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

[Link]

When used in accordance with God's Holy Word.

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

How do you know what happens with tongues the majority of the time? A lot of times, tongues are used in accordance with I Corinthians 14:28, out of the context of a church meeting, in private prayer, '...let him keep silence in the church and let him speak to himself and to God.'

Can you really tell whether mass speaking in tongues in disorderly church meetings is more common than tongues in private prayer? I don't see how anyone could know that. Paul spoke in tongues 'more than ye all,' and there were more Corinthian believers than there were Pauls.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Every service I ever went to, and believe me, I have gone to many in my youth.

I was raised in a Pentecostal environment, from a toddler up until I left that denomination back in the early 80's, tongues were spoken aloud and interpretations given. The interpretation was always "Thus saith the Lord," or "My daughter," or "My child." According to God's inerrant Word, either the tongue was wrong, or the interpretation was wrong, or both are wrong.

God is not the author of confusion. His Word states clearly when a man speaketh in an unknown tongue, he is not speaking unto man, but unto God. If he is speaking to God, the interpretation is not going to be "Thus saith the Lord," or "My daughter," or "My child." The interpretation will be to God as Scripture states the tongue is to God.

 

[Link]

Standing Firm

You did not comment when I quoted the following earlier.

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?

And you did not comment on the possibility that the interpretation of tongues is not really an interpretation, but a prophecy. The person being who has a message in the common tongue may not be able to distinguish whether what he is giving is an intepretation or a prophecy.

I am not 100% convinced that tongues always have to be prayers, though I can see the evidence for it. It may have been the case in Acts 2, or not. I have heard messages in tongues interpreted as prayers. I think the last one that I recall was interpreted as a prayer. That was overseas. It was in a meeting in a living room. I did not know at the time if the person was praying in tongues or in an ethnic local language since she was from another part of the island.

I grew up in Pentecostal churches. A lot of prophecies I heard are scriptures and church sayings run together (split the eastern sky, and things like that.) Sometimes they were spoken in nearly KJV English, too. I would not venture to say that every single prophecy I'd heard was genuine. I have heard many prophecies that had a supernatural element to them, like making manifest the secrets of people's hearts, prophesying about things the person could not know naturally. I can only think of two times seeing this sort of thing in the more traditional Pentecostal circles I grew up in. I saw it much more among different groups later on.

I had a friend in middle school who was already gifted as a preacher at that age. He would preach when we signed up to give devotions in Bible class at our Christian school. He was talking about one time in church, someone gave a tongue, and these words came to him. He didn't say them, but someone else gave the same message as the interpretation across the room. My college roommate had the same experience. Another friend of mine had the same experience with someone else giving the same prophecy. There are also those times when you visit a few different services and people at different places prophecy the same thing about you. I've seen that with myself and others. So clearly, there is something supernatural going on. I did not see as many things that were clearly supernatural growing up in Pentecostal churches. That doesn't mean it wasn't of God, or that it wasn't supernatural. Maybe it just wasn't as obvious to me.

The real issue when it comes to these gifts is sticking with what the Bible teaches. What does the Bible teach our approach to these gifts should be? It does not teach us to reject these gifts. In fact, we are commanded to covet to prophesy. Christians should not despise prophesying either. But, we ARE to prove all things. The error comes in on two sides. On the one side, you have people saying there are no gifts today who disobey 'Despise not prophesyings' and 'Quench not the Spirit.'

On the other hand, there are people who ignore and therefore disobey "Prove all things.", "...let the other judge', and 'test the spirits.' We need the gifts, but we also need to prove all things like the Bible teaches.

There is also the issue of church order. People on both sides of the issue need to return to scripture on this issue. The Bible says, "Let all things be done"-- a problem for many cessationists who will not allow the things spoken of in the chapter to be done. It continues 'decently and in order'-- a problem for many Charismatics who do not follow the order of scripture in church meetings. Both sides typically have their traditions of pulpits, clergymen, and written or unwritten liturgy which hinder the church from following the instructions for using spiritual gifts in church meetings described in I Corinthians 14.

 

[Link]

Every service I ever went to, and believe me, I have gone to many in my youth.

Have you counted up how many hours every single tongues-speaker in the world spends in private prayer per day and counted up how many hours per day a tongues-speaker misuses tongues in a church service for each individual person who speaks in tongues in the world and determined which is greater?

 

[DHK]

Have you counted up how many hours every single tongues-speaker in the world spends in private prayer per day and counted up how many hours per day a tongues-speaker misuses tongues in a church service for each individual person who speaks in tongues in the world and determined which is greater?

He didn't say that he did. He spoke from personal experience. You have presented a logical fallacy.

 

[DHK]

In fact if SFIC's experience with tongues is broad enough it is based on the same syllogism that led Newton to the law of gravity. Or do you deny the law of gravity also?

 

[standingfirminChrist]

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?

Paul was clearly showing they did not understand tongues. If he had came speaking in tongues it would not help their spiritual walk at all. Tongues are a sign for the unbeliever, not the unbeliever.

Again, tongues in 1 Corinthians 14 are tongues to God (v.2) Paul says that if the tongues were spoken, none but the one speaking the tongue would be edified. He states that here:

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

Paul told the Church at Corinth in that Epistle that what would build them up would be revelation, knowledge, preaching or teaching... not tongues.

Tongues only edified the one speaking the tongue. Why? because that one was speaking to God. He was in communication with God.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

While the Word of God does tell us we should 'covet to prophesy,' many do not understand what that word 'prophesy' means.

Before the cross, prophesy meant to foretell of future events
After the cross, prophesy changed meaning... it became forthtelling. IOW, telling what was already written.

When Jesus cried out on the cross, "It is finished," it sealed the book. All that Peter, Paul, James, and others wrote in the New Testament were only witness to that which had already been revealed.

There is no more prophesying in the sense of new revelations. It is finished.

 

[Link]

While the Word of God does tell us we should 'covet to prophesy,' many do not understand what that word 'prophesy' means.

Before the cross, prophesy meant to foretell of future events
After the cross, prophesy changed meaning... it became forthtelling. IOW, telling what was already written.

Can you show me where the Bible tells us that prophecy was redefined? How can you argue that the Greek word changed between the time of Zecharias, who prophesied of his son John, and Agabus, who prophesied in Acts?

By the way, what would you say that someone who argue that the meanings of 'adultery' and 'fornication' changed after the cross? What would you say to someone who said it was okay to kill people because 'murder' changed in meaning after the cross?

In the Old Testament, 'prophesy' did not always mean predicting the future. Lot's of prophecies express God's thoughts on how Israel was at that time, how they had acted in the past, or His commands for Israel. The Law was given as prophecy.

Plus, after the cross, prophecy could still predict the future. In Acts, Agabus predicted an upcoming famine. He also gives a 'Thus saith the Holy Ghost' prophecy predicting that Paul would be bound.

Peter tells us that the Old Testament prophets 'spake as they were led by the moved by the Holy Ghost.' That is what New Testament prophets did as well, as we see in the example of Agabus.

There is no more prophesying in the sense of new revelations. It is finished.

Prophesy still means what it means in the Bible, and prophecy will be around until the end of the age. The two witnesses will prophesy.

Notice what Paul said about prophesying in I Corinthians 14, after the cross. If a revelation comes to another sitting by, let the first hold his peace.

 

[Link]

He didn't say that he did. He spoke from personal experience. You have presented a logical fallacy.

Why don't you go back and read the thread a little more carefully? He said tongues were misused a majority of the time. I pointed out that he hadn't done the research to support his conclusion. There is no way aside from revelation from God how many hours people spend praying in tongues at home.

In fact if SFIC's experience with tongues is broad enough it is based on the same syllogism that led Newton to the law of gravity. Or do you deny the law of gravity also?

Newton's theories weren't just a thought experiment. They could be proved in a laboratory. As Christians, we believe what the Bible teaches, which comes to use form reliable witnesses, not from laboratory experiments.

Why is it that you argue that inconclusive experiences of one person are like Newton's discovery of gravity, but you reject dozens of testimonies from Christians who have experienced God's blessing and edification through gifts of the SPirit. Why don't you could those testimonies to be like Newton's law of gravity?

 

[DHK]

Why don't you go back and read the thread a little more carefully? He said tongues were misused a majority of the time. I pointed out that he hadn't done the research to support his conclusion. There is no way aside from revelation from God how many hours people spend praying in tongues at home.

You have misquoted people a number of times on this thread. This is at least the second time that I have noticed, and I haven't read them all. I did read what he posted. Did you? He did not say a "majority of the time."
Here is his exact words:

Every service I ever went to, and believe me, I have gone to many in my youth.

I was raised in a Pentecostal environment, from a toddler up until I left that denomination back in the early 80's, tongues were spoken aloud and interpretations given. The interpretation was always "Thus saith the Lord," or "My daughter," or "My child." According to God's inerrant Word, either the tongue was wrong, or the interpretation was wrong, or both are wrong.

You either have deliberately misrepresented him or just out and out lied. Which is it?

What did Newton do? He sat under an apple tree. Every time an apple dropped he observed that it fell down and not up. He postulated why things fell down all the time and not up. He didn't have to go to laboratory and conduct endless experiments. Science is knowledge based on observation. He observed and drew conclusions from what he observed. So did SFIC. Not much difference is there?

Newton's theories weren't just a thought experiment. They could be proved in a laboratory. As Christians, we believe what the Bible teaches, which comes to use form reliable witnesses, not from laboratory experiments.

Wrong again. Newton did not have to use a laboratory, only his powers of observation--the same powers of observation that a Christian must use.
"For by their fruit ye shall know them."
That verse requires that one uses their power of observation. It requires empiricism.

Why is it that you argue that inconclusive experiences of one person are like Newton's discovery of gravity, but you reject dozens of testimonies from Christians who have experienced God's blessing and edification through gifts of the SPirit. Why don't you could those testimonies to be like Newton's law of gravity?

I dismiss anecdotal experiences that have no corroboration, are a one time event, and run contrary to both the Word of God and even the nature of God. God is a God of order and not of chaos. He does not go against His Word. In fact His Word teaches that the sign gifts have ceased. I don't need to go any further than that now, do I?
Blessing comes from obedience to God's Word, nor from an experential and emotional religion.

 

[Link]

You have misquoted people a number of times on this thread. This is at least the second time that I have noticed, and I haven't read them all. I did read what he posted. Did you? He did not say a "majority of the time."
Here is his exact words:

Yes he did. He also said.

When used in accordance with God's Holy Word.

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

See Message 51.

If you say you have noticed twice where you believe I have misquoted people, then how can you say I have done it a number of times?

You either have deliberately misrepresented him or just out and out lied. Which is it?

It looks like you are looking for grounds to make some kind of attack. Please read relevant posts before making accusations.

Are you being petty and trying to find some grounds to attack me because I pointed out that the Bible does not say that any of the Corinthian believers were cursing Christ, when you kept insisting that it did and accusing me of denying the Bible? I notice you haven't admitted to your error or speculating. It's not that hard to say, "I'm wrong"-- well unless you start throwing accusations around at people who disagree with you and make a big deal about it.

What did Newton do? He sat under an apple tree. Every time an apple dropped he observed that it fell down and not up. He postulated why things fell down all the time and not up. He didn't have to go to laboratory and conduct endless experiments. Science is knowledge based on observation. He observed and drew conclusions from what he observed. So did SFIC. Not much difference is there?

Science and Isaac Newton are a tangent. Newton was a scientist. I don't know if he had a special room for a laboratory like they do now, but he did do experiments. He did not just conclude that apples dropped. He came up with a formula, F=MA. I know he experimented with prisms and invented Calculus. As brilliant as Newton was, I seriously doubt he could have come up with the formula he did for physics without some means of measuring it. You can go look it up if you are interested.

But again this is apples and oranges. We aren't talking about science experiments, we are talking about the Bible.

And you are one to talk, since you reject the testimonies of people that contradict your world view. If someone says interpretations of tongues nowadays are always addressed to the crowd, I know from experience that is not true. I've heard interpretations that were prayers. I've even read about an interpretation that was a prayer at the Azusa Street mission in the early days of the Pentecostal revival (or perhaps it was in the church started about that time by Durham and others also in LA during that time period, but I think it was Azusa) in what little I've read about it.

Wrong again. Newton did not have to use a laboratory,

So, you have historical documentation for this?

I found this on a quick Google search for Newton's laboratory from a PBS show. from <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3217_newton.html>
"The introverted Newton had little time for students and they had little interest in him. Years later, one of Newton's laboratory assistants would recall..."

"For by their fruit ye shall know them."
That verse requires that one uses their power of observation. It requires empiricism.

But you reject any testimony about good fruit if it contradicts your ideas about gifts of the Spirit, don't you?

 

[DHK]

Yes he did. He also said.

See Message 51.

Again you are being deceitful, and I don't know why. My conversation with you started out referencing one specific quote by SFIC and no other. It was a direct and dogmatic quote that left no room for error. Yet you came back with a rebuttal and said that SFIC had said that he didn't say "all" but "the majority," which was a false statement, with reference to the quote and statement that I had first referred to. So either you didn't read, were ignorant, or lied. Now you point to yet another post, in desperation and say "yes he did." That post was not ever even in the discussion. Why the desperation and deceit Link? Are you really that desperate to try and prove a point??

If you say you have noticed twice where you believe I have misquoted people, then how can you say I have done it a number of times?

1. More that one time is a number of times, isn't it?
2. I said that I hadn't read all of your posts, so if you have done it twice, then more than likely you have done it more than twice considering that I haven't carefully read everything you have read. If you want the other quote I will give it to you.

It looks like you are looking for grounds to make some kind of attack. Please read relevant posts before making accusations.

I have Link. You are the one that is bringing in irrelevant posts muddying up the waters.

Are you being petty and trying to find some grounds to attack me because I pointed out that the Bible does not say that any of the Corinthian believers were cursing Christ, when you kept insisting that it did and accusing me of denying the Bible? I notice you haven't admitted to your error or speculating. It's not that hard to say, "I'm wrong"-- well unless you start throwing accusations around at people who disagree with you and make a big deal about it.

I don't speculate Link. I quoted the Bible and told you what it meant. If you don't accept the Word of God as it is that is up to you. Rejection of God's Word is a serious thing. Paul does not write for the good of his health.

Science and Isaac Newton are a tangent. Newton was a scientist. I don't know if he had a special room for a laboratory like they do now, but he did do experiments. He did not just conclude that apples dropped. He came up with a formula, F=MA. I know he experimented with prisms and invented Calculus. As brilliant as Newton was, I seriously doubt he could have come up with the formula he did for physics without some means of measuring it. You can go look it up if you are interested.

Yes he was a scientist, and yes he did have a laboratory. But he didn't need one to establish the law of gravity. Again, I didn't deny that he had a laboratory. He didn't have one to experiment with an apple tree, did he?

[SIZE=-1]When most people think of Isaac Newton, they think of him sitting under an apple tree observing an apple fall to the ground. When he saw the apple fall, Newton began to think about a specific kind of motion—gravity. Newton understood that gravity was the force of attraction between two objects. He also understood that an object with more matter –mass- exerted the greater force, or pulled smaller object toward it. That meant that the large mass of the earth pulled objects toward it. That is why the apple fell down instead of up, and why people don’t float in the air.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Isaac Newton thought about gravity and the apple. He thought that maybe gravity was not just limited to the earth and the objects on it. What if gravity extended to the moon and beyond? Isaac calculated the force needed to keep the moon moving around the earth. Then he compared it with the force the made the apple fall downward. After allowing for the fact that the moon is much farther from the earth, and has a much greater mass, he discovered that the forces were the same. The moon in held in an orbit around earth by the pull of earth’s gravity.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blnewton.htm

[/SIZE]

But again this is apples and oranges. We aren't talking about science experiments, we are talking about the Bible.


And you are one to talk, since you reject the testimonies of people that contradict your world view. If someone says interpretations of tongues nowadays are always addressed to the crowd, I know from experience that is not true. I've heard interpretations that were prayers. I've even read about an interpretation that was a prayer at the Azusa Street mission in the early days of the Pentecostal revival (or perhaps it was in the church started about that time by Durham and others also in LA during that time period, but I think it was Azusa) in what little I've read about it.

I have read much of that same testimony. How much of it was from God? I doubt if any of it was from God. There were strange things happening in those days, people that were levitating--demonic experiences taking place. That is not God's dealings with God's people.

So, you have historical documentation for this?

I found this on a quick Google search for Newton's laboratory from a PBS show. from <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3217_newton.html>
"The introverted Newton had little time for students and they had little interest in him. Years later, one of Newton's laboratory assistants would recall..."

I have already given my documentation.

But you reject any testimony about good fruit if it contradicts your ideas about gifts of the Spirit, don't you?

When Jesus spoke of fruit in Mat.7:20, the fruit he spoke of was doctrine, not good works. "You shall know them by their fruit "doctrine." The Charismatic doctrine has been poisoned.

 

[Sgt. Fury]

Does your mentioning them [Pentecostal and Charismatic churches] constitute going outside the word of God?

This is a bit late, I'm playing catch-up, but actually it is going beyond the word of God to mention Pentecostal and Charismatic churches, since the Bible is silent concerning them.

But that's another argument.

 

[Link]

Again you are being deceitful, and I don't know why. My conversation with you started out referencing one specific quote by SFIC and no other. It was a direct and dogmatic quote that left no room for error. Yet you came back with a rebuttal and said that SFIC had said that he didn't say "all" but "the majority," which was a false statement, with reference to the quote and statement that I had first referred to. So either you didn't read, were ignorant, or lied. Now you point to yet another post, in desperation and say "yes he did." That post was not ever even in the discussion. Why the desperation and deceit Link? Are you really that desperate to try and prove a point??

You are being childish with this whole line of argument, as if this discussion were some kind of game to score points by accusing the other guy of something. I would like to remind you that you will give an account for your words at the judgment seat of Christ.

I quoted the STFIC that I was referring to. Now, you might like one of his quotes better, but I was writing and you weren't. I did not write anything dishonest. If he feels I have misrepresented his views in any way, he can let me know.

I showed you the quote that mentioned 'the majority' of the time. If anyone is being dishonest here, it is you. You are trying to accuse me of doing something wrong, when you have no grounds whatsoever. Then to top it off, you accuse me of being dishonest. You need to read all the quotes before you go accusing people. One of my posts even has his 'majority' quote in a quotation box. If you don't go for the juggler and start accusing people of moral wrong doing, then you won't find yourself in this situation of having to either admit that you wrong, or sticking to your guns and looking foolish. You have done that a lot in this conversation.

Why don't you do someting, just for your own growth. Ask your wife if you have difficulty admitting when you are wrong and see what she says.

If I've misquoted someone on the forum in the past, I've not done it intentionally. I suppose it is possible that I could have made a mistake in some of these long threads. Would you say you never have.

I have Link. You are the one that is bringing in irrelevant posts muddying up the waters.

Muddying the waters? Wouldn't that be accusing someone of misquoting someone when they had not, and accusing that person of being dishonest. Then, when being shown to be in error, sticking to your guns and continuing the accusations instead of apologizing for the mistake?

I don't speculate Link. I quoted the Bible and told you what it meant. If you don't accept the Word of God as it is that is up to you. Rejection of God's Word is a serious thing. Paul does not write for the good of his health.

The Bible says that no man speaking by the Spirit of God says that Jesus is accursed. It does not say whether people in the COrinthian church were cursing God in tongues. The problem is your telling people 'what it meant' when your explanation is not backed up by the word of God, and then having the gall to insist that those who disagree with your imaginings are rejecting God's word.

Don't you have any fear of God? Is trying to win a discussion more important to you than being faithful with his word? We will all give an account before God some day, even for the stuff we type on these forums. When you are wrong, why don't you just admit it? When you falsely accuse someone, why don't you just apologize?

I have read much of that same testimony. How much of it was from God? I doubt if any of it was from God. There were strange things happening in those days, people that were levitating--demonic experiences taking place. That is not God's dealings with God's people.

I've never read anything about levitation at Azusa street. What is your source for that? From the Bible, the closest things I can think of to levitation are Jesus and Peter walking on water, and a prophet being carried by an angel by his hair (a vision as I recall.) I do not know of any references in scripture to demonic levitation. That's not to say demons couldn't cause it, but there is nothing in the Bible that puts all levitation into the category of the demonic.

Some of the 'strange occurances ' at Azusa street that I've read about that drew attention were speaking in tongues and other gifts, the healings that took place, and reports of seeing tongues of fire on people's heads and fire on the building.

When Jesus spoke of fruit in Mat.7:20, the fruit he spoke of was doctrine, not good works. "You shall know them by their fruit "doctrine." The Charismatic doctrine has been poisoned.

I don't see how you get that from context
Matthew 7
19. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
21. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.


I don't claim all Charismatics have good doctrine. I would not make that claim for Baptists or evangelicals in general, by the way. I doubt you would claim all cessationists are doctrinally pure either.

 

[DHK]

Link,
I entered the conversation between you and SFIC at post #65, where I said:
“He didn't say that he did. He spoke from personal experience. You have presented a logical fallacy.”

That was in response to your criticism of SFIC in which you had said:
“Have you counted up how many hours every single tongues-speaker in the world spends in private prayer per day and counted up how many hours per day a tongues-speaker misuses tongues in a church service for each individual person who speaks in tongues in the world and determined which is greater?”

When I said “He didn’t say that, it is quite evident that I was referring to previous post which you were also referring to, that is, post #62. There is no need to be deceitful and say you were referring to post 51 when you were not. The last post by SFIC at that point was 62. That is what you were referring to, and that is what I was referring to. And that is where SFIC said without any reservation whatsoever:

Every service I ever went to, and believe me, I have gone to many in my youth…I was raised in a Pentecostal environment, from a toddler up until I left that denomination back in the early 80's, tongues were spoken aloud and interpretations given. The interpretation was always "Thus saith the Lord," or "My daughter," or "My child." According to God's inerrant Word, either the tongue was wrong, or the interpretation was wrong, or both are wrong.

There is no doubt, no hesitation, no reservation, no room for any probability at all in SFIC’s post. And yet you insist that somehow he is saying “the majority” when he isn’t. That is deceit. He didn’t say that. To say that he did (in the context of the given conversation) is a lie.

“Why don't you do someting, just for your own growth. Ask your wife if you have difficulty admitting when you are wrong and see what she says.”

These personal attacks are not needed, and are against BB rules.

Muddying the waters? Wouldn't that be accusing someone of misquoting someone when they had not, and accusing that person of being dishonest. Then, when being shown to be in error, sticking to your guns and continuing the accusations instead of apologizing for the mistake?

As you can see, that is exactly what you have done. Inserting post 51 when we are discussing the contents of post 62 is muddying the waters, or as you admit to: “misquoting someone deliberately.”

The Bible says that no man speaking by the Spirit of God says that Jesus is accursed. It does not say whether people in the COrinthian church were cursing God in tongues. The problem is your telling people 'what it meant' when your explanation is not backed up by the word of God, and then having the gall to insist that those who disagree with your imaginings are rejecting God's word.

Paul doesn’t write things just for the good of his own health; he was writing for the spiritual health of the Corinthians. Some were evidently speaking under the influence of another spirit, a demonic spirit (as they had done in their pagan past) and were saying that Christ was accursed. It is obvious that to do so, they were doing such in another language. Paul was addressing a problem that was happening at the church at Corinth. It was real, not fiction. It was happening; not hyperbole. I am sorry Link, but I take the Bible literally. If that bothers you, you should stick to fiction where you feel more comfortable.

Don't you have any fear of God? Is trying to win a discussion more important to you than being faithful with his word? We will all give an account before God some day, even for the stuff we type on these forums. When you are wrong, why don't you just admit it? When you falsely accuse someone, why don't you just apologize?

I have nothing to apologize for when I preach and teach the Word of God, but you have much to apologize for with all of these personal attacks. I have not falsely accused you. I have shown where you are wrong.

 

[Link]

Link,
I entered the conversation between you and SFIC at post #65, where I said:
“He didn't say that he did. He spoke from personal experience. You have presented a logical fallacy.”

That was in response to your criticism of SFIC in which you had said:
“Have you counted up how many hours every single tongues-speaker in the world spends in private prayer per day and counted up how many hours per day a tongues-speaker misuses tongues in a church service for each individual person who speaks in tongues in the world and determined which is greater?”

When I said “He didn’t say that, it is quite evident that I was referring to previous post which you were also referring to, that is, post #62. There is no need to be deceitful and say you were referring to post 51 when you were not.

I am having a conversation here. I am not counting post numbers or reading your mind. Earlier, SFIC made a comment along the lines that the majority of the time, tongues were not used properly.

I responded

Can you really tell whether mass speaking in tongues in disorderly church meetings is more common than tongues in private prayer? I don't see how anyone could know that. Paul spoke in tongues 'more than ye all,' and there were more Corinthian believers than there were Pauls.

He commented during our conversation, that he always heard tongues preceded by 'Thus saith the Lord' or other types of intros rather than as directed to God.

I expanded on the theme of my previous question, above.

I asked

Have you counted up how many hours every single tongues-speaker in the world spends in private prayer per day and counted up how many hours per day a tongues-speaker misuses tongues in a church service for each individual person who speaks in tongues in the world and determined which is greater?”

This is all one conversation. SFIC did use 'the majority' statement that I quoted him as saying. Instead of going back and looking over the conversation to see if I quoted SFIC correctly, you just attack me by impugning my honesty.

I can't tell you off the top of my head in what post number who said what. And I have no way of knowing what posts you have read or recall and which ones you don't. I can't read your mind, and that does not make me dishonest.

I can't really see what your point is about your own quote anyway because it didn't make sense. My asking SFIC if he had researched all the different uses of tongues is not a logical fallacy. It is a question. I never claimed he had done the research. But he would have to do the research to be able to conclude whether tongues were misused the majority of the time.

There is no doubt, no hesitation, no reservation, no room for any probability at all in SFIC’s post. And yet you insist that somehow he is saying “the majority” when he isn’t. That is deceit. He didn’t say that. To say that he did (in the context of the given conversation) is a lie.

It is not deceit. It just shows you aren't following the threads that closely and you accuse people of being dishonest for no reason at all. He did say 'the majority.' I've quoted that several times now, and even gave you the post number. You really have a lot of nerve to call me dishonest the way you are carrying on about this.

Look at the flow of the argument. SFIC did not believe that tongues were used properly the majority of the time. After a few posts, he wrote that post about interpretations not being addressed to God. It is reasonable to see this as an interpretation of what he meant when he said,

When used in accordance with God's Holy Word.

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

I take his post to mean that he thinks that interpretation of tongues addressed to the congregation is a way that he thinks tongues are not used in accordance with God's Holy Word 'the majority of the time'. I think that is a reasonable, obvious way of interpreting what he said. If I misinterpreted him, he can point that out to me. If I see I have made an error, I am willing to apologize.

You know, it's a lot better to have discussions like genteman, where if you think the other person has made an error, you point it out politely and the other person apologizes. That is a lot better manners than basically calling the other person a liar. You also don't have to eat crow if you are wrong.

These personal attacks are not needed, and are against BB rules.

Well, I certainly did not mean any offense against your wife. I do believe you would benefit from asking someone else if you have a problem with this, like asking someone to read our interchange here and see if you are impugning people's character for no reason at all-- which you are.

I also find it strange that you call my comment a personal attack, but think nothing of implying I am dishonest with no basis for your accusation.

As you can see, that is exactly what you have done. Inserting post 51 when we are discussing the contents of post 62 is muddying the waters, or as you admit to: “misquoting someone deliberately.”

Either you made a mistake here, or you are being dishonest here when you say that I 'admit to: "misquoting someone deliberately."'

This is kind of like two people in an elevator, and one of them flatulates and insists that the other guy did it. There probably aren't that many people watching this discussion, especially these posts, so what do you have to gain by trying to accuse other people when you have no grounds? There is nothing to gain, but you, like everyone else, will have to give an account to God one day. I suppose it's more likely that you somehow are able to justify yourself and always think you are right about such things. That is why I made that comment earlier. I believe you would benefit by asking other people if you have a blind spot in this area.

You also need to consider whether it is ethical to jump to accusing people of being dishonest as opposed to just asking for clarification.

I think my posts make sense in context. You may disagree and think I write in a confusing manner. But assuming someone is trying to be dishonest and accusing them on a public forum is another matter. Slander is a sin, and we all have to stand before the Lord on the day of judgment.

 

[Link]

Paul doesn’t write things just for the good of his own health; he was writing for the spiritual health of the Corinthians. Some were evidently speaking under the influence of another spirit, a demonic spirit (as they had done in their pagan past) and were saying that Christ was accursed. It is obvious that to do so, they were doing such in another language.

This is truly sad. I suggest you meet with some ministers of the Gospel that you respect and trust, show them the verse in question, and ask them if it is clear that these things were going on.

The idea that someone affiliated somehow with the church in Corinth had cursed Christ is a feasible scenario. IMO, it is quite unlikely that anyone recognized as a member of the church had done so without getting a strong rebuke in this letter after reading how Paul dealt with a sin issue in chapter 5. It is also possible that certain pagans were cursing Christ in pagan prophecy, and that the Christians had nothing to do with it. It is also possible that Paul was not aware of anyone cursing Christ in Corinth and that he shared these statements to teach certain truths about the nature of prophecy and spiritual gifts.

If something _could have happened_ that does not mean that it did happen. You can't read your particular theory into scripture and expect it to be right.

Your stance on this issue is downright irrational. There are a number of possible alternatives that Paul could have been addressing. Yet you think the one you _think_ it is is true, and treat your theory as if the Bible actually says it. If you believed in extra-Biblical revelation, at least you could come up with a logical way of arriving at your conclusion, saying that God revealed it to you. That wouldn't make it right, but at least your argument would be a bit more rational. But you deny extra-Biblical revelation, but still treat your theory as if the Bible really said it.

It is obvious that to do so, they were doing such in another language.

Do you mean a language other than English, or one other than Greek? Either way, the passage does not support what you are doing.

Your eisegesis, here, is some of the most blatant I have ever seen. It's right up there with the WatchTower eisegeting the idea that the 'faithful and wise servant' ('faithful and discreet slave' in their terminology) refers to the WatchTower organization.

You need to tread really carefully. If you think your theories about scenarios Paul was responding to are on the same level of inspired scripture, isn't that pretty close to adding to scripture. I really urge you to share this interpretation with other ministers you trust who are solid in the word. Tell them that you have stated that if someone disagrees with your view, they are denying the word of God. List a few other possible scenarios I gave above (pagans blaspheming, no no blaspheming, but Paul wanting to teach two polar opposites to enrich their understanding of gifts.) Then ask them if you are off base. Ask them if you are reading into the passage.

Maybe some people on this forum who share your viewpoint, if they actually read these posts between us, would like to give their comments on your idea that someone in or connected to the Corinthian church had cursed Christ (in tongues if I understand the position you put forth in a previous thread)-- and your statements to the effect that disagreeing with this was denying the word of God.

Here is what the verse actually says,
I Corinthians 12:3. 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.

Paul was addressing a problem that was happening at the church at Corinth. It was real, not fiction. It was happening; not hyperbole. I am sorry Link, but I take the Bible literally. If that bothers you, you should stick to fiction where you feel more comfortable.

No one takes the Bible completely literally. Do you believe the beast is a literal monster that will look literally like the monster described in Revelation? Did you literally pluck out your eye? Do you literally hate your parents? Or does it make more sense to see what speakers and writers are saying _in context._

Btw, my stance is not that Paul's statement in this passage is necessarily hyperbole. I was pointing out how it would be inconsistent for one to hold that Paul speaking in tongues of angels is hyperbole, but insist that there had to be a specific blasphemer of Christ in I Corinthians 12. I Corinthians 12 does not say whether anyone the Corinthian church knew was blaspheming Christ. The idea is not really suggested in the passage. Paul does clearly suggest himself, specifically, speaking in the tongues of men and of angels. If/Though he speaks in the tongues of men and of angels.... The case is stronger for Paul speaking in tongues than for the idea of someone having blasphemed Christ in Corinth.

I have nothing to apologize for when I preach and teach the Word of God, but you have much to apologize for with all of these personal attacks. I have not falsely accused you. I have shown where you are wrong.

Calling someone dishonest with no basis is a personal attack.

And please do speak the word of God, and do not treat your theories about the Bible as if they were the word of God.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

When I said the majority of tongues was wrong (I did not say used improperly), I meant it. I still mean it. If it is spoken aloud, it should be translated or interpreted according to the way the Word of God declares the tongures to be.

The Word of God states they are spoken to God, so the interpretation would have to be to God, not to man.

My statement stands.

You are being dishonest when you say I said the tongues were not used properly, I never said that. I said either they were wrong, or the interpretation was wrong, or both were wrong.

 

[DHK]

Unfortunately this thread has gone too far off topic.