|
Jojo the Lion
|
1# |
Rank:Rookier
Score:1620
Registered:
09/02/2004
|
(Date Posted:30/10/2004 22:13:16)
Yeah, voice gifts seemed a bit pointless looking back, because they were just paraphrases from the bible / songs / the latest soundbites from the platform. I remember one new guy who used the gifts and whenever he did, we all felt uncomfortable. He would say things like how the young people should not be so interested in designer clothes. Sometimes you would here freudian slips. Obviously it was supposed to be the Lord talking through us... so we would use king james style god announcements (Thou art my chosen people... do not slumber etc. etc.) but sometimes people would say "Lord" every now and then as if it were a prayer addressed to God and not the other way round. That would be embarrassing. One famous Freudian slip though... and believe me someone said this... was when some elder wanted to say "crown of righteousness" but instead said "clown of righteousness". Later on in the meeting, he gave the talk and made a little joke about this gaffe. Also the young peoples leader (who could juggle and unicycle) thought about organising a Revival circus troupe who could be called 'the clowns of righteousness'. I wander whether he ever got that started.
--------------------------------------------------------------
And here I sit so patiently waiting to find out what price / I have to pay to get out of going through all these things twice
|
|
hojusaram
|
2# |
Registered:
05/04/2003
|
(Date Posted:31/10/2004 07:22:42)
Reply to : Terror Australis
so we would use king james style god announcements
I think this might actually be a good argument AGAINST the legitimacy of the voice gifts in the RCs and RFs. Why would God, who was around before and AFTER this archaic form of English, use this form to speak to his 'people'? Of course it is a culture that has crept into the RCs to speak in King James English and it is entirely a human phenomenon. People read their King James Bibles and then think God really speaks that way. And then they hear others 'prophesy' that way and so copy it when they do.
"Yea verily saith the Lord..." That was always a common phrase.
You know, Biblically, to speak as God and prohesy falsely was punishable by death. So to make an error might be laughable to us, but not the Israelites who would strike you dead. If God be God then I think the RCs take interpretation and prophecy WAY too lightly. A lot of us would be dead were we in Israel. And to say it happens weekly, at 4.15pm after communion, is a little contrived too don't you think?
Wjen I was about 16 a girl at church had invited her high school teacher to come to a meeting. After the meeting she asked him why he didn't get baptised and he said he didn't want to. She asked him how he could not want to in light of all the 'proof' he had witnessed (ie the voice gifts). He responded, "What proof?" Later she told me about it and we both shook our heads in sadness for him, yada yada. Years later I looked back on that situation and realised that my ciritcal thinking skills were just not as developed as her teacher's had been. He had seen the flaws in the logic that it was God speaking or that it proved anything. It was just a handful of people saying what they were expected to say in King James English to a group of people who refused to critically evaluate the legitimacy of it all. And we shook our heads in sadness for the teacher. I wonder if he thought the same for us?
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stay home Sundays and save 10%.
|
|
MothandRust
|
3# |
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:32520
Registered:
27/02/2004
|
(Date Posted:31/10/2004 07:56:55)
The use of the gifts in a Revival meeting
Is it a biblical practice?
Is the decently and in orderuse of the gifts of the spirit as usedby the Revival churches a correct interpretation ofhow things wereintended to be? What does the bible mean bytwo at the most three*? It sounds like more of a recommendation than a commandment to me.
Does it anger God if the gift is used only once or four times?
If this is the Holy Spirit speaking, then who is Paul or anyone else to place a controlled restriction on it?*Interestingly, in theother instances of the use of thenumber phrase 'two or three' (Matt 18:20 two or three are gathered - John 2:6 two or three firkins) the addition of the second number calls attention to the fact that the first number is not meant to be an exact sum.
It goes like this: One stands up and speaks in an unknown tongue, another stands up and explains what the other just said. They conclude God had something to say, and communicated it this way. Logic asks then, "Why did God have to speak gibberish, then raise someone up to speak intelligently, when all the while He is supposed to be using the pastor to speak to the congregation in the first place?
"Tongues as a prayer language: We were lead to believe that God gives the gift of tongues so we can pray more effectively but where does it say He has to pray through us in an unknown tongue?
Romans 8:26 reads, "Likewise the Spirit also helps with our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered." Observe closely here, "cannot be uttered" Whether in English, or some supposed mysterious language given by God, it says plainly -cannot be uttered.
Tongues to enable witnessing (yes, already covered well in another thread) Jesus made it clear in Acts 1:8 that theHoly Spirit would enable followers to be witnesses for Him. We readimmediatelyin the second chapter that this is what happened. People were gathered from different regions of the Mediterranean world and spoke many different languages. Yet afterwards, they heard them speak in their own native language! Galileans speaking miraculously as Parathions, Medes, Elamites, Mesopotamian, Cretes, Arabians, Egyptians, ... the wonderful works of God. (Acts 2:8-11)
The original intent of the language gift was tomaximize the efficiency of transmitting the Gospel message.
Context means everything when defining a concept, and the context of the phenomena of 'unknown tongues' here is plainly to communicate the Gospel in a simple, communicative, understandable language to the listeners that surrounded them. Acts 2:6 tells us that they heard them speak in their own language. They didn't hear words they couldn't understand, but benefited by hearingthe gospelin their own dialect.
Tongues of angels and menI've mention recently that the term angels can simply refer to anyone sending a message as the word 'angel' means messenger, but let's unpack it a bit further."Though I speak with the tongues of men or angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal."Should we read a prayer language into this?Is thisthe subject Paulwas emphasizing? No, he's saying how important is is to be lead by love no matter how blessed with gifts one is. Without love it's meaningless. He is exaggerating to prove a point. Isn't that obvious?
He does it again in Galatians 1:8,"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."In other words he's saying: "Sheesh, I don't care if an angel drops down from heaven, don't listen to them if it isn't what I've toldyou".
It's a hypothetical exaggeration here, to make it obvious to the reader, hardly a place to base a doctrine for a prayer language!
Some then quote1 Cor 14but the entire emphasis of that chapter is in the gift of prophecy where all can be edified by understanding clearly what the speaker or the person praying publicly is saying!Thought... Why does a prophesy sound exactly like an interpretation?
In verse one he asks us to desire the gifts but most importantly - prophesy. The Greek meaning of prophesy is to both foretell and forthtell, or to preach understandably. The word ispropheuoand means to declare truthwhether through prediction or not. In verse 5 Paul wishes that they all spoke with tongues. Why? They would be more useful if they all had the ability to cross language barriers. But he prefers that they prophesy unless there is an interpreter. Now this leads to the next question...It's all right to speak in tongues if there is an interpretation!
First of all, that's not theemphasis here, secondly, what kind of language was being interpreted?
Let's use our imagination here for a sec. Suppose you've been given a 'language' gift from the Lord and you use it in the meeting. Only one problem, no one understands what you just prayed including you! (verse 14) My spirit (i.e. my inward sincerity) was there, but who knows what I said! Over and over again Paul places the emphasis on communicating that all may understand in this chapter. He even uses musical instruments as an analogy.
In verses 27 and 28 Paul states that speaking in tongues is permissible if we have two, and at the most three speak in this fashion. Then, and only then, if one interprets. Let's use our imagination again, eh? The assembly has gathered, and the pastor moves to the pulpit and lo and behold, he's carrying the original Hebrew text! Someone says afterward: "Wow! We heard a message from Hebrew! He sure is gifted having the ability to read the original Hebrew! We sure are blessed, I enjoyed hearing the Hebrew read today in our meeting." The other would respond: "Yeah, but I wonder what he said?" Sound far-fetched? The Roman Catholics have read sermons in Latin for years! Paul is telling them, if you do use a different language, explain it that all understand.
Tongues was explained at pentecostas a gift given to clearly communicate the Gospel in a language that all could understand.
It's the same Greek word "glossa" throughout the New Testament and yes, even in 1 Corinthians where Paul found the most problems. Being the same Greek word, why should anyonechange the meaning to the way it is being practiced by Revival and their ilk?
Where do they getoff implying thatall who don't practice tongues are on their way to hell?Where do they get the revelation to say that one church is better than the other because one practices tongues and the other doesn't?Not from the bible.and some more...A little bit of logic unravels the whole 'gifts' ritual very quickly. ie. The two or three tongue messages TO the Lord are interpreted as messages FROM the Lord.
Theinterpretationsare completely similar to the two or threeprophesiesthat come afterward... and are not prophetic at all.Many Revivalists claim the miracle of the gifts because the one they were about to blurt out had a similar message to the one that got in first. This isn't surprising considering everyone in the community has been listening to the same talks, and talking in the same circles... not to mention the mathematical coincidence effect that there are only so many topics commonly used and that every now and again someone is going to beat you to the punch with a similar message.
(Message edited by Uncoolman On 18/04/2008 03:58:18)
--------------------------------------------------------------
“The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an agnostic” - Darwin
|
|
Merry Menagerie
|
4# |
Registered:
05/10/2004
|
(Date Posted:01/11/2004 05:16:04)
A lot of times I found the "operation of the spiritual gifts" in meetings to be weird, disturbing or unintentionally hilarious. anyone care to share their more memorable spiritual gift experiences?One of my faves is young guy giving a prophecy which basically quoted almost word-for-word that "Footprints in the Sand" piece... you know the one, "a man had a dream he was walking along a beach with the Lord" etc etcBTW this isn't meant to start a debate on the whole concept of the spiritual gifts as they are operated in RC groups, it's more of a lighthearted thing. With maybe a dash of healthy disrespect thrown in[& no offence intended!]
(Message edited by Uncoolman On 18/04/2008 04:33:10)
|
|
Anonymous
|
5# |
Registered:
06/04/2001
|
(Date Posted:01/11/2004 17:47:45)
$%*'`[Biggus Dikkus]%*'`@ I look back at the incident now and roar but I swear at the time nobody was game to let out a peep - Darcy would have taken you out back and had you stoned.
There was certainly a great sound of rushing wind but I'm glad there were no tongues of flame otherwise it would have taken out the building and half the street.
Poor dude - cutting the cheese in church must be really embarrassing. Not sure if it was a hair trigger or if he was trying to sneak out a silent one during the gifts...guess I'll never know...
Reminds me of another incident - did any of you folks ever see someone get ejected? One fellow who had left once and was recently allowed back stood up during a talk and called the pastor a liar. Wouldn't shut up, eventually a few heavies came and had to pick him up by the arms and legs and one-two-three him out onto the street.
Brisbane...we sure had our fair share of loons
|
|
Jojo the Lion
|
6# |
Rank:Rookier
Score:1620
Registered:
09/02/2004
|
(Date Posted:02/11/2004 04:31:16)
I know I'm a bit late in replying to this topic but I couldn't resist! There was a guy in my old Revival who used to dribble the most ridiculous things when giving his "interpretation". God, the person he was interpreting must have been on something. I remember one where he was saying how much he loved Nirvana and how he lined up for hours to get his tickets for one of their concerts and at the end of it he somehow managed to tie it in by giving it some spiritual analogy. Please explain! Obviously the interpretations are hardly "divinely inspired"!
(Message edited by Uncoolman On 18/04/2008 04:33:55)
--------------------------------------------------------------
And here I sit so patiently waiting to find out what price / I have to pay to get out of going through all these things twice
|
| |
