you raise dthe subject of Pentecostal and Charismatic churches. Does your mentioning them constitute going outside the word of God.

Paul actually teaches that the gifts of the Spirit are not even for today, so all of your arguments break down right there. Again, you are not teaching Bible doctrine, but only your opinion.

No, Paul teaches that that the perfect will come. At that time, his knowledge, speech, and understanding when he wrote I Corinthians will seem childish by comparison to what he will experience when the perfect comes. This passage mentions tongues, prophecy, and knowledge. It says nothing about the gifts of healing or miracles. Plus, Revelation shows prophecy and miracles functioning in the last days. If these were 'done away with' because they are no longer needed, why are they needed at the end of time? It doesn't make sense.

That is because I don't speculate.

If I had all faith, I would move your ego.:laugh:

Why can't you admit when you are clearly wrong. I Corinthians 14 does not tell us whether the Corinthians were all talking at the same time. Yet you assume they were. This is clearly speculation. Be man enough to admit when you are wrong.

If you read the passage carefully he does.

If your Bible says that the Corinthian believers were cursing Christ in tongues, or that they were cursing Christ, you need to get yourself a real translation.

Let's look at these verses from chapter 12.

2. Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led.
3. Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

See, Paul says that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed. That's what the Bible says. It does not say that any of them were cursing Christ.

Is it possible that someone had cursed Christ and that Paul was addressing it? Yes. Is it possible that some pagan had does pagan prophecy to curse Christ? Yes it is. Does the Bible say that these things happened. No. If you still see definitive proof in verse 3, in this translation, that people in the Corinthian church had cursed Christ by speaking in tongues, something is wrong with you. Please, just be humble enough to admit when you are wrong. If you read something like this into the passage, you have a serious problem with eisegesis, and that would explain some of your other approaches to this issue.

And how would one accomplish that feat except it be by a tongue (language). Tongue always means language.

Let me specify then. I mean with something that proported to be the gift of speaking in tongues. That is how anyone reading this thread will take it if you say they were cursing Christ in tongues. If they were speaking in the common tongue, Greek, and cursing Christ, you could argue that since they were doing it in a language, they were doing it 'in tongues' but that is a rather smarty-pants way of arguing the case.

There is nothing in the passage to indicate that anyone in Corinth had cursed Christ while proporting to speak in tongues. If they had, no one would have understood it, and so they would not have known that was what Paul was talking about anyway. And there is no reason to think that this is what Paul is talking about in the passage. You are just reading your own ideas into scripture.

What is your basis for doing so? Did you get an extra-scriptural revelation about the demonic tongues speaker in Corinth?

No, Paul wasn't using hyperbole in either case. There is no reason to believe that he was. You are just denying the facts of Scripture. Paul said that some were calling Christ accursed. That is a fact. You deny it. You are denying Scripture because you don't want to believe it.

Be faithful with the word, man.

No, I am not denying scripture. I am confessing this.
3. Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

That's what the verse says. Not what you say it says.

There are tongues of angels. Paul never said he spoke in them. He said; "If he could speak in them." That is not hyperbole, but conjecture. There is a difference.

Apples and oranges. In one he says: If I could--that means conjecture, not hyperbole.

The reason some people say it is hyperbole is because it is an _extreme_ thing that they don't think is possible. Why don't you look up hyperbole in the dictionary before we continue on this topic?

I don't say it is hyperbole because I don't say it's impossible to speak in tongues of angels. I also do not say it is impossible that someone in Corinth may have cursed Christ and that Paul was referring to it. But the Bible does not tell us that this is the case and it is twisting the word to make it say that it does when it doesn't.

If you say there is hyperbole in 1Cor.12, you are simply denying the Word of God. Paul said that some were calling Christ accursed. So you don't believe the Scriptures. Quite amazing!

Saying there is hyperbole somewhere isn't denying the word. It's saying the author is using a figure of speech. I can accept that as a possibility. Btw, do you think it is possible for someone to understand all mystery and all knowledge in this day and age? If not, how could you get around the idea of that being hyperbole?

You are adding something that the Bible does not say. The Bible does not say that the Corinthians were cursing Christ. It does say, "that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed". That is it. It doesn't say the Corinthians were doing it. Either present the other verses you are talking about, or just be humble enough to admit that you are wrong.

Yet that is what it says. You can't speak something without your tongue can you. A tongue is a language, or haven't you learned that yet.

If the Corinthians were cursing in Greek, do you consider that 'speaking in tongues.' Do you think speaking Greek is the same kind of 'speaking in an unknown tongue' that Paul is talking about in this passage?

If not, why are you trying to cloud the issue by calling speaking with natural languages speaking in tongues when you know that no one is taking the phrase 'speaking in tongues' that way when you write? Isn't it just to save face?

 

[Link]

You are just beginning to learn I see. Obviously the greater mass would not have known. But there would have been some with the gift of interpretation, or even some that simply recognized the language being spoken that understood what they were saying. Not all--but some. By their fruits you shall know them. They were thus rebuked and Paul found out about it.

First, you speculate that someone there would have known what the false speaker in tongues was saying in your imaginary scenario that is not in scripture. Then, you speculate that the 'gift of interpretation' might work to interpret demonic tongues (as if someone speaking with a gift is going to translate a curse against Christ!)

The main problem here is that this whole scenario comes purely out of your imagination. Paul never says anyone was cursing Christ, and he certainly doesn't say someone was doing it in a tongue not known by the masses. If it is in the Bible, just show us. It certainly isn't in this phrase "no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed."

This is the Bible we are talking about. This is not interpreting post-modern art where you can interpret it any way you want and it doesn't have to be based on anything reasonable.

Btw, are you using Good News or The Message for doctrinal study nowadays?


It does, you refuse to look at it.

Have you read Mat.7?
Matthew 7:22-23 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
--fake tongues? demonic tongues? Today's tongues?
Probably. Jesus said: Depart from me I never knew you.

That is all for now. Like I said your posts are very lengthy.[/quote]


Matthew 7 does not mention tongues. Matthew 7's warning applies today as it did in the first century. What did you have in the first century? You had true apostles, prophets, teachers, miracle workers, etc. doing the work of God. Then you had false versions serving their own bellies.

What do you have at the end times? You see the false prophet in Revelation. You see lying signs and wonders. But you also see true prophets whose blood is in Babylon. You see the two witnesses prophesying with their miracle of fire and their resurrection, another miracle.

So from the first century to the end, Jesus' warning holds true. Jesus said in Matthew 23 that He would send prophets, wise men, and scribes. Paul's instruction is to 'Despise not prophesyings' and to 'Prove all things.'

If you reject the gifts of the Spirit out of hand, you end up disobeying scripture. We are commanded to covet gifts. If you accept anything that claims to be a prophecy or anyone claiming to be a prophet without considering the fruit, that is also disobedience.

The right approach is to follow the path the Bible teaches. The right approach is not trying to get into the safest ditch on either side of the path.

 

[Link]

First, you speculate that someone there would have known what the false speaker in tongues was saying in your imaginary scenario that is not in scripture. Then, you speculate that the 'gift of interpretation' might work to interpret demonic tongues (as if someone speaking with a gift is going to translate a curse against Christ!)

The main problem here is that this whole scenario comes purely out of your imagination. Paul never says anyone was cursing Christ, and he certainly doesn't say someone was doing it in a tongue not known by the masses. If it is in the Bible, just show us. It certainly isn't in this phrase "no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed."

This is the Bible we are talking about. This is not interpreting post-modern art where you can interpret it any way you want and it doesn't have to be based on anything reasonable.

Btw, are you using Good News or The Message for doctrinal study nowadays?

It does, you refuse to look at it.

Have you read Mat.7?
Matthew 7:22-23 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
--fake tongues? demonic tongues? Today's tongues?
Probably. Jesus said: Depart from me I never knew you.

That is all for now. Like I said your posts are very lengthy.

Matthew 7 does not mention tongues. Matthew 7's warning applies today as it did in the first century. What did you have in the first century? You had true apostles, prophets, teachers, miracle workers, etc. doing the work of God. Then you had false versions serving their own bellies.

What do you have at the end times? You see the false prophet in Revelation. You see lying signs and wonders. But you also see true prophets whose blood is in Babylon. You see the two witnesses prophesying with their miracle of fire and their resurrection, another miracle.

So from the first century to the end, Jesus' warning holds true. Jesus said in Matthew 23 that He would send prophets, wise men, and scribes. Paul's instruction is to 'Despise not prophesyings' and to 'Prove all things.'

If you reject the gifts of the Spirit out of hand, you end up disobeying scripture. We are commanded to covet gifts. If you accept anything that claims to be a prophecy or anyone claiming to be a prophet without considering the fruit, that is also disobedience.

We must obey the exhortations of scripture, but also accept its warnings. You have no authority to do away with Paul's commands in Corinthians and Thessalonians regarding spiritual gifts.

The right approach is to follow the path the Bible teaches. The right approach is not trying to get into the safest ditch on either side of the path.

 

[DHK]

The main problem here is that this whole scenario comes purely out of your imagination. Paul never says anyone was cursing Christ, and he certainly doesn't say someone was doing it in a tongue not known by the masses. If it is in the Bible, just show us. It certainly isn't in this phrase "no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed."

Denial of Scripture is convenient when it doesn't fit your pre-conceived ideas. I suppose Paul wrote those verses for the good of his own health, imagining that there was no problem in Corinth at all. For that matter why did he even bother writing the entire epistle if everything was perfectly ok? If they were such a spiritual church with no problems at all why even write the epistle? You really think that 1Cor.12:1-4 has absolutely no relevance and should just be snipped out of the Bible. God forbid!

I still see that your denial of Scripture is absolutely amazing. Your contention that Paul is writing something for nothing baffles me.
Why write at all?

 

[Link]

Denial of Scripture is convenient when it doesn't fit your pre-conceived ideas. I suppose Paul wrote those verses for the good of his own health, imagining that there was no problem in Corinth at all. For that matter why did he even bother writing the entire epistle if everything was perfectly ok? If they were such a spiritual church with no problems at all why even write the epistle? You really think that 1Cor.12:1-4 has absolutely no relevance and should just be snipped out of the Bible. God forbid!

I still see that your denial of Scripture is absolutely amazing. Your contention that Paul is writing something for nothing baffles me.
Why write at all?

You say the Bible says things it doesn't, and then you falsely accuse me of denying scripture.

Paul said that no man speaking by the Spirit calls Jesus accursed. That is what he said. If you read into that that someone had cursed Christ in Corinth, you are eisegeting. If you read into that that someone had cursed Christ while proporting to use the gift of tongues, your argument borders on insanity.

If you can imagine that something happened a certain way, that does not mean that it happened that way. There are plenty of mental patients out there who seem to think that if they imagine something, it must be true. The imagine people living under the stairs out to get them. Therefore, they think, it must be true.

You can imagine someone cursing Christ in tongues if you want, but the Bible doesn't teach that.

It makes perfect sense that Paul wanted to teach the two extremes on prophecy and other spiritual manifestations without someone having to had cursed Christ in the church in Corinth. If Paul had heard no report of such a thing, it still makes sense that he would have explained that if a man can only say 'Jesus is Lord' by the Holy Ghost, and no man speaking by the Holy Ghost curses Christ.

If someone had cursed Christ in church using some kind of pneumatika, then it still makes sense that Paul would have said this. But this situation seems unlikely. Paul directly addresses specific problems like division and fornication in Corinth. He doesn't just say, "Don't sleep with your step mamma.' No, he points out that there was a specific problem, very explicitly. Since cursing Christ is a pretty serious offense, does it make sense that Paul would have made a doctrinal statement about no one speaking by the Holy Ghost cursing Christ, instead of urging the church to call the man on the carpet for his sin, or cut him off from fellowship?

Paul said that no man could say that 'Jesus is Lord' but by the Holy Ghost. Suppose I were to eisegete into this that each and every Corinthian Christian always said, "Jesus is Lord" at least once during the church meeting. Suppose you disagreed with me, and I accused you of 'denying scripture' for disagreeing. Well, I'd make myself look crazy with such an argument. The Corinthians MIGHT have all said 'Jesus is Lord' each time they met. But the Bible doesn't say it.

Here is what the verse says,
3. Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

That verse doesn't say that a Corinthian had cursed Christ. It does not say that each Corinthian believer always said, "Jesus is Lord" at least once in a church meeting. It says what it says.

I really wonder what your angle is for trying to argue that the passage does not say what it really says. If you believed you had a 'divine revelation' that is what the verse means although it does not say it, that would contradict the cessationist position you are arguing for. Your approach on this makes me wonder a little about your mental health, honestly. Or could you just have such a great problem with pride that you can't admit when you are wrong, even to your self? Either way it doesn't make sense. Why don't you run the last two or three of our posts on this by some of your Baptist brethren and see if they think you are engaging in eisegesis.

Also, if you are ministering the word of God, you shouldn't add stuff to the Bible. I've seen people add stuff to the Bible when they were teaching like this. One example that comes to mind is prosperity teaching who use basically the same approach you do. One guy argued that since Christ had a pillow, He had worldly goods. Therefore, the guy argued, he was rich. His logic was about as good as yours with this verse.

Eisegesis is eisegesis. If you have some verse that shows people were cursing Christ in Corinth. Otherwise, as a minister of the word, refrain from adding things to scripture that aren't there.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

1 Corinthians 12
a.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT] Paul begins by warning them of two errors in regard to spiritual gifts (1 – 3).
1.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]The error of ignorance (v.1). The Corinthian Believers were ignorant of the divine purpose for and proper use of the gifts. This is still a great problem in the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement. In these chapters Paul corrects this ignorance.
2.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]The error of paganism (v.2.3). The Corinthian Church was intermingling the things of Christ with the things of paganism. They had not properly separated from idolatrous practices (1 Corinthians 10:14; 2 Corinthians 6:16,17).
a.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Thus they were misusing spiritual gifts along the lines of what they had observed in pagan practice. Accustomed to worshippers being “carried away” by the demonic spirits of idolatry, they thought the Spirit of God operated after the same fashion. We see this in the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement today. They think the Spirit of God knocks Believers to the ground and glues them to the floor and that He forces people to speak out all at once or that He moves in individuals so that they act in a disorderly manner. This great error is corrected in these chapters. We will see that the Holy Spirit is not the author of confusion but of peace (1 Corinthians 14:33). When the Spirit of God is operating things are done decently and in order (1 Corinthians 14:40). He does not operate in prophets in such a manner that they are out of control (1 Corinthians 14:32). “[Being carried away] pictures worshippers out of control, in ecstatic states. The historians of the mystery religions of Greece picture devotees caught up in emotional hysteria, shaking and falling prostrate on the ground and babbling in ecstatic speech! Plato records such scenes. So does Virgil, who lived and wrote just prior to Christ. Now Paul is saying, ‘that is the way it was when you were idolaters, but it shouldn’t be so now!’ ‘The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets’ (1 Corinthians 14:32). ‘Let all things be done decently and in order’ (1 Corinthians 14:40). ‘The Holy Spirit doesn’t produce what your idolatrous worship produced’” (George Gardiner, The Corinthian Catastrophe).
b.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Paul carefully distinguishes between and contrasts the spirit of paganism and the Spirit of God (1 Corinthians 12:3). He warns the Corinthian Church that the spirit of idolatry and the Spirit of God are not the same. Any man or spirit or religion that does not acknowledge that Jesus is the Lord is false. This is the great difference between Bible-believing Christianity and all false religions. No pagan religion acknowledges that Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ alone is Lord or God, but the Spirit of God teaches us that “Jesus is the Lord” (1 Corinthians 12:3). He is not ‘a lord’; He is THE Lord. Many will acknowledge that Jesus is a great prophet or a very holy man or a great teacher or even “one of the” messiahs, but no other religion in this world will acknowledge that Jesus is the only Lord and Savior. “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (John 14:6). “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). In the context of ecumenical dialogue today it is common to speak of pagan religions in positive terms, but according to the Bible there is “no light” in false religions (Isaiah 8:20). Jesus warned, “I am the door of the sheep. All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers (John 10:7,8). When Paul says, “No man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost,” he is referring to a man that is speaking from the heart. Any man can “say that Jesus is the Lord” in the sense of merely uttering those words, but it is the man that speaks this from the heart that is of God. “For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation” (Romans 10:10).
Advanced Bible Study Series by David Cloud– 1 Corinthians pp209-211

 

[DHK]

You can imagine someone cursing Christ in tongues if you want, but the Bible doesn't teach that.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but I am not the only one who interprets this passage in the same manner. Many commentators have similar views:

The goal of the Spirit's influence is always to lead us to confess Jesus Christ as Lord of our lives. Paul contrasts their experience as unconverted idolaters with their present experience as Christians. He had described in 6:9 the pagan background that God had brought them out of: "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God." That is what they had once been, and in their unrighteousness, they had worshipped dead idols.
But now they belonged to the living God. Their idols had never spoken to them, but God did speak to them through the Holy Spirit. We're going to see when we get to verse 10 that he spoke through them with the gift of prophecy.
When they were lost, Paul says in 12:1-3, they were captives of Satan and their own depraved natures, and they were spiritually blind. They were weak, so they couldn't help being led into idolatry. We saw in chapter 10 (Discovery Paper 4527) that they were under the control of demonic influence. That's what he's referring to in verse 2: "You were led astray...." or carried away. Perhaps the reference in verse 3 to saying, "Jesus be accursed," is recalling what the Corinthians were like when they were under the influence of the demonic prior to their conversion-that's the only way they could say those horrible words. But now the point he makes is the good news-the Spirit of God was directing them. (Doug Goins)

http://www.pbc.org/files/messages/6456/4530.html

That is just one of many.

If they were speaking under the influence of a demonic spirit they could be speaking in another tongue. This is what some of them were involved in, and this is what some modern day tongue-speaking is connected with as well. It has the same source, at least in some cases.

 

[Link]

1 Corinthians 12
a. Paul begins by warning them of two errors in regard to spiritual gifts (1 – 3).
1.The error of ignorance (v.1). The Corinthian Believers were ignorant of the divine purpose for and proper use of the gifts. This is still a great problem in the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement. In these chapters Paul corrects this ignorance.

I assume this is the Gardner commentary. I am not sure if the last quote is his or the whole thing.

I see more ignorance of the purpose of spiritual gifts among cessationists. At least a lot of Charismatics have heard some good teaching on the subject. I know there is teaching on it that is not good, especially some of the speculative teaching on speaking in tongues that exaggerates the importance of speaking in tongues in comparison to other gifts.

Something interesting about this whole discourse is that when Paul is wrapping up his teaching on gifts, he says, "If any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant"-- a kind of chiasmic structure. If you will notice many churches are ignorant of a lot of the teaching in these chapters. How many cessationist churches do you know that allow speaking in tongues and interpretation? How many cessationist churches follow the instructions for tongues and interpretation in this chapter? A lot more Pentecostal and Charismatic churches are closer on this issue. How many churches allow everyone to have a psalm, doctrine, tongue, revelation, or interpretation in an orderly manner? How many churches let all these things be done unto edifying? In both cessationist and Charismatic circles, this is somewhat rare. But the Charismatics tend to be a little bit closer to what Paul is talking about since they allow some expression of some of these gifts without insisting that it come from 'the pulpit.' (The concept of having 'the pulpit' in church is not Biblical, since the saints are to edify according to their gifts, and not push the responsibility onto one man. Much of the modern evangelical concept of 'the pastor' isn't in the Bible either, though there is a Biblical concept of pastor.)

You will find a lot more Charismatic and Pentecostal 'average Joes' who have an idea of what prophecy than you will cessationists. Interestingly enough, Barna did a study back that showed evidence that Charismatics tended to know the Bible better than evangelicals in general, which was suprising even to some Charismatics. (You can run a google search to find this fairly easily if you are interested.)

2.The error of paganism (v.2.3). The Corinthian Church was intermingling the things of Christ with the things of paganism. They had not properly separated from idolatrous practices (1 Corinthians 10:14; 2 Corinthians 6:16,17).
a.Thus they were misusing spiritual gifts along the lines of what they had observed in pagan practice. Accustomed to worshippers being “carried away” by the demonic spirits of idolatry, they thought the Spirit of God operated after the same fashion.

It is likely that the Corinthians were being influenced by their pagan background in some fashion, but the author takes a bit of a 'leap' in assuming that this is the case. Paul could have written these words if he wanted to _prevent_ Christians being influenced by paganism. He could have written this if a minority had been influenced by pagan style.

We see this in the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement today. They think the Spirit of God knocks Believers to the ground and glues them to the floor

I suspect the author overlooks the fact that the Spirit of God did that in the Old Testament.

and that He forces people to speak out all at once or that He moves in individuals so that they act in a disorderly manner.

I am not sure what the author is talking about here. Usually the people speaking in tongues at the same time do so at will.

This great error is corrected in these chapters. We will see that the Holy Spirit is not the author of confusion but of peace (1 Corinthians 14:33). When the Spirit of God is operating things are done decently and in order (1 Corinthians 14:40). He does not operate in prophets in such a manner that they are out of control (1 Corinthians 14:32). “[Being carried away] pictures worshippers out of control, in ecstatic states. The historians of the mystery religions of Greece picture devotees caught up in emotional hysteria, shaking and falling prostrate on the ground and babbling in ecstatic speech! Plato records such scenes. So does Virgil, who lived and wrote just prior to Christ.

Paul does not address most of these types of issues in chapter 14 where he corrects the way they were speaking in tongues and prophesying. At the most, he may have addressed the idea that the prophet could not stop, when he said that the spirits of the prophets were subject to the prophets. He told the speaking prophet to hold his peace if another recieved a revelation. Paul's 'decently and in order' comment is likely directed at the type of order topics referred to in the passage, rather than pagan practice issues not even brought up. That may have been contrary to pagan practice, but the rest of this sort of stuff is not addressed in the chapter.

 

[Link]

DHK wrote,

You are entitled to your own opinion, but I am not the only one who interprets this passage in the same manner. Many commentators have similar views:

If a commentator is of the opinion that some of Paul's readers in Corinth were cursing Christ, then cite the commentaory. Do not say the Bible says it when the Bible does not.

Commentators sometimes speculate, have opinions, etc.

Perhaps the reference in verse 3 to saying, "Jesus be accursed," is recalling what the Corinthians were like when they were under the influence of the demonic prior to their conversion-that's the only way they could say those horrible words. But now the point he makes is the good news-the Spirit of God was directing them. (Doug Goins)

http://www.pbc.org/files/messages/6456/4530.html

This is what you cite as your source? Notice the difference between what this commentator says and what you have been arguing for.

1. This commentatory uses the word 'perhaps' instead of 'the Bible says.' We know he is speculating a bit. He does not pretend his conjecture is scripture.
2. The commentator is talking about their life _before_ entering the church.
3. He says nothing about cursing Christ 'in tongues'