Forum for ex-members of Revival Churches
Revival_Centres_Discussion_Forums > Bible, Beliefs, Scriptures and 'The Word' > Speaking in Tongues Go to subcategory:
Author Content
MothandRust
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:41380
  • Posts:1877
  • From:Australia
  • Register:27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Date Posted:30/06/2007 3:41 PMCopy HTML

Hey Dog, copied your post here on the benefits of meditation = prayer

That is tempting for a christian to think they are pretty similar, but no, not really!...... I spent years praying (Speaking in tongues and otherwise). What is totally missing there is any teaching of technique or discipline in practice.

It sort of goes like this........ You get down and close your eyes, then start speaking in tongues. You try to think wholesome and godly thoughts as you do, perhaps think about the problems you'd like him sort out, maybe think of the blessing you'd like him to bring you, a good amount of adoration and nice thought about god etc. The main thing is, you are not taught how to train your mind at all. It is simply assumed that if you are speaking in tongues, you are tuning in somehow, (but really, you've spent about 13 of your 15 minutes with your mind racing around from "oh shite, did I leave the airconditioner on" to "man, I'm so horny, I want a wife soooo bad" to "gotta take that library book back this arvo" to............. You know the deal!

The mind is a wild bull most of the time. You can spend a half hour in tongues, and all you've done is blabbered away and are in as much stress as you were when you began. You make an enormous assumption when you think that meditation is just like that. I'm not saying there's no benefit in tongues, but what is DEFICIENT is the training and understanding of technique. With a bit of meditation training, you actually could speak in tongues as a meditation mantra if you wish, but you have to understand the practice first. Meditation has distinct benefits.

Stress is one of the most destructive and damaging things in our lives (physically, emotionally, mentally, spiritually). Unless we learn practices of relaxation, we may be stressed around the clock and not even be aware of it. Meditation can be a tremendous antidote to stress, bringing awareness, clarity of mind, peace, and many health benefits. To focus on some principles of practice, meditation is about getting out of our mind and into our senses, becoming aware of what is right here, right now. Most of us allow ourselves to be prisoners of our mind, being stuck in the past and the future. Hopes and aspirations for the future can be a real trap (like a will-o-the-wisp). The only thing that is real is HERE and NOW. To experience (taste, hear, see, feel, touch) what is here right now is an immeasureably beautiful and transcendant state to be in, and it is available to us so freely. Many feel that this itself is the kingdom of god. It is right in front of us, right under our noses, and people ignore this and instead chase pipe dreams of some future place they hope to go to after they die!............UNBELIEVABLE!!!!!!!

The benefits of meditation are scientifically proven, and are known to have many positive physiological affects. One of the most absurd notions I have heard of is when christians try to demonise the practice of meditation as somehow 'occult like' or sinister. Just one more form of fear and mind-control I expect! There is absolutely no threat or risk to the faith of a christian to practice meditation. Associations of meditation with other religions are purely irrelevent.

You say that the dif is "God hearing us, not buddha". OK, whatever turns you on!. For the record, buddha doesn't hear, because he was a mortal man like you and me. He never was (or claimed to be) a god. He was a guy that sat under a tree and contemplated a few things. The realisation he came to was "I am awake" and......(well that's a whole other story)! Your other comments were about the HOPE offers in the bible for an afterlife. I maintain that nobody knows. I guess if there's a god then he does, but he has made nothing unquestionably clear to that affect. All there are are promises in an ambiguous book-nothing more. Well, many will cling on to hopes as they believe in certain promises or theories of an afterlife. The focus that I referred to above (being aware etc) is what I subscribe to..... APPRECIATE THE KINGDOM OF GOD HERE AND NOW.

See the beauty that is all around us. I live in awe of the spectacle of life that presents itself everyday, in all sorts of places and people. I reckon that's where its at, right under our noses all along. Not wrapped in a thousand layers of paper that you have to wade through before you experience the majesty of our creator. We just have to tune in!

Dog.
[LINK SiteName=Mothrust: Movies and Modern Myth Target=_blank]http://aintchristian.blogspot.com.au/[/LINK] Be nice, for everyone that you meet is fighting a harder battle - Anita Roddick
dogmafree Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #1
  • Rank:Poster Venti III
  • Score:9580
  • Posts:416
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:22/02/2006 12:26 AM

Re:Tongue speaking? - anyone can do it

Date Posted:30/06/2007 4:03 PMCopy HTML

Well OK. Thanks (I guess)! Have a strange feeling of being transported!


Here's a thought to add........

I have a sort of suspicion that if there's a god, he/it is hiding right in the very centre of you and me. If we stop all the chatter and noise and stop bloody thinking for a while, we might just find something wonderful!
Dog.
"for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so" Shakespeare (Hamlet, Act 2, Scene 2)
MothandRust Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #2
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:41380
  • Posts:1877
  • From:Australia
  • Register:27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re:Tongue speaking? - anyone can do it

Date Posted:07/07/2007 1:40 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : Wolvenpaw (or perhaps GWM?)

The Pentecostal phenomenon of "speaking in tongues" has created widespread controversy among modern Christendom today. Without the knowledge of the truth, which only comes to an honest heart by divine revelation, many have misunderstood the purpose of tongues. Do not be confused by theories and ideas of men; learn the truth about this important subject.

Tongues is a controversy only in the fringe groups that don't really have a good handle on their Bibles. Confusion is what there's plenty of, that's for sure, and divine revelation comes in many flavours.

INITIAL EVIDENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT BAPTISM - Isaiah prophesied, "With stammering lips and ANOTHER TONGUE will he speak to this people." Is. 28:11. In the great commission, Jesus said, "And these signs shall follow them that believe...they shall speak with NEW TONGUES." Mark 16:17.

Proof-texting? When Israel hears a people of a "strange tongue" which were the Babylonians who came to conquer destroy Judah and take them captive. By hearing those who spoke in another language then the people would know that God's judgment had arrived upon them ! Isaiah 28:12, "To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear." It was the rest and the refreshing but they would not hear... they would not hear.. and therefore the enemy with a different tongue came and destroyed them.

Mark 16 - The passage, teaches that some Christians may speak in tongues. Others may cast out demons. Others still may be involved in the range of supernatural effects that are described, but these effects are simply one part of what it is that demonstrates the uniqueness of the Christian Church as a group separate to and from every other group. The signs aren't individual promises, they're corporate predictions (Ian).

"The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the SOUND thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is everyone that is born of the Spirit." John 3:8. As the sound of wind blowing is the evidence of its presence, so is the sound of speaking in tongues evidence of the Holy Spirit baptism.

Does everyone get a cloven flame of fire above their head also? This Sound=Tongues is an assumption - that one's personal experience is the standard by which to accurately interpret biblical context. In other words, the Bible is to be read through personal experience, rather than personal experience being read through the Bible. This is significant. On the day of Pentecost, the miraculous speaking in human languages, each one being understood by members of the assembled audience, was but one of three remarkable audio-visual ?signs'. The first was the sound of a violent wind, with there being no wind. The second was the visible manifestation of flame, a fire which parted over the apostles, yet without burning them. The third and final sign was the praising of God in supernaturally acquired, humanly recognisable languages. (read more...)

Its advocates were quickly expelled from the established churches, whereupon they established the Pentecostal churches. For 50 years it remained the almost exclusive possession of the Pentecostal churches.

Uttering gibberish that is interpreted as profound mystical insight by holy men is an ancient practice. In Greece, even the priest of Apollo, god of light, engaged in prophetic babbling. The ancient Israelites did it. So did the Jansenists, the Quakers, the Methodists, and the Shakers.

Such a marvelous experience as the baptism of the Holy Ghost demands a marvelous evidence. So God chase to speak through the believer in a language foreign to him as the outward evidence of the marvelous infilling of the Holy Ghost!

That would be marvelous, but apart from anecdotal evidence all we see of this amazing evidence nowadays is people speaking in absolute gibberish that only God can understand, logically, he'd have to understand you even if you pray without making an audible vocalisation.


Also these tongues differ in operation. The gift of tongues in the church is limited to two or three messages, and that by course; and one must interpret. I Cor. 14:27. But the tongues as evidence of the Holy Spirit baptism is an unlimited manifestation and requires no interpretation. Paul said, "He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.

I think this related to how to operate a church that has people of different dialects fellowshipping in it. It was a logistical instruction.

These devotional tongues are also for the personal edification of the believer. They are for self-encouragement and uplifting of his spirit. Paul said, "He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself..." I Cor. 14:4. So the apostle gladly stated, "I thank my Gad, I speak with tongues more than ye all." I Cor. 14:18.

Paul could have been saying that he spoke in more languages than you all. That sort of information would be more likely to be made known if he was a man who talked to a lot of people of many dialects because as we know, many races and religions were gathered in Corinth. It was a major center of trade and commerce for many peoples from many countries. The influx of other cultures and people gave the city a bit of a mess and deviations from the gospel Paul was setting up would have likely happened in his abscence. There were church members of varying skills too, from "called to be saints" and some who were "sanctified" and "babes in Christ." etc etc. It was a church in flux.

[LINK SiteName=Mothrust: Movies and Modern Myth Target=_blank]http://aintchristian.blogspot.com.au/[/LINK] Be nice, for everyone that you meet is fighting a harder battle - Anita Roddick
MothandRust Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #3
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:41380
  • Posts:1877
  • From:Australia
  • Register:27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re:Tongue speaking? - anyone can do it

Date Posted:08/07/2007 10:43 PMCopy HTML

You know how some people are incessant name droppers who mention that they know someone important all the time and you just roll your eyes at them. "Oh, I went to pastor soandso's house for dinner and pastor soandso said this and said that..." It boosts their pride to be associated with something they perceive to be important.

Tongues is like that. Revheads et al. love to name drop tongues every chance they get as if it's the special connection to Jesus that they, the special elected holy ones, have got through amazing intelligence, luck and blessing. They're addicted to it. Every testimony, every meeting, every time they go out street harassing... we got tongues... isn't tongues great... the devil can't understand tongues, it's a secret code to God... you get more blessed when u pray in tongues... you can't pray in the spirit without it... your car will start better with it.

In my experience with RF/RCI  et al. they believe there are five very different types of people and are very quick to  pigeon-hole everyone into one of these five (the pastors deny it but I've spoken to enough, even this year, to see that the mindset is still at large)... this is in order of the best category to the worst:

  1. Sensible blessed christians who speak in tongues - The good ones who definitely equate tongues with salvation... and preach it as such. No matter how awful you are... as long as you got the special evidence you're ok by them.
  2. Mislead wolves - those who have been able to speak in tongues but don't equate it with salvation or preach it's necessity, thereby condemning possible converts with a false doctrine of wishy washiness (and people who leave mustongue churches are also in this category - ME! Hi!).
  3. Christian wannabes - the people who say they are christians but have never spoken in tongues... and, even though they may help the sick and do great things by their fellow man, and love and believe in Jesus and his gospel with all their heart, are only fooling themselves by pretending to be holy. (Revheads hope and justify and wonder if those wannabes actually possibly probably spoke in tongues by accident at some stage.. they MUST have...)
  4. Worldlies - People who have never spoken in tongues and who don't follow the bible. People who need saving... get 'em in the tank... get their lips stammering... then everything will be okay. Money will fall out of the sky and pimples will clear up.
  5. Catholics - just plain evil... bwahahahaha
  6. People who don't indicate at roundabouts. - Had to throw in a sixth for good measure. THESE are the people I'm trying to convert.

Our kids used to do Skits on Sunday nights where the wishy washy Christians were put into a washing machine and sprinkled with tonguesoap to wash them right. Sounds so much like the kids I saw in a KKK documentry. A stark and horrible comparison (sorry... eek) but still, the hate being taught towards other humans at a young age towards people who are perceived as different is much more than horrifying.

Non-Christians speak in tongues, too.

Speaking in tongues is much older than Paul.

It comes from the Pythoness of the Oracle at Delphi. How it worked was you made a large donation to the Temple of Apollo and you got the ask the Pythoness a single question. She would the pray to the God Apollo at a fissure at the altar. Recently tested it was found that a mildly toxic gas was, and still is, emitted from this crack in the Earth. The Oracle is over the junction of two earthquake faults. She, the Pythoness, would start dancing around and babbling incoherently. A Priest of the temple would "translate" what the Pythoness had said. She was speaking the speech of the gods and was getting all her information from Apollo.

The Oracle at Delphi started in the 400s BC, when Greece was at its strongest. It continued into the Roman era as if it was a parody of its former self, so the members of the churches of Greece and Asia Minor would have been very familiar with how Delphi worked. It was a shrine of the Greek god Apollo. In response to someone's questions, a priestess would go into a frenzy and start babbling. An attendant priest would then 'translate' the babble into some glittering generalities that could in some way be understood as an answer. Some of the best-known features of Greek philosophy streamed out from the Oracle's early years (for instance, it bred the saying "Know Yourself"); the great Greek philosophers were very good at finding jewels in waste water. The cult of Dionysis used rhythmic music, whirling dances, alcohol and/or herbal drugs, and magic spells to send peoples' souls out of their body (Greek ek stasis ) and into the presence of whatever deity or sub-deity was involved; this too sometimes caused strange sounds.

African animists, too, have long had ecstatic speech in their religions. But, just as glossolalia among Jews marked one as a prophet, glossolalia caused most African animists to foist onto the speaker the role of religious leader or priest, a heavy spiritual and cultural responsibility to lay upon an unprepared person. Wherever they have happened in the past, glossolalia and other extraordinary 'spiritual' happenings have not been, and have not really been allowed to be, a thing 'of the people', which could be a part of the otherwise-normal life of otherwise-ordinary people.

Deep in the gnostic book-hoard at Nag Hammadi, archaeologists discovered what may be the earliest, and perhaps one of the strangest, written instances of glossolalia. (Gnosticism arose at the same time as Christianity, and Gnostics were skilled at melding Christian devotions and spirituality to the un-Christian Gnostic framework -- to use a modern term, they tried to 'co-opt' Christianity.) While modern theologians give the unusual contents at Nag Hammadi much more attention than they deserve, a prayer introduction in *The Gospel Of the Egyptians* is a true attention-grabber. It reads roughly (very roughly) like this :

I?ieus ? ou ? ?a! O Jesus, bond of Yah's righteousness, O Living Water, O Child of Child, O glorious Name! Really truly, O Eon that is, iiii ?? eeee oo uuuu ?? aaaaa, really truly ? aaaa ? ?! O One That Is, Seer Of the Ages! Really truly, aee ??iiii uuuuuu ????, You who are eternally eternal, really truly i? ai? in the heart, You who Are, You are what You are, ei o ei eios ei!

Even the translatable words are very iffy and full of vowels and mixed languages. Like modern glossolalia, it's got a lot of almost-words, divine titles, and 'really truly'. It's almost like a parody, it's so garbled, but it was serious in its intent. The ecstatic speech did not make the book's bizarre beliefs the slightest bit more true.


glossolalia

Glossolalia is fabricated, meaningless speech.

According to Dr. William T. Samarin, professor of anthropology and linguistics at the University of Toronto, 

glossolalia consists of strings of meaningless syllables made up of sounds taken from those familiar to the speaker and put together more or less haphazardly .... Glossolalia is language-like because the speaker unconsciously wants it to be language-like. Yet in spite of superficial similarities, glossolalia fundamentally is not language (Nickell, 108).

When spoken by schizophrenics, glossolalia are recognized as gibberish. In charismatic Christian communities glossolalia is sacred and referred to as "speaking in tongues" or having "the gift of tongues." In Acts of the Apostles, tongues of fire are described as alighting on the Apostles, filling them with the Holy Spirit. Allegedly, this allowed the Apostles to speak in their own language but be understood by foreigners from several nations. Glossolalics, on the other hand, speak in a foreign language and are understood by nobody.

Glossolalics behave in various ways, depending upon the social expectations of their community. Some go into convulsions or lose consciousness; others are less dramatic. Some seem to go into a trance; some claim to have amnesia of their speaking in tongues. All believe they are possessed by the Holy Spirit and the gibberish they utter is meaningful. However, only one with faith and the gift of interpretation is capable of figuring out the meaning of the meaningless utterances. Of course, this belief gives the interpreter unchecked leeway in "translating" the meaningless utterances. Nicholas Spanos notes: "Typically, the interpretation supports the central tenets of the religious community" (Spanos, 147).

Uttering gibberish that is interpreted as profound mystical insight by holy men is an ancient practice. In Greece, even the priest of Apollo, god of light, engaged in prophetic babbling. The ancient Israelites did it. So did the Jansenists, the Quakers, the Methodists, and the Shakers.

[LINK SiteName=Mothrust: Movies and Modern Myth Target=_blank]http://aintchristian.blogspot.com.au/[/LINK] Be nice, for everyone that you meet is fighting a harder battle - Anita Roddick
MothandRust Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #4
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:41380
  • Posts:1877
  • From:Australia
  • Register:27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re:Tongue speaking? - anyone can do it

Date Posted:08/07/2007 10:49 PMCopy HTML


Encyclopedia Britannica, 1972 Edition, Vol. 22, p. 75 -Tongue-speaking manifested itself early in the Christian experience. At Pentecost (Acts 2) the gift appeared as a sign of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit which marked the character of the earliest Christians...During later church history, glossolalia (speaking in tongues) occurred among the mendicant friars of the 13th century, little prophets of Cevennes, the Jansenists, and the Irvingites. Tongues were found also among the early Quakers, as well as among the converts of John Wesley and George Whitefield... In modern times glossolalia has been found chiefly among Holiness and Pentecostal groups. The Saturday Evening Post, May 16, 1964, p.32 - Praying in tongues has recurred at intervals throughout the Christian era, although it did not affect large masses until early in this century.

If speaking in tongues is the initial evidence of being filled with God's Spirit, then why didn't Charles Haddon Spurgeon, London's greatest preacher, ever speak in tongues?  Why didn't the legendary Dwight L. Moody speak in Tongues?  Why didn't Evangelist John R. Rice, Pastor Jack Hyles, or Dr. Lee Roberson ever speak in Tongues?  Why didn't the mighty preacher George Whitefield speak in tongues?  Why didn't Pastor F.B. Meyer's speak in tongues?  Why didn't the powerful evangelist Billy Sunday ever speak in tongues?  Don't you see what a bunch of liars and false prophets the Charismatics are?  The true Biblical evidence of being filled with the Holy Spirit is a desire to go soulwinning ... John 15:5 states, "I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing."  Any carnal fool can utter some jibber-jabber out of his mouth (what the Pentecostals call "tongues").  The desire to win lost sinners to Jesus Christ is the strongest evidence that someone is filled with God's Spirit.  Why do Charismatics focus solely upon the tongues at Pentecost?  The big story folks was that at least 3,000 lost sinners were saved that day!!! 

Photo to Left: False prophet Benny Hinn doing his hocus-pocus act.

Carefully notice that no one in the Old Testament spoke in tongues.  In Acts chapter 9 we read of Saul's conversion (later to be called, Paul, the Apostle).  There is no mention of him speaking in tongues as an initial evidence of salvation.  A Samaritan woman (the woman at the well) was saved in John chapter 4; but we don't see any Biblical record of her speaking in tongues.  There is no record of Jesus speaking in tongues.  Paul never mentioned speaking in tongues in his epistles to the churches, except to the carnal church of Corinth.  The Apostle John wrote 1st John so we could KNOW we are saved (1st John 5:13); yet he never mentions speaking in tongues.  The book of Revelation never mentions speaking in tongues.  Clearly, Pentecostals have created a false religion.

"Tongues" simply means "Languages" in the Bible

It is extremely important for the Bible student to look up the word "tongues" in the Greek.  As you will find, "glossa" simply means "languages."  When the Bible speaks of "tongues," it ALWAYS is referring to a KNOWN, earthy, established language--never some mysterious, unknown, hocus-pocus, mumbo-jumbo.  The tongues which the Revivalists et al. practice is NOT found anywhere in the Word of God. Even the carnal Church of Corinth wasn't foolish enough to speak in some crazy language that even the speaker didn't understand.  This is clearly evidenced by Paul's constant mention of the necessity of an interpreter. No one could interpret the garbage which Charismatics are babbling even if they tried.  They admit that they don't even know what they're saying.  How insane!  For an excellent understanding of the subject of tongues, please read Face to Face With Tongues (by Pastor Max D. Younce, Th.D.)

Every Revivalist needs to take a careful look at Acts 9:17-20, because it puts them all to shame...

"And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.  And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.  And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus.  And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God."

The first thing that Paul did after he got saved was SOULWINNING!  When Paul was filled with the Holy Ghost, he went SOULWINNING!  There is NO mention of tongues anywhere surrounding Paul's conversion experience. 

[LINK SiteName=Mothrust: Movies and Modern Myth Target=_blank]http://aintchristian.blogspot.com.au/[/LINK] Be nice, for everyone that you meet is fighting a harder battle - Anita Roddick
MothandRust Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #5
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:41380
  • Posts:1877
  • From:Australia
  • Register:27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re:Tongue speaking? - anyone can do it

Date Posted:09/07/2007 12:27 PMCopy HTML

Tongues - an Unsound Evidence of Salvation

"as we were going to the place of prayer, we met a slave girl who had a spirit of divination ... Paul, very much annoyed, turned and said to the spirit, 'I order you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her.'" (Acts 16:16-18)

Acts 16 is a deep Scipture - deceptively simple, but one of those scriptures we come across from time to time that is bursting with meaning beneath the surface. Paul was much annoyed with this girl who had a 'spirit of divination'. Let's look at those words. In Greek, she had a pneu'ma py'tho?a, or literally, "a spirit of python". The NRSV Harper-Collins Study Bible notes of Acts 16:

"Spirit of divination, lit. 'a spirit of the Python,' which was associated with the Delphic oracle."

The Python was a mythical beast which guarded the Oracle of Delphi, near Corinth. At the Oracle of Delphi, travellers would congregate to hear a prophecy of the future for themselves or their country. According to some historians, the Pythoness (priestess) would cry out in unintelligible sounds which were interpreted by another person to form ambiguous verses. To have a spirit of the Python would be to be like the Pythoness - it would be someone who was filled with the demonic spirit of the oracle... someone who would prophecy by crying out in unintelligible sounds!

And as such, there is scriptural evidence in Acts 16 for false tongues. That is not to say that all tongues are wrong. While Paul excorcised this slave girl in Acts from the spirit of the Python, he himself spoke in tongues, and was glad of the experience (1.Cor.14:18). What does it tell us? It tells us clearly that there can be false tongues in the world! As Paul also wrote:

"The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved" (2 Thess 2: 9-10).

What have we learned from the experience of the slave girl? When someone 'speaks in tongues' we cannot be sure that they have salvation, becuase tongues is not a solely Christian phenomenon. According to Professor Maja-Lisa Swartz of the Helsinki University, after her research of the Tanzanian tribes people, "speaking in tongues is nothing specific for the Christian religion. It appears in all religions and is no guarantee for what type of spirit it is that the speaker is speaking for".

For example, John MacArthur writes, in Charismatic Chaos, "Ecstatic speech is a part of many pagan religions in Africa, East Africa. Tonga people of Africa, when a demon is exorcised, sing in Zulu even though they say they don't know the Zulu language. Ecstatic speech is found today among Muslims, Eskimos, Tibetan monks. It is involved in parapsychological occult groups. Did you know that the Mormons, even Joseph Smith himself advocates speaking in tongues? It could be demonic." An Encyclop?ia of Occultism says, "Speaking and writing in foreign tongues, or in unintelligible outpourings mistaken for such, is a very old form of psychic phenomenon."

Tongues are, therefore, an unsound evidence of salvation. They can be demonic! Do you say that someone is 'saved' when they speak in tongues? It is a poor test, if even pagans speak in tongues. Are the Tonga people saved when they speak in tongues? Are the Voodoo people, or the Buhhdist monks saved when they speak in tongues?

Tongues is clearly not God's evidence of salvation. And yet, someone can know whether they are saved or not. In 1John 5:13, it is written:

I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.

How do you know you have eternal life? John doesn't mention tongues. If tongues were the sign that someone was saved, he would have metioned it there. But instead he says about those who know they have eternal life "you who believe in the name of the Son of God"! Recall the comments about testing the Spirits, "test the spirits to see whether they are from God: for many false prophets have gone out into the world ... every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God" (1John 4:1-3). So how do you know you have the right Spirit and eternal life? The answer turns on whether you can "confess Jesus". It is here that the Tonga people, Voodoos, and Buhhdist priests fail.

Perhaps you speak in tongues, and have always thought it was clear evidence of your salvation. Yet, you see now that tongues cannot prove anything. You can confess Christ right now, as you read this, and accept the real evidence of salvation in your life. Paul writes,

If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. (Romans 10:9).

You may also want to make this prayer:

Jesus, I don't want to put all my trust in tongues any more - I want to put my trust in you. I realise that tongues are not the evidence of my salvation - my salvation is in you, and in you alone. I believe now that you died, were buried, and on the third day rose again. On that gospel alone I put my trust. Help me to reject the false teachers who show me a gospel different to that one you gave. On this day, I confess you Jesus as Lord.

 

?1997, All rights reserved. Please copy and distribute information on this page freely, but don't alter or sell it without my permission. Unless otherwise indicated, the Scripture quotations contained herein are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible, Copyright 1989, by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A.

[LINK SiteName=Mothrust: Movies and Modern Myth Target=_blank]http://aintchristian.blogspot.com.au/[/LINK] Be nice, for everyone that you meet is fighting a harder battle - Anita Roddick
franks ghost Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #6
  • Rank:Poster Venti I
  • Score:6310
  • Posts:302
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:04/02/2007 9:55 AM

Re:Tongue speaking? - anyone can do it

Date Posted:11/07/2007 10:42 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : MothandRust

Reply to : BrolgaYour article well executedMoth, for my own interest, where did you find the sourceof information,particularly for above topic? thanks BrolgaThe writing is stuff I'm dragging back to the nest for anyone who's interested. I've paraphrased here and there and haven't consistantly given the original authors their due creditation. you can google various phrases to source them out. Here's a site that has some articles about Revival doctrine:Click for other writing from the Revival

http://www.spiritualabuse.org/upchistory.html

I know it's been a while but here's something I came across re UPC.

At moment I'm having a look at the Azuza st Revival & Welsh Revivals makes for interesting reading.

Must admit my ignorance on such subjects as oneness movements & Jesus only movements.

Why did these groups feel the need to split back in 1955, it seems that is where many of the troubles seem to begin , when you separate Jesus & Tongues.

it is the glory of God to conceal a matter but the honour of kings to search it out.
MothandRust Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #7
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:41380
  • Posts:1877
  • From:Australia
  • Register:27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re:Tongue speaking? - anyone can do it

Date Posted:31/05/2008 9:47 AMCopy HTML

An Atheist Goes Undercover to Join the Flock of Mad Pastor John Hagee

http://www.alternet.org/rights/84043?page=entire (to read the whole piece)

We were called back to chapel, and this time the drill was speaking in tongues. We were asked to come up to the front of the chapel and let a life coach anoint us with oil, hold our heads and speak to us in tongues. Fortenberry instructed us to "just let it out. Just let it out and it'll come out."

He didn't come right out and say, "Just act like you're speaking in tongues." But it was damned close. Once again, Fortenberry greased the process by telling us a story about how he'd once been at a service where folks were speaking in tongues, and he was skeptical, but it had just flown right out of him -- and now it just shoots right out of him, almost on command.

I went to the front. One of the coaches grabbed me by the shoulder and sploshed a big puddle of oil on my forehead. Then he began to speak in tongues:

"Gam-bakakasha. Hoo-raaa-balalakasha... Come on, Matthew, let it out."

American Christians who speak in tongues basically all try to sound like extras from the underworld set of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. If you want to pull it off and sound like a natural, just imagine you're holding a rubber replica of Harrison Ford's heart in your hands: Umm-harakashaka! Loo-pa-wanneee-rakakakasha, Meester Jones!

But I didn't think of this at the time and just went another route.

"Let it out, Matthew," the coach repeated, clutching my forehead. "Just open your mouth."

I shrugged and rattled off the lyrics to the song "What is Autumn?" by the Russian rock band DDT:

What is autumn? It's the sky The crying sky below your feet. Flying about in puddles are the birds and clouds. Autumn I've not been with you for so long!

It's actually a beautiful song, but with my eyes rolled back in my head and recited in Russian it sounded demonic enough.

"Hmm, very good," my coach said. "Good job, Matthew."

I kept going, on to the next verse. "What is autumn? It's a stone..."

"OK, that's good," the coach said, annoyed, moving on to the next guy.

"It's important that you practice," said Pastor Fortenberry. "It sounds silly, but when you're at home, when you have a little time, just try to let it out. You'll get used to it, and soon you'll be speaking in tongues like nobody's business!"

He then pronounced us baptized in the Holy Spirit and fully qualified now to cast out demons.

He held up his hands in triumph.

"Hallelujah!" he shouted.

The crowd jumped up, and we all threw up our hands.

"Hallelujah!"

He called out Hallelujah! again. We repeated after him. And we repeated after him again. Arms in the air. Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah!

I felt a twinge of recognition from somewhere as I threw my arms up over and over again.

We had graduated.

By the end of the weekend I realized how quaint was the mere suggestion that Christians of this type should learn to "be rational" or "set aside your religion" about such things as the Iraq War or other policy matters. Once you've made a journey like this -- once you've gone this far -- you are beyond suggestible. It's not merely the informational indoctrination, the constant belittling of homosexuals and atheists and Muslims and pacifists, etc., that's the issue. It's that once you've gotten to this place, you've left behind the mental process that a person would need to form an independent opinion about such things. You make this journey precisely to experience the ecstasy of beating to the same big gristly heart with a roomful of like-minded folks. Once you reach that place with them, you're thinking with muscles, not neurons.

By the end of that weekend, Phil Fortenberry could have told us that John Kerry was a demon with clawed feet, and not one person would have so much as blinked. Because none of that politics stuff matters anyway, once you've gotten this far. All that matters is being full of the Lord and empty of demons. And since everything that is not of God is demonic, asking these people to be objective about anything else is just absurd. There is no "anything else." All alternative points of view are nonstarters. There is this "our thing," a sort of Cosa Nostra of the soul, and then there are the fires of Hell. And that's all.

Adapted from the forthcoming book, "The Great Derangement" by Matt Taibbi. Copyright 2008 by Matt Taibbi. Published by Spiegel & Grau, a division of Random House Inc. Reprinted with permission. Names of Encounter Weekend participants have been changed to protect their privacy.

[LINK SiteName=Mothrust: Movies and Modern Myth Target=_blank]http://aintchristian.blogspot.com.au/[/LINK] Be nice, for everyone that you meet is fighting a harder battle - Anita Roddick
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #8
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:Tongue speaking? - anyone can do it

Date Posted:08/06/2008 12:47 PMCopy HTML


Hey People,

I was born in to and strictly brought up in RCI. I still have family that attend. I got out of there as soon as  I had the chance. I was 16 when I left and fourteen years later believe it was the best decision I have ever made. I just wanted to say that as soon as we were thought to be old enough (about 10yearsold) we were enouraged to attend prayer meetings to recieve the holy spirit by speaking in tongues. Having lived all my life around this I saw this as normal. But once i started trying to pray for this I realised it was a bit silly and because i didn't want to disapoint anyone eventually i just faked it. every one fell for it. all you have to do is make up a jumble of sounds and when you've grown up listening to other people speak it it's not hard. But after everyone believed me i realised it's all just a con and people can be talked in to doing and believing anything as long as they feel part of a group. I see everyone at this church needy for acceptance and guidance. They can't take responsiblity for their own feelings and beliefs so let others tell them what is right.

Scarred
Companion Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #9
  • Rank:Noob
  • Score:390
  • Posts:18
  • From:Germany
  • Register:01/03/2008 8:03 PM

Re:Tongue speaking? - anyone can do it

Date Posted:10/06/2008 8:41 AMCopy HTML

Hi all,

Scarred:

My deepest respect for you being born and raised in the cult and having the guts to step out! I want to wish you strength to go on, faith in yourself, friends who love you as you are and what I discovered is, Time is working for and not against you!

I was in the cult only for two years, but it took me 10 more years to leave it behind. So being born inside I guess it will be a little bit tougher for you? I am born in a family with a father yelling at me for 20 years doing things in his way and only his way. 20 years later I still have that voice in my head sometimes :) - do not work on sundays - and so on...

What I discovered for myself is, to think things through, to research all available information and after I understand something, than the voices inside get quite.

MothandRust:

Very good research! I did read about speaking in tongues that it is the opposite of being relaxed or in a meditative state. Its totaly bullshit I think now.

Meditation: If relaxed and you go deep inside you - one day you might meet yourself :)

Greetings Marc
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #10
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:Tongue speaking? - anyone can do it

Date Posted:25/07/2008 2:29 AMCopy HTML

 Hello Brolga,

I too spoke in tongues at an early age and didn't know what it was ( or wasn't ) untill going to RCI!  I also used to - and still can but terrified of doing it - do the unreadable "spirit writing".  I used to show my friends at school and they were amazed.

I wonder how many others spoke in tongues and or showed other "signs" before being a member of RCI?

It seems quite logical that glossolalia and funny writing is a natural thing and nothing to do with Christianity!

But I will wait for Ian's paper on this before i completly throw out thye baby with the bathwater!

It still may be allowable in Christianity - and maybe bridge-building for ministry to people stuck in this nonsense, or just about to go into it!

Regards Paul,
dogmafree Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #11
  • Rank:Poster Venti III
  • Score:9580
  • Posts:416
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:22/02/2006 12:26 AM

Re:Tongue speaking? - anyone can do it

Date Posted:01/02/2009 3:27 PMCopy HTML

The notion that 'speaking in tongues' identifies one as having a 'holy spirit' within is utterly ridiculous!

Here's a bloke that has a pretty well known track record that would indicate something else!..........

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=XREnvJRkif0&feature=related



Dog.
"for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so" Shakespeare (Hamlet, Act 2, Scene 2)
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #12
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:Tongue speaking? - anyone can do it

Date Posted:02/02/2009 12:30 AMCopy HTML

Hiya, Dog.

Absolutely, and let's not forget to add the likes of the Reverend Jim Jones (of Guyana fame), David Koresh (of the Branch Dividians and Waco fame), and the Reverend Sun Myung Moon (of the Unification Church fame) to the list. Each of them 'tongues-speakers', each of them dictatorial, each of them psychologically unbalanced.

The fact remains that glossolalia in and of itself proves nothing. I'd even go so far as to estimate that nine times out of ten it's nothing more than a complete self-delusion, certainly insofar as Revivalists are concerned. From my research and experience it seems that 'tongues'-speaking does little more than lower one's capacity for discernment, judgment and reason; whilst raising one's susceptibility to uncritically accepting nonsense and so being duped!

In short, 'tongues' is hardly a/the 'proof' of any sort of 'truth' (religious or otherwise).

Blessings,

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
IHOP Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #13
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Australia
  • Register:19/12/2011 6:09 AM

Re:Tongue speaking? - anyone can do it

Date Posted:30/12/2011 10:02 PMCopy HTML

Reply to Didaktikon

Hiya, Dog.

Absolutely, and let's not forget to add the likes of the Reverend Jim Jones (of Guyana fame), David Koresh (of the Branch Dividians and Waco fame), and the Reverend Sun Myung Moon (of the Unification Church fame) to the list. Each of them 'tongues-speakers', each of them dictatorial, each of them psychologically unbalanced.

The fact remains that glossolalia in and of itself proves nothing. I'd even go so far as to estimate that nine times out of ten it's nothing more than a complete self-delusion, certainly insofar as Revivalists are concerned. From my research and experience it seems that 'tongues'-speaking does little more than lower one's capacity for discernment, judgment and reason; whilst raising one's susceptibility to uncritically accepting nonsense and so being duped!

In short, 'tongues' is hardly a/the 'proof' of any sort of 'truth' (religious or otherwise).

Blessings,

Ian


I speak in tongues, and from what you are saying I may well be "self-deluded" Is this how you view tongues? 
How do you discern the 10% from the 90%?


Biblianut Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #14
  • Rank:Regular Rookier
  • Score:5380
  • Posts:218
  • From:Australia
  • Register:30/11/2010 9:39 PM

Re:Tongue speaking? - anyone can do it

Date Posted:02/01/2012 9:41 AMCopy HTML

IHOP

I speak in tongues, and from what you are saying I may well be "self-deluded" Is this how you view tongues?  

How do you discern the 10% from the 90%?

You can get your answer from ‘Please Consider’ (link below). See article on ‘Tongues in the Temple

But first try this little experiment;

Find and record a language for about 1 minute, such as Chinese, Russian, Arabic or whatever, so long as you don’t know that language and pick one only.

Then find a quiet spot and play back the recording concentrating on the language until it ends.

Repeat this process 5 to10 times

After about 10 minutes, switch off the recording and try to speak that language.

I did this myself and found that I was actually mimicking the language I chose.

I had some of that Nationality listen to what I was saying.

Guess what? They told me it sounded a bit like the language but it didn’t mean a thing, just gibberish.

The point I’m making here is that Revivalists “tongues” are not the tongues of Pentecost and is just a learned exercise. A human trait if you like and anyone can to do it.

PS There is a place in the church for the biblical tongues, but it is definitely not how the Revivalists present it.

I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen; not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. C.S.Lewis.
prezy Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #15
  • Rank:Poster Venti II
  • Score:7160
  • Posts:343
  • From:Scotland
  • Register:06/02/2007 11:02 AM

Re:Tongue speaking? - anyone can do it

Date Posted:02/01/2012 10:50 AMCopy HTML

When I was going to GRC a couple of intellectually disabled guys that I worked with went to a meeting once looking for me. They were shown the expected amount of courtesy you would expect from that ungodly place and were shocked I called it a church, yet they were not welcome. Funny thing is, they could copy the tongue stuff straight away, and mimick a few of the ramblings of the GRC attendees. It kind of set some alarm bells ringing for me.
¡uıɐƃɐ ʎɐqǝ ɯoɹɟ pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ɐ ƃuıʎnq ɹǝʌǝu
IHOP Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #16
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Australia
  • Register:19/12/2011 6:09 AM

Re:Tongue speaking? - anyone can do it

Date Posted:03/01/2012 12:42 PMCopy HTML


Do you think that all tongues are fake Prezy?

off topic has anyone ever read "The Essential Jesus"
prezy Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #17
  • Rank:Poster Venti II
  • Score:7160
  • Posts:343
  • From:Scotland
  • Register:06/02/2007 11:02 AM

Re:Tongue speaking? - anyone can do it

Date Posted:04/01/2012 2:41 AMCopy HTML

Reply to IHOP


Do you think that all tongues are fake Prezy?

off topic has anyone ever read "The Essential Jesus"


Hi IHOP. I certainly believe tongues are not all fake. As a reformed Christian I believe the Bible, I also believe when I spoke in tongues initially it was real. From a biblical point of view though any place where everyone speaks in tongues is dodgy. I have had GRC members admit to me that they fake their tongue speaking. I also dont believe the revival belief of tongues=salvation. Its funny how GRC members were encouraged to read their Bibles, it was reading mine prayfully and carefully that made me see how far off track revival churches are.
¡uıɐƃɐ ʎɐqǝ ɯoɹɟ pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ɐ ƃuıʎnq ɹǝʌǝu
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #18
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:Tongue speaking? - anyone can do it

Date Posted:04/01/2012 4:46 AMCopy HTML

Hello, IHOP.

I speak in tongues, and from what you are saying I may well be "self-deluded" Is this how you view tongues? By way of an answer I'd respond thus: if you 'received' in a Revivalist sect (such as the GRC), then I'd just about bet my superannuation on it! How do you discern the 10% from the 90%? Several ways. First, my experience has been that the '10%' don't make a big deal/a lot of noise about it, whilst the '90%' always do. Second, if someone was coached to get 'tongues' (a la every Revivalist sect), then what inevitably results is almost certainly bogus. Third, I've studied linguistics so I'm always keen to hear someone prattling on in 'tongues'. I've literally heard hundreds of people (both Revivalists and Pentes more generally) do so, and it's pretty clear within about 10 seconds that there are absolutely no discernible traits of real language at play. Revivalists make the rather uninformed and silly claim, "I spoke in a real language which I'd never learned"; the claim, like the 'salvation message' it accompanies, is utter nonsense.

In conclusion, if you: (a) were/are a Revivalist; and (b) if you 'received' your 'tongue' in Revivalism; then (c) it's almost certainly not representative of anything 'miraculous'.

Blessings,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
IHOP Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #19
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Australia
  • Register:19/12/2011 6:09 AM

Re:Tongue speaking? - anyone can do it

Date Posted:04/01/2012 10:07 AMCopy HTML

Reply to Didaktikon

Hello, IHOP.

I speak in tongues, and from what you are saying I may well be "self-deluded" Is this how you view tongues? By way of an answer I'd respond thus: if you 'received' in a Revivalist sect (such as the GRC), then I'd just about bet my superannuation on it! How do you discern the 10% from the 90%? Several ways. First, my experience has been that the '10%' don't make a big deal/a lot of noise about it, whilst the '90%' always do. Second, if someone was coached to get 'tongues' (a la every Revivalist sect), then what inevitably results is almost certainly bogus. Third, I've studied linguistics so I'm always keen to hear someone prattling on in 'tongues'. I've literally heard hundreds of people (both Revivalists and Pentes more generally) do so, and it's pretty clear within about 10 seconds that there are absolutely no discernible traits of real language at play. Revivalists make the rather uninformed and silly claim, "I spoke in a real language which I'd never learned"; the claim, like the 'salvation message' it accompanies, is utter nonsense.

In conclusion, if you: (a) were/are a Revivalist; and (b) if you 'received' your 'tongue' in Revivalism; then (c) it's almost certainly not representative of anything 'miraculous'.

Blessings,

Ian

Is the receiving of the holy spirit important/critical or not?
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #20
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:Tongue speaking? - anyone can do it

Date Posted:04/01/2012 11:45 AMCopy HTML

Hello again, IHOP.

Is the receiving of the holy spirit important/critical or not? The receiving of God, the Spirit, most certainly is important/critical. At least it is if one is considering anything that passes between God, the Father; God, the Son, and man. What you need to grapple with is the fact that Revivalist 'tongues' has nothing whatsoever to do with the Holy Spirit! Quite to the contrary, Revivalist 'tongues' has to do with naught but the frail human spirit, in this case deluded and misled.

Blessings,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
WillemIV Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #21
  • Rank:Noob
  • Score:380
  • Posts:19
  • From:USA
  • Register:11/10/2011 11:41 PM

Re:Tongue speaking? - anyone can do it

Date Posted:04/01/2012 6:15 PMCopy HTML

The receiving of God, the Spirit, most certainly is important/critical.

This seems to be a point of confusion. When does a person receive the Holy Spirit? I remember speaking to a baptist friend who assured me it was at the moment a person is baptised. But, I also remember seeing one person get baptised purely so he could say he belonged to a church to help with his immigration status. I find it hard to believe there was anything holy in his actions. There is also Acts 8 which seems to contradict the idea that it is at the point someone is baptised. So the question remains of when does it happen? Does it happen in a confirmation service when the bishop lays his hands on someone? That at least resembles Acts 8. One elderly lady told me of an experience where she had an amazing sensation of joy (no tongues) and said that was when she received the Holy Spirit, but she hadn't been to any confirmation service. It does seem that everyone has a different opinion. If it is an important thing it must be possible to know when it happens.
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #22
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:Tongue speaking? - anyone can do it

Date Posted:04/01/2012 11:32 PMCopy HTML

Good morning, Willem.

This seems to be a point of confusion. When does a person receive the Holy Spirit? I'd suggest that it's THE point of confusion for Revivalists, and others of a similar ilk who mistakenly assume that the Holy Spirit is received at the point a person gibbers away nonsensically in 'tongues'. I remember speaking to a baptist friend who assured me it was at the moment a person is baptised. I'd be very surprised, given that such a position is about as far removed from Baptist teaching as one can get! (Baptists teach the rite is symbolic only). But, I also remember seeing one person get baptised purely so he could say he belonged to a church to help with his immigration status. And the immigrant was 'mostly' correct: baptism is principally about identification (with Christ and his Church). I find it hard to believe there was anything holy in his actions. And why should baptism necessarily be 'holy'? There is also Acts 8 which seems to contradict the idea that it is at the point someone is baptised. And yet Acts 8 is contradicted by Acts 2, Acts 10 and Acts 19; each of which contradicts the other accounts. In point of fact, given the very purpose of the Book of Acts to begin with, it would be quite the mistake to presume that any 'pattern' described therein is either normative or necessarily repeatable. So the question remains of when does it happen? Does it happen in a confirmation service when the bishop lays his hands on someone? Well, it certainly can, but doesn't have to ;) That at least resembles Acts 8. Only superficially.

One elderly lady told me of an experience where she had an amazing sensation of joy (no tongues) and said that was when she received the Holy Spirit, but she hadn't been to any confirmation service. Scripture (both Old and New Testaments) discusses the issue of multiple infillings of/with/in the Holy Spirit, all of them subsequent to an initial event. Likely as not, such was your elderly lady's experience. It does seem that everyone has a different opinion. Not really. There are, in fact, principally three positions. The first is that of baptismal regeneration, which ties the reception of the Spirit to the act of baptism/christening. The second teaches that the Holy Spirit is received at the point of faith. The third is something of a hybrid between the two, and sees the matter more as a process than a point in time.

If it is an important thing it must be possible to know when it happens. That's an interesting thing to be claiming, given that it isn't supported by Scripture. The New Testament actually places very little emphasis (if any) on the issue of 'when' a person receives God the Spirit, but a great deal of emphasis on 'believing in'/'trusting'/'placing one's faith in' God, the Son. Consequently, it seems far safer to confess that salvation itself commences the moment a person believes God's promises in Christ. This, of course, raises the obvious question: what is salvation when viewed from a full-orbed, biblical perspective? ;)

Perhaps this can be a conversation for another day :)

Blessings,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
IHOP Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #23
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Australia
  • Register:19/12/2011 6:09 AM

Re:Tongue speaking? - anyone can do it

Date Posted:05/01/2012 6:07 AMCopy HTML


It seems from the answers (or lack thereof) that there is not concrete proof to an individual that the infilling of the Holy Spirit has occurred. Seems totally subjective.

Does anyone else here have something more Biblical to add that is not just anti-revival rhetoric?
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #24
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:Tongue speaking? - anyone can do it

Date Posted:05/01/2012 7:01 AMCopy HTML

Hello, IHOP.

It seems from the answers (or lack thereof) that there is not concrete proof to an individual that the infilling of the Holy Spirit has occurred. Seems totally subjective. Interesting. Would that be 'totally subjective' after the fashion of your 'tongues' experience? Or in another way? Does anyone else here have something more Biblical to add that is not just anti-revival rhetoric? I see. You believe my responses thus far to be somehow 'less-than-biblical', 'anti-Revivalist' rhetoric? If so, then I would invite you to introduce what you believe to be a biblical defence of your Revivalist beliefs :)

However, if you really are interested in reviewing what is a strictly biblical refutation of the Revivalist position, then you might like to acquaint yourself with the following little essay of mine: http://image.aimoo.com/ForumImages/69dabc5d-4055-4ea0-a38a-9fcf49f1742d/080417_130435_75113496.pdf

Blessings,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
IHOP Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #25
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Australia
  • Register:19/12/2011 6:09 AM

Re:Tongue speaking? - anyone can do it

Date Posted:05/01/2012 8:38 AMCopy HTML

Reply to Didaktikon

Hello, IHOP.

It seems from the answers (or lack thereof) that there is not concrete proof to an individual that the infilling of the Holy Spirit has occurred. Seems totally subjective. Interesting. Would that be 'totally subjective' after the fashion of your 'tongues' experience? Or in another way? Does anyone else here have something more Biblical to add that is not just anti-revival rhetoric? I see. You believe my responses thus far to be somehow 'less-than-biblical', 'anti-Revivalist' rhetoric? If so, then I would invite you to introduce what you believe to be a biblical defence of your Revivalist beliefs :)

However, if you really are interested in reviewing what is a strictly biblical refutation of the Revivalist position, then you might like to acquaint yourself with the following little essay of mine: http://image.aimoo.com/ForumImages/69dabc5d-4055-4ea0-a38a-9fcf49f1742d/080417_130435_75113496.pdf

Blessings,

Ian

Okay I will have a read of this essay tonight.
Cheerio
IHOP Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #26
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Australia
  • Register:19/12/2011 6:09 AM

Re:Tongue speaking? - anyone can do it

Date Posted:05/01/2012 10:30 AMCopy HTML


Halfway through your essay and a quick question. 

You make a big deal about the 12 being the sole recipients of the outpouring of the holy ghost at Pentecost NOT THE 120.

Why does this make any difference to the Revivalist POV regarding the necessity of tongues?

Assuming you are correct about the 12 others also received the spirit subsequent to this anyway...right? 
Biblianut Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #27
  • Rank:Regular Rookier
  • Score:5380
  • Posts:218
  • From:Australia
  • Register:30/11/2010 9:39 PM

Re:Tongue speaking? - anyone can do it

Date Posted:05/01/2012 10:36 AMCopy HTML

It seems from the answers (or lack thereof) that there is not concrete proof to an individual that the infilling of the Holy Spirit has occurred. Seems totally subjective.

 

Does anyone else here have something more Biblical to add that is not just anti-revival rhetoric?

 

Why on earth does one have to have ‘proof’ (as with the Revs “speak with tongues”, or any personal experience for that matter) of “receiving” the Holy Spirit?

Not until one acquires a full understanding of the person of the Holy Spirit, who He is, what is His work and activities and how He functions, only then one will know and see the presence of Holy Spirit dwelling and working among God’s people.

The Holy Spirit, along with the Son and Father are co-equal, or one God in Three Persons, sharing a single Divine essence or being (Trinity). As with the Father and the Son, He is worthy of worship also. The Holy Spirit is God.

When Adam and Eve fell, all mankind fell, our iniquities separated us from God and without him man is completely lost and without hope.

The Holy Spirit’s presence is from the first chapter of Genesis to the last chapter of Revelation and plays a vital role in God’s plan of redemption from creation to eternity.

Sent from the Father, through the redemption of the Son, the Holy Spirit executes God’s will in our lives.

The Holy Spirit dwells in the believer, perfecting us for the day of redemption.

He intercedes for us when we sin and/or in trouble, prompting us to pray (Romans

8:26)

He searches our hearts (Romans 8:27)

He talks to us (Acts 13:2, 16:6-7, Revelation 2:7)

He teaches all things (John 14:26)

He reminds us of scripture.

Once we realize we are lost, and need redemption, the Holy Spirit leads us to repentance, and salvation.

Then the Holy Spirit takes up residence in our bodies, because we now have the righteousness of Christ. We are ‘Born Again” of the Spirit (John 3:3,6,8), our bodies are now the Temple of God, because God’s Holy Spirit dwells in us (1 Cor.3:17).

So one doesn’t need proof if or when they have received the Holy Spirit, it is when one is obedient and ‘yields’ to the Holy Spirit, and their goal is to reflect Christ, then one knows they have that Spirit.

 

PS (sourced from http://www.truthnet.org/)   

I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen; not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. C.S.Lewis.
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #28
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:Tongue speaking? - anyone can do it

Date Posted:05/01/2012 11:04 PMCopy HTML

Good morning, IHOP.

You make a big deal about the 12 being the sole recipients of the outpouring of the holy ghost at Pentecost NOT THE 120. Not quite. What I pointed out in my essay was that it was the 12 apostles alone around whom the various Pentecostal phenomena centred; not the 120. And when considered from the Revivalist perspective this finding is, indeed, a 'big deal'. Why does this make any difference to the Revivalist POV regarding the necessity of tongues? It makes a world of difference because it disproves the central Revivalist premise. Consider: Revivalism demands that all believers will speak in 'tongues' in order to demonstrate that they have received the Holy Spirit and are in a 'saved' state. And it does so by appealing to the time-bound events recorded by Luke in Acts 2, but then attempts to paint such events as being timeless, and therefore, applicable for today. However, as my essay clearly proves Acts chapter two neither teaches nor supports such a fanciful position. To the contrary, it expressly discredits it.

Assuming you are correct about the 12 others also received the spirit subsequent to this anyway...right? About 3,000 people received the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost (see Acts 2:41). Yet despite this only 12 miraculously spoke in "languages they had never learned" (so Acts 2:1-15). I explained why in considerable detail in the essay. Consequently, what Luke actually recorded, and what Revivalists claim for themselves, simply doesn't match.

Blessings,

Ian  
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
IHOP Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #29
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Australia
  • Register:19/12/2011 6:09 AM

Re:Tongue speaking? - anyone can do it

Date Posted:06/01/2012 8:33 AMCopy HTML

Reply to Didaktikon

Good morning, IHOP.

You make a big deal about the 12 being the sole recipients of the outpouring of the holy ghost at Pentecost NOT THE 120. Not quite. What I pointed out in my essay was that it was the 12 apostles alone around whom the various Pentecostal phenomena centred; not the 120. And when considered from the Revivalist perspective this finding is, indeed, a 'big deal'. Why does this make any difference to the Revivalist POV regarding the necessity of tongues? It makes a world of difference because it disproves the central Revivalist premise. Consider: Revivalism demands that all believers will speak in 'tongues' in order to demonstrate that they have received the Holy Spirit and are in a 'saved' state. And it does so by appealing to the time-bound events recorded by Luke in Acts 2, but then attempts to paint such events as being timeless, and therefore, applicable for today. However, as my essay clearly proves Acts chapter two neither teaches nor supports such a fanciful position. To the contrary, it expressly discredits it.

Assuming you are correct about the 12 others also received the spirit subsequent to this anyway...right? About 3,000 people received the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost (see Acts 2:41). Yet despite this only 12 miraculously spoke in "languages they had never learned" (so Acts 2:1-15). I explained why in considerable detail in the essay. Consequently, what Luke actually recorded, and what Revivalists claim for themselves, simply doesn't match.

Blessings,

Ian  

Thanks mate, I appreciate your POV but I just don't agree with you. Your essay doesn't alter my belief that unless you speak in tongues you have not received the holy spirit.
I will read the second half of your essay over the weekend and let you know what I think on Monday.
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #30
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:Tongue speaking? - anyone can do it

Date Posted:06/01/2012 8:41 AMCopy HTML

Hi, IHOP.

Thanks mate, I appreciate your POV but I just don't agree with you. Your essay doesn't alter my belief that unless you speak in tongues you have not received the holy spirit. Okay, personal choice at work. History (and the fact of Revivalism itself) demonstrates that not everyone is prepared to read their experience through Scripture, rather than the reverse ;)

I will read the second half of your essay over the weekend and let you know what I think on Monday. And I look forward to learning your opinion. Would it be too much to hope that there will be more in the way of actual engagement with what I wrote, the second time around? I ask because it wasn't too long ago that I was having a similar discussion with a senior Revivalist pastor. When pressed by me to demonstrate where I was wrong in my exegeses of Acts 1, 2, 8, 10 and 19; he replied (along the lines of): "it doesn't really matter what the Bible presents, I was baptised by full immersion in water and I received the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues." Shocking certainly, but it never ceases to amaze me how quickly such people are prepared to completely dismiss the Word of God in preference to believing what is a coached and thoroughly subjective personal experience.

In any case, have a great weekend.

Blessings,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Uncoolman Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #31
  • Rank:Poster Venti III
  • Score:10080
  • Posts:324
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:05/04/2003 2:38 PM

Re:Tongue speaking? - anyone can do it

Date Posted:06/01/2012 5:19 PMCopy HTML

Reply to IHOP


Halfway through your essay and a quick question. 

You make a big deal about the 12 being the sole recipients of the outpouring of the holy ghost at Pentecost NOT THE 120.

Why does this make any difference to the Revivalist POV regarding the necessity of tongues?

Assuming you are correct about the 12 others also received the spirit subsequent to this anyway...right? 

Dude, you need to read the text a little more objectively .. the so called 120 are not even part of the narrative focus nor the purpose of the narrative. Consider this: the ancient texts contains no chapters and versification and so the WHOLE narrative continues as a single discourse so to speak from Acts 1:1 right up to the modern marking of verses of Acts chapter 5. The whole narrative subject is the twelve ALONE and the staging of the narrative location is the Temple right up to the conclusion of the modern versification of Acts 5:42. You have to approach the WHOLE narrative as a single unit and discard the revivalist approach of individual prooftexts. And for better understanding of the background to the narrative of Acts 1 to 5, it is helpful to consider what Luke wrote in the concluding stages of his Gospel because here Luke sets up the reader for what is about to unfold in Acts in that first important narrative. Also of interest is the continuity and unity between the ending narratives of Luke's Gospel and the first important narrative of Acts.. I would expressly encourage you to read the endings of Luke's Gospel from the account of the resurrection right up to the end of Acts 5 in ONE sitting.

Blessings

Eric

references: "ACTS A Handbook of the Greek Text - Michael C. Parsons & Martin M. Culy. Baylor University Press Waco, Texas USA "

thanks Ian too ..
.  
MrGrits Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #32
  • Rank:Noob
  • Score:390
  • Posts:18
  • From:USA
  • Register:12/01/2012 6:19 AM

Re:Tongue speaking? - anyone can do it

Date Posted:12/01/2012 6:46 AMCopy HTML

Ian,

I've read a fair amount of your stuff over the years but like IHOP I just don't agree with you.

You seem to spend a lot of your time dismissing the subjective side of belief (esp. relating to speaking in tongues) by focussing your energies on promoting what you believe is the objective side (eg. what you think the bible teaches). In spite of your objections most of us Revivalists met God when we received the Holy Spirit speaking in tongues. This was a very powerful personal experience for all of us and it was the personal experience that brought us to faith in the first place, not the bible.

What you seem to push is a head-belief rather than a heart-belief. Your brain seems to be the focus of your faith instead of your heart. If the bible was taken away from you you'd have nothing. If it was taken away from me I'd still be able to pray in the Spirit.

Regards,

Grits



 
IHOP Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #33
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Australia
  • Register:19/12/2011 6:09 AM

Re:Tongue speaking? - anyone can do it

Date Posted:12/01/2012 7:00 AMCopy HTML


Finally finished you essay Ian and I have to say that you seem to have no understanding of a personal relationship with Jesus. I hope that you don't take offence but the Christianity you present is not the one Jesus presented. You find fault with revivalist but you are no different.

Finding error in others doesn't make you right. Doesn't get you closer to Jesus and offers nothing for anyone who visits this site.

Further there are millions of tongues speakers (Pentecostals the number increases to nearly a quarter of the world's two billion Christians)* in the world and according to you "head knowledge" they are all self deceived...I think you may be the one who is self-deceived" Perhaps you should examine that possibility :)


Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #34
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:Tongue speaking? - anyone can do it

Date Posted:12/01/2012 8:09 AMCopy HTML

Good evening, IHOP.

Finally finished you essay Ian and I have to say that you seem to have no understanding of a personal relationship with Jesus. I hope that you don't take offence but the Christianity you present is not the one Jesus presented. You find fault with revivalist but you are no different. None taken. But perhaps you might care to explain, based on your reading of my essay, precisely how you've reached these conclusions?

Finding error in others doesn't make you right. Can I take it, then, that you do accept that I have exposed error in what Revivalism teaches and believes? If so, then what are the implications to you, a Revivalist? Doesn't get you closer to Jesus and offers nothing for anyone who visits this site. My personal relationship with Jesus is based on years of complete dependence in him, and of dedicated worship offered to him. The Lord Jesus Christ isn't an abstract concept to me, but the very God to whom I am completely devoted. Further, I find that I must also disagree with your poor assessment of the value of my exegeses for others who visit this site. If you were to spend a little time browsing through the various threads here, then you'd find testimony after testimony that explicitly contradicts your off-hand claim.

Further there are millions of tongues speakers (Pentecostals the number increases to nearly a quarter of the world's two billion Christians)* in the world and according to you "head knowledge" they are all self deceived ... Actually I said nothing about 'self-deception' among Pentecostals more generally, given that my commentary was explicitly addressed to the situation that occurs in Revivalism, specifically. And the UPC aside, Pentecostalism as a worldwide movement doesn't believe as you do concerning the purpose or role that 'tongues' plays in Christian conversion. I think you may be the one who is self-deceived". Perhaps you should examine that possibility :) I would be happy to. Perhaps you would do me the service of explaining 'where', 'why' and 'how' such would apply to me, with reference to the conclusions reached in my Acts essay? :)

In summary, IHOP, I was hoping for actual engagement with, and critique of, the salient points that I raised in the Acts paper. What you have done, all that you've done, is assure me that you did read the essay to then disregard it entirely before framing your (non)response. I admit to being diappointed, as I was hoping for a little more.

Blessings,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #35
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:Tongue speaking? - anyone can do it

Date Posted:12/01/2012 8:33 AMCopy HTML

Hello, Grits.

Welcome to the forum!

I've read a fair amount of your stuff over the years but like IHOP I just don't agree with you. Sure. Are you also like IHOP in that you're unable (or unwilling) to qualify why you disagree with me, whether fom Scripture or the content of my essays? Or are you potentially different in that you're prepared to get into the 'detail'? I trust, I hope, that it's the latter.

You seem to spend a lot of your time dismissing the subjective side of belief (esp. relating to speaking in tongues) by focussing your energies on promoting what you believe is the objective side (eg. what you think the bible teaches). Actually, I seek simply to reverse the priority order generally followed by Revivalists from subjective first, to objective first. This is why I occasionally quip that Revivalists read Scripture through their experience, rather than reading their experience through Scripture ;) In spite of your objections most of us Revivalists met God when we received the Holy Spirit speaking in tongues. But did you actually meet God then? Or did you simply have an 'experience', one that you were told was God instead? For what it's worth I find it somewhat ironic that Revivalism invariably seeks to shore up the subjective 'personal experience' via appeals to objective Scripture. I wonder? What would result if the Revivalist approach to interpreting Scripture was proven invalid? What would this suggest about the validity of the very 'experience', itself? This was a very powerful personal experience for all of us and it was the personal experience that brought us to faith in the first place, not the bible. The obvious question becomes: 'faith' in what, exactly? The Jesus that Scripture presents? Or the 'tongues' that Lloyd Longfield presented?

What you seem to push is a head-belief rather than a heart-belief. Not at all. What I 'push', both here and elsewhere, is a biblically grounded belief instead of a completely untethered and abstract 'faith'. Your brain seems to be the focus of your faith instead of your heart. Given that I attempt to keep the two in proper balance, I sincerely doubt it. The focus of my faith, however, remains as it's always been: the resurrected and ascended Lord Jesus Christ. If the bible was taken away from you you'd have nothing. Au contraire, as I'd still have Jesus :) If it was taken away from me I'd still be able to pray in the Spirit. Let's review. My Jesus versus your capacity to say 'scooby dooby dooo' very quickly? Easy choice ;)

Blessings,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Talmid Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #36
  • Rank:Regular Rookier
  • Score:5980
  • Posts:293
  • From:Australia
  • Register:21/04/2008 10:04 PM

Re:Tongue speaking? - anyone can do it

Date Posted:12/01/2012 2:12 PMCopy HTML

 Hi Mr G

>>This was a very powerful personal experience for all of us and it was the personal experience that brought us to faith in the first place, not the bible.

Have you ever wondered why John went to the effort of penning his version of the gospel to convince people to believe in(to) Jesus, instead of simply writing that people should repent, be baptised, and receive the Spirit speaking in tongues?

How do you respond to those who say that their personal experience when they were "slain in the Spirit" proves that experience is from God?


The evidence for Mann-made global warming is unequivocal.
Epios Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #37
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/05/2010 5:54 PM

Re:Tongue speaking? - anyone can do it

Date Posted:13/01/2012 5:46 AMCopy HTML



Mr Grits and other Revivalists,

I refer you to Paul's Epistle to the Romans Chapter 10 and particularly verses 8 - 13 part of which should be familiar to Revivalists as words used when baptising.

"But what does it say?  The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming:  That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved

For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved."  As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trust in him will never be put to shame"  For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile - the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."  etc etc.  (NIV)

Most Revivalists don't know that the words from scripture "you will be saved" end the confession of faith used at baptisms.  

Can you tell me why these words are omitted and the baptismal candidate not proclaimed saved as it says in scripture?

There are many other salvation scriptures, which as a Revivalist I never bothered to look up, and none of them follow with and you must speak in tongues, an example is Acts 16 : 31. It appears Revivalists do a bit of taking away from and adding to scripture.

Also Revivalists claim to people, including those who have scant or no knowledge of scripture, that they can
have the same experience as the Apostles had on the day of Pentecost.  Well this is hardly accurate.  Carefully reading through the Pentecost account, Jesus' choosing of the twelve and his teaching and training of them, plus their knowledge of the Old Testament scriptures, you can hardly see any similarities.  Added to this the 'tongues' spoken by the Apostles at Pentecost were languages understood by Jews from other nations, the Holy Spirit leading Peter to preach about Jesus not about the Spirit.

God Bless.

Epi

IHOP Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #38
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Australia
  • Register:19/12/2011 6:09 AM

Re:Tongue speaking? - anyone can do it

Date Posted:13/01/2012 11:24 PMCopy HTML


Hello Epi 

In your previous comments regarding Romans chapter 10 I think that you have made a major mistake.

The letter to the church of Rome was written to already saved people. "To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ". Rom 1:7

Also in chapter 10 verse 9 when Paul writes "if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus" does't the word CONFESS come from the Greek word homologeō  meaning "To say or communicate the same thing or message"

it makes more sense to me that Paul when writing to already saved Christians would encourage the church to say the same things that Jesus said and this is previously contrasted with the errors of Israel (Verses 1- 5) who failed to "Say the same things".

As stated I have just been reading Ian's essay on tongues and he places a great emphasis on context (and rightly so) in this case you should do the same.

As far as Acts 16 and the philippian jailer I for one do not think it unreasonable to state that the word believe means a whole lot more than acknowledge Jesus but that obedience is a must and it is therefore inferred that baptism (water and Holy Spirit) are also a requirement. But if you want to hang your hat on these verses then that is up to you. personally I would not but it's your life.

As far as Acts chapter 2 and the languages heard by the Jewish leaders a close reading of the text would show that they All heard EVERY man speaking EVERY ONE of the languages of the multinational audience. It is only our bias that paints a different picture.

Please let me explain:

"every man (meaning all of the listed 17 nationalities) heard them (The 12 Apostles) speak in his own language". Verse 6

"how hear we every man in our (Plural term) own tongue, wherein we were born"? Verse 8

"we do hear them speak in our tongues (Plural term) the wonderful works of God". Verse 11

I for one do not think it unreasonable to conclude from the text that the Jewish leaders heard all of the Apostles speaking in discernible languages from each of the listed nationalities.

i.e. Peter was speaking at the same time the language of Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites etc.
James and John the same and so on.

No wonder that they in verse 13 "These men are full of new wine"

Cheers




Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #39
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:Tongue speaking? - anyone can do it

Date Posted:14/01/2012 1:42 AMCopy HTML

Good afternoon, IHOP.

I thought that I'd take a quick stab at your response to Epi, given that you've assumed quite a bit about what you think the Greek text states, from your apparent reading of it in English translation ;)

The letter to the church of Rome was written to already saved people. "To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ". Rom 1:7 Your first assumption, then, is that every person in the various Christian fellowships of Rome (there were at least 18 of them in Paul's day) were 'saved', because Paul used the term 'saint' to refer to them? That seems to be quite the 'stretch', and for several reasons. First, 'saint' is the English translation of the Greek ἁγίος, which properly means "... set apart or consecrated for God's purposes". Scripture records that even simple things like donkeys could set apart for God's purposes :P More importantly, however, in the very same letter Paul used a series of conditional statements that altogether dismisses your assumption. Note carefully: "You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you." (Romans 8:9-11). This from the same author, using the same pen, in the same letter. Methinks you need to reconsider your theory ;)

Also in chapter 10 verse 9 when Paul writes "if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus" does't the word CONFESS come from the Greek word homologeō  meaning "To say or communicate the same thing or message". Unfortunately, you didn't cast your net widely enough given that meaning properly resides at the structural level :) To begin with, note that verse nine also comprises of a conditional statement: "if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Verse nine is, of course, Paul's response to the promise of Deuteronomy 30:14 about "the word of faith" that he loosely quoted from in verse eight, and which he revealed to be the apostolic gospel message. Grammatically, that the two content clauses (i.e. "that is the word of faith" and "that if you confess") are joined by the conjunction ὅτι ('because'; incorrectly translated as 'that' in the KJV), indicates that the 'nearness' of the "word of faith" (i.e. the gospel) demands only a simple response in order to receive God's mediated salvation. The act of confession is tied to the content of what is being confessed: that Jesus is LORD (i.e. Yahweh, the very God of Israel). In summary, then, Paul quoted from Deuteronomy to link "the word of faith" with the apostolic gospel message. The content of that message was the need to confess that Jesus is the Creator God of Israel, which when believed, brings salvation.

It makes more sense to me that Paul when writing to already saved Christians would encourage the church to say the same things that Jesus said and this is previously contrasted with the errors of Israel (Verses 1- 5) who failed to "Say the same things". No doubt you'd prefer this to be the case. However, as I've just demonstrated neither the actual content of the passage, nor the grammatical context of the passage, allows it.

As stated I have just been reading Ian's essay on tongues and he places a great emphasis on context (and rightly so) in this case you should do the same. Well, IHOP, I'd suggest that you might like to take your own advice, given that Epi represented the context of our passage correctly.

As far as Acts 16 and the philippian jailer I for one do not think it unreasonable to state that the word believe means a whole lot more than acknowledge Jesus but that obedience is a must and it is therefore inferred that baptism (water and Holy Spirit) are also a requirement. But if you want to hang your hat on these verses then that is up to you. personally I would not but it's your life. I'd like to suggest to you that Acts 16:31 perfectly mirrors the content of the gospel message that we'd just considered from the pen of Paul in Romans 8. The Philippian gaoler asked what he needed to do in order to be saved. And he was told: “believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” In Greek the first clause reads: πίστευσον ἐπὶ τὸν κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ("believe in the Lord Jesus Christ"), where 'the LORD' and 'Jesus Christ' are in apposition, and function as the direct object of the belief. In other words, what's required is belief in the content of the statement that Jesus Christ IS the LORD (i.e. Yahweh, the Creator God of Israel). According to Abbott-Smith's Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, πιστεύω ('believe') means: "to have faith (in), to believe ... expressing personal trust and reliance as distinct from mere credence." The notion of 'obedience', however, isn't contained in the semantic range of the verb. Lexically-speaking 'obedience' is a tertiary meaning of the altogether unrelated verb, πείθω. Consequently, I think you'd do well to consider at length the following fact. In the only passage in the entire New Testament where the question, "what must I do to be saved" is posed, the apostolic response is, "believe that Jesus Christ is God". No mention of water baptism, and no mention of 'tongues'.

As far as Acts chapter 2 and the languages heard by the Jewish leaders a close reading of the text would show that they All heard EVERY man speaking EVERY ONE of the languages of the multinational audience. It is only our bias that paints a different picture. Please let me explain: "every man (meaning all of the listed 17 nationalities) heard them (The 12 Apostles) speak in his own language". Verse 6 "how hear we every man in our (Plural term) own tongue, wherein we were born"? Verse 8 "we do hear them speak in our tongues (Plural term) the wonderful works of God". Verse 11 I for one do not think it unreasonable to conclude from the text that the Jewish leaders heard all of the Apostles speaking in discernible languages from each of the listed nationalities. i.e. Peter was speaking at the same time the language of Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites etc. James and John the same and so on. Well, the fact that I wrote a large-ish essay on our passage demonstrates that I personally undertook a very close reading too, and in the 'original' no less :) Consequently, I'd like to see you address the points that I raised therein before you go offering your own suggestions. However, given your rather candid admissions above, can I take it that you now accept that it was only the twelve apostles who were doing the 'language-speaking' at Pentecost?

Blessings,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
IHOP Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #40
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Australia
  • Register:19/12/2011 6:09 AM

Re:Tongue speaking? - anyone can do it

Date Posted:14/01/2012 3:12 AMCopy HTML

 Hello Ian
when you say...Your first assumption, then, is that every person in the various Christian fellowships of Rome (there were at least 18 of them in Paul's day) were 'saved', because Paul used the term 'saint' to refer to them? That seems to be quite the 'stretch', and for several reasons. First, 'saint' is the English translation of the Greek ἁγίος, which properly means "... set apart or consecrated for God's purposes". Scripture records that even simple things like donkeys could set apart for God's purposes :P More importantly, however, in the very same letter Paul used a series of conditional statements that altogether dismisses your assumption.

I make no assumptions except to say that in Chapter 10 he (Paul) is directing his instruction to the maintaining of Salvation not the Attaining of salvation.

secondly:

when you say...Note carefully:"You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you." (Romans 8:9-11). This from the same author, using the same pen, in the same letter. Methinks you need to reconsider your theory ;)

I note that you have selected a English translation that phases the text on "If in fact" in order to dismiss the rhetorical nature of the discourse.

It is rhetorical because of the previous statements...from verse 1 The Spirit indwelling is inferred in order for a person to walk "In the Spirit"

You do not seem to have any understanding of spiritual walk at all. I am reminded of what Jesus said to Nicodemus "Art thou a master of Israel, (a theologian) and knowest not these things"? 



Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #41
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:Tongue speaking? - anyone can do it

Date Posted:14/01/2012 3:42 AMCopy HTML

Hello again, IHOP.

when you say ... Your first assumption, then, is that every person in the various Christian fellowships of Rome (there were at least 18 of them in Paul's day) were 'saved', because Paul used the term 'saint' to refer to them? That seems to be quite the 'stretch', and for several reasons. First, 'saint' is the English translation of the Greek ἁγίος, which properly means "... set apart or consecrated for God's purposes". Scripture records that even simple things like donkeys could set apart for God's purposes :P More importantly, however, in the very same letter Paul used a series of conditional statements that altogether dismisses your assumption. I make no assumptions except to say that in Chapter 10 he (Paul) is directing his instruction to the maintaining of Salvation not the Attaining of salvation. And that's a rather interesting assumption, given that: (1) neither the content nor the context of anything in the entirety of chapter 10 infers what you presume. And, (2) nowhere in any of Paul's letters does the apostle suggest that salvation, once attained, can be lost. If you believe differently, then please: quote for me 'chapter-and-verse' :)

secondly: when you say ... Note carefully: "You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you." (Romans 8:9-11). This from the same author, using the same pen, in the same letter. Methinks you need to reconsider your theory ;) I note that you have selected a English translation that phases the text on "If in fact" in order to dismiss the rhetorical nature of the discourse. Please, consult any English translation that you wish, and then demonstrate for me that they render the conditional statements otherwise. For example, I note that even the KJV supports my earlier translation: "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." :) It is rhetorical because of the previous statements...from verse 1 The Spirit indwelling is inferred in order for a person to walk "In the Spirit". Paul certainly used the established Greco-Roman rhetorical flourishes of his day, in his various letters. However, your response clearly indicates that you don't understand how Greek grammar functions, especially with respect to the force taken with conditional statements. Furthermore, your suggestion that Paul's intentional use of a very specific Greek grammatical device (i.e. the conditional statement), must somehow be understood as 'rhetorical' after an English, rather than Greek sense, is completely nonsensical. In any case, why would Paul suggest to a supposedly fully 'saved' group, that some might not in fact, possess God's Spirit indwelling if they were all 'Spirit-Filled' after the Revivalist assumption? What would he gain, either pastorally or theologically, from such an artifice? How would such a 'rhetorical' statement serve his parenetical purposes?

Sorry, my friend, but what you've presented in defence of your position is nothing more than a very poorly cobbled together example of 'special-pleading'. You've chosen to completely ignore/dismiss an overwhelming series of evidences (both grammatical and contextual), that completely discredits and dismisses your various points-of-view. I also note that you opted not to respond to the other topics I addressed in our discussion, such as the incident involving the Philippian gaoler for example. Consequently, your latest response presents you as one who is intentionally deaf to the evidence, likely as not because you steadfastly refuse to have your views shaped by the f-a-c-t-s.

You do not seem to have any understanding of spiritual walk at all. I am reminded of what Jesus said to Nicodemus "Art thou a master of Israel, (a theologian) and knowest not these things"? I've noticed that on two separate occasions now, when I've conclusively disproven your Revivalist opinions from Scripture, that your immediate response is to question my spirituality. That sort of behaviour smacks of the old adage, "if you can't play the ball, play the man". However, in the interests of humoring you for a little while longer, I'll point out that Jesus opened up what Scripture actually presented to Nicodemus, to provide him with opportunity to repent. Paul often did so with his dialogue partners too, and now I've done the same for you :)

IHOP, given that I've conclusively disproven your personal opinions regarding our passages of Scripture, I think you'll have to do much better than your 'not so' responses and taunts about my spirituality. Of course, you can continue to disagree with me to your heart's content. But if you can't conclusively establish from Scripture why you disagree with me, then I suppose I can quite rightly question what motivates you ;)

Blessings,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
IHOP Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #42
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Australia
  • Register:19/12/2011 6:09 AM

Re:Tongue speaking? - anyone can do it

Date Posted:14/01/2012 10:50 AMCopy HTML



I don't think that you have conclusively proven a thing. 

Simply stating that you have; doesn't make it so Ian. Indeed all you seem to be doing is making the word of God ineffectual to anyone. 

Your is a powerless belief system,not a shadow of the spirit led walk that Jesus came to give us.

It is all too common these days that theologians examine the text all day long as did the religious leaders of Jesus' day and find themselves totally outside of the grace of God.

All that those who hear you can hope to receive is No Power, No miracles, No assurance of Eternal life, nothing but your theoretical assurance that acknowledgement of Jesus sacrifice is all is that is required in scripture.

You never seem to answer any questions like "what must i do to be saved" you just repeat continually that anything goes so long as it isn't related to Revival....Sounds more like you have a personal vendetta against the Revival Churches than sincere theology.

Speaking from a non revivalist POV I am surprised that anyone take you seriously, with the obvious exception of those who similarly have an anti-Revival axe to grind.

Anyhow I would suggest that all of you onlooker to this discourse be wary of false teachers who do not show the fruits of righteousness including the revivalists.

perhaps you might even check out the International House of Prayer website for some edifying ministry.

Please don’t be offended at my frankness, I do feel sorry for you guys on this forum. It is obvious that you have in some way been disappointed by you various experiences in revival churches.

Seeking answers from orthodox religious theology will not help you to find peace or spiritual fulfillment, quite the contrary. Orthodox theology simply offers a placebo.

I think that what some would call “Special Pleading” I would call reliance on the Lord Jesus Christ to substantiate my claims with his authority and with signs following. I think Paul said it best when he said…

1st Corinthians 2:1  AS FOR myself, brethren, when I came to you, I did not come proclaiming to you the testimony and evidence or mystery and secret of God [concerning what He has done through Christ for the salvation of men] in lofty words of eloquence or human philosophy and wisdom;

For I resolved to know nothing (to be acquainted with nothing, to make a display of the knowledge of nothing, and to be conscious of nothing) among you except Jesus Christ (the Messiah) and Him crucified.

And I was in (passed into a state of) weakness and fear (dread) and great trembling [after I had come] among you.

And my language and my message were not set forth in persuasive (enticing and plausible) words of wisdom, but they were in demonstration of the [Holy] Spirit and power [a proof by the Spirit and power of God, operating on me and stirring in the minds of my hearers the most holy emotions and thus persuading them],

SO THAT YOUR FAITH MIGHT NOT REST IN THE WISDOM OF MEN (HUMAN PHILOSOPHY), BUT IN THE POWER OF GOD.

I do realize that for many reading this you may have doubts but following the advice of theologians for spiritual matters has a dreadful history better that you seek Christ and Christ alone. After all 1st Corinthians 2:14  But THE NATURAL, NONSPIRITUAL MAN DOES NOT ACCEPT OR WELCOME OR ADMIT INTO HIS HEART THE GIFTS AND TEACHINGS AND REVELATIONS OF THE SPIRIT OF GOD, FOR THEY ARE FOLLY (MEANINGLESS NONSENSE) TO HIM; and he is incapable of knowing them [of progressively recognizing, understanding, and becoming better acquainted with them] BECAUSE THEY ARE SPIRITUALLY DISCERNED AND ESTIMATED AND APPRECIATED.

No wonder then that Didaktikon  as he calls himself feels me foolish.

God bless you all on your journey



Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #43
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:Tongue speaking? - anyone can do it

Date Posted:14/01/2012 12:27 PMCopy HTML

Back again, IHOP?

I don't think that you have conclusively proven a thing. Simply stating that you have; doesn't make it so Ian. Indeed all you seem to be doing is making the word of God ineffectual to anyone. Well, I think I've done considerably more than "simply state" that I've conclusively proven my position. I'm pretty confident that I've demonstrated in some detail 'how', 'where' and 'why' I'm correct in my assertions; something that I've challenged you to do from the very beginning of this discussion. But what of you? When faced with Scripture exposed, what do you offer in return? Naught but personal opinion and misplaced judgment, methinks.

Your is a powerless belief system, not a shadow of the spirit led walk that Jesus came to give us. My belief system is powerless? Based on what? The simple fact that my point-of-view diverges from your own? Perhaps you're unaware of this, but Ephesians 6:17 clearly identifies that the sword of the Spirit is the Word of God. I seem to be quite capable of wielding this sword, yet you clearly are not. What does this fact suggest about your supposed 'Spirit-led walk'? Or mine?

It is all too common these days that theologians examine the text all day long as did the religious leaders of Jesus' day and find themselves totally outside of the grace of God. As I've mentioned to you already, Jesus happily exposed the correct meaning of God's Word to his detractors, and for their benefit. Paul did likewise, and so do I. The text is, after all, there for us to examine given that it's the text of Scripture that functions as the "sure Word of God" (see John 17:17 and 2 Peter 1:19, for example). I've chosen to give more credence to God's eternal Word than I do your 'experience', and I can do this only because he's extended his grace to me. After all, I once was, as you are now :) 

All that those who hear you can hope to receive is No Power, No miracles, No assurance of Eternal life, nothing but your theoretical assurance that acknowledgement of Jesus sacrifice is all is that is required in scripture. I see, it's all about 'power' for you, then? (shades of Simon Magus, methinks) I'm sorry but I don't personally equate babbling away in nonsensical gibberish with 'power', and in any case, you're clearly holding onto the wrong end of the stick. To see "what's what", I'd suggest that you take a moment to read 2 Corinthians 12:19 (it changes one's perspective a little, no?). As for having assurance of eternal life, you'd do well to remember that I'm the one who defended the biblical teaching against your position of needing to "stay saved" ;)  

You never seem to answer any questions like "what must i do to be saved" you just repeat continually that anything goes so long as it isn't related to Revival....Sounds more like you have a personal vendetta against the Revival Churches than sincere theology. Each and every time that I've been asked, "what must I do to be saved", whether here or elsewhere, I've readily responded with the apostle Paul's answer: "believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved ..." Furthermore I've answered every one of your questions, yet you seem unwilling to answer any of mine. Why is that? Speaking from a non revivalist POV I am surprised that anyone take you seriously, with the obvious exception of those who similarly have an anti-Revival axe to grind. A non-Revivalist POV?! C'mon ... But to respond, I suppose people take me seriously because I can readily prove that my position fully accords with the teaching of Scripture. Shhhh ... it's the 'secret' to my evangelical success :P

Anyhow I would suggest that all of you onlooker to this discourse be wary of false teachers who do not show the fruits of righteousness including the revivalists. On what basis do you judge that I've failed to demonstrate the 'fruits' of 'righteousness'? And on what basis would you label me a 'false teacher'? Seriously, let's see some "proofs" for these supposed "truths". perhaps you might even check out the International House of Prayer website for some edifying ministry. Well, they could check out that website, but my quick review of it has me doubting that there's anything particularly 'edifying' in the offing to be found there ;)

Please don’t be offended at my frankness, I do feel sorry for you guys on this forum. It is obvious that you have in some way been disappointed by you various experiences in revival churches. Seeking answers from orthodox religious theology will not help you to find peace or spiritual fulfillment, quite the contrary. Orthodox theology simply offers a placebo. Or a biblical remedy for what ails one, spiritually.

I think that what some would call “Special Pleading” I would call reliance on the Lord Jesus Christ to substantiate my claims with his authority and with signs following. Well, Jesus doesn't seem to be substantiating your various claims with "signs following" in our discussion!

I think Paul said it best when he said… 1st Corinthians 2:1  AS FOR myself, brethren, when I came to you, I did not come proclaiming to you the testimony and evidence or mystery and secret of God [concerning what He has done through Christ for the salvation of men] in lofty words of eloquence or human philosophy and wisdom; For I resolved to know nothing (to be acquainted with nothing, to make a display of the knowledge of nothing, and to be conscious of nothing) among you except Jesus Christ (the Messiah) and Him crucified. And I was in (passed into a state of) weakness and fear (dread) and great trembling [after I had come] among you. And my language and my message were not set forth in persuasive (enticing and plausible) words of wisdom, but they were in demonstration of the [Holy] Spirit and power [a proof by the Spirit and power of God, operating on me and stirring in the minds of my hearers the most holy emotions and thus persuading them], SO THAT YOUR FAITH MIGHT NOT REST IN THE WISDOM OF MEN (HUMAN PHILOSOPHY), BUT IN THE POWER OF GOD. No doubt it's for precisely these sorts of reasons that God has blessed my ministry to Revivalists over the years (almost 600 conversions from, and counting).

I do realize that for many reading this you may have doubts but following the advice of theologians for spiritual matters has a dreadful history better that you seek Christ and Christ alone. After all 1st Corinthians 2:14  But THE NATURAL, NONSPIRITUAL MAN DOES NOT ACCEPT OR WELCOME OR ADMIT INTO HIS HEART THE GIFTS AND TEACHINGS AND REVELATIONS OF THE SPIRIT OF GOD, FOR THEY ARE FOLLY (MEANINGLESS NONSENSE) TO HIM; and he is incapable of knowing them [of progressively recognizing, understanding, and becoming better acquainted with them] BECAUSE THEY ARE SPIRITUALLY DISCERNED AND ESTIMATED AND APPRECIATED. No wonder then that Didaktikon as he calls himself feels me foolish. Actually, I simply think you're woefully ill-informed concerning what Scripture actually teaches, and far too impressed by your own sense of cleverness. What's foolish, however, is that attitude of yours that dismisses out-of-hand conclusive evidence that disproves your mistaken beliefs.

That's something that you may like to reconsider :)

Blessings,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
IHOP Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #44
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Australia
  • Register:19/12/2011 6:09 AM

Re:Tongue speaking? - anyone can do it

Date Posted:14/01/2012 10:32 PMCopy HTML

It is an amazing thing that the word of God can be so misunderstood by educated people. I often wondered how the religious leaders could rationally kill the Son of God.
I can spend a thousand hours trying to explain the spiritual application of scripture to natural minds but I fear this cannot be done.

We started this discourse talking about Romans chapter 10 and 8 which both speak to the inner war between the flesh and the spirit and somehow you have missed the entire point of the words of the text.

As I said... AMAZING!

As for the "600" people you have "HELPED"???   I do think you are are little wayward to claim anything for yourself. People come and go from every fellowship everywhere, for you to claim responsibility is sad and a poor reflection on your ministry (or lack thereof).

That said I will take the time to refute your misrepresentation of the Gospel for the sake of those feeble minded who give you more reverence than is deserved.

BTW... You have never been as "I am Now" nor have I been as you once were.


1Co 3:13  Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. 


Biblianut Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #45
  • Rank:Regular Rookier
  • Score:5380
  • Posts:218
  • From:Australia
  • Register:30/11/2010 9:39 PM

Re:Tongue speaking? - anyone can do it

Date Posted:14/01/2012 10:45 PMCopy HTML

 

“[Dispute Over Whose Children Jesus’ Opponents Are] To the Jews [including Revivalists] who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”” John 8:31-32 NIV [SELAH]

I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen; not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. C.S.Lewis.
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #46
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:Tongue speaking? - anyone can do it

Date Posted:14/01/2012 11:13 PMCopy HTML

Good morning, IHOP.

It is an amazing thing that the word of God can be so misunderstood by educated people. Being able to concretely establish what the Bible actually teaches is to 'misunderstand' it? Why? Seriously, why? As an aside, you might be interested to learn that 'educated' is the lexical antonym of 'ignorant'. I often wondered how the religious leaders could rationally kill the Son of God. I can spend a thousand hours trying to explain the spiritual application of scripture to natural minds but I fear this cannot be done. I'd suggest to you that if the so-called 'spiritual application' of a piece of Scripture doesn't derive from, and build on, what a given passage ordinarily says, then it isn't spiritual at all but carnal. And history demonstrates that it's frequently the case of the carnal mind deluding itself into thinking it's spiritual. This is why there are so many heretical sects and abberations of Christianity vying for attention in the wider world. The pure Word of God, however, when properly presented and applied to daily life never takes 'thousands of hours' to explain, and it always bears positive fruit. At least, such has been my long experience.

We started this discourse talking about Romans chapter 10 and 8 which both speak to the inner war between the flesh and the spirit and somehow you have missed the entire point of the words of the text. Actually, we started this 'discourse' talking about my large Acts essay and it's implications for Revivalist belief (see post #24). I invited you to engage with what I had written from the 'get-go', yet you've refused to do so at every juncture. Further, you've done nothing since but continually demonstrate to all and sundry that you don't understand what Scripture teaches, and sadly, that you're not prepared to having your beliefs shaped by it. Unlike you, I don't simply claim that a biblical passage teaches this or that; I prove why. And I did so with the very brief, one-sided discussion the 'we' had on Romans too.

As I said... AMAZING! Is it though? You're not the first person I've encountered who has claimed to be following the 'spiritual' application of the Bible (shades of Luke/GWM/Tony Barton), and I'm confident that you won't be the last. The various threads of this forum are littered with the wreckage of their nebulous arguments. Given that the 'world' is potentially watching you right now, don't you think it's high time that you started delivering tangible results? That you started answering my questions; responding to my Scriptural challenges?

As for the "600" people you have "HELPED"???   I do think you are are little wayward to claim anything for yourself. People come and go from every fellowship everywhere, for you to claim responsibility is sad and a poor reflection on your ministry (or lack thereof). The almost 600 are those who've repented of Revivalism as a direct consequence of me specifically and personally engaging with them over a period of weeks, months even years. If I were to claim those who have been helped to leave Revivalism because they'd privately made use of the resources that I've placed at www.pleaseconsider.info and here, then the number would be substantially higher. IHOP, understand: I was being rather conservative in my estimation :)

That said I will take the time to refute your misrepresentation of the Gospel for the sake of those feeble minded who give you more reverence than is deserved. Will you?! Truly?! You've promised to engage with my positions repeatedly since you turned up here, but you've stubbornly refused to follow through and make good on the claim. As I've maintained all along, I welcome you attempting to do so, as my experience is that most people can readily distinguish between a sound argument and an unsound one. So, please, please, please ... 'have at it'.

BTW... You have never been as "I am Now" nor have I been as you once were. Au contraire. I was once also an ignorant, self-righteous man; one who believed with all his heart that the Revivalist 'salvation message' of repentence, baptism in water (by immersion) and receiving the Holy Spirit (with the evidence of speaking in 'tongues') was necessary for salvation. Further, I too formerly believed that a person had to 'stay' saved having first been saved (a la 'tongues'); and, just like you, I too misread, misinterpreted and misapplied the Bible to support what are clearly unbiblical beliefs and practices. Unlike you, however, I've long since repented of these greivous errors. Unlike you, I willingly devoted considerable time and resources to gaining the skills needed to "rightly divide the Word of Truth". So whilst I was once as misguided and proud as you, we are very different creatures now, you and I.

1Co 3:13  Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. Why do you continue to quote Scripture when you clearly don't believe what it says, and don't invest it with any authority over your life?

Blessings,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Talmid Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #47
  • Rank:Regular Rookier
  • Score:5980
  • Posts:293
  • From:Australia
  • Register:21/04/2008 10:04 PM

Re:Tongue speaking? - anyone can do it

Date Posted:15/01/2012 2:39 AMCopy HTML

 Hello IHOP

>>Anyhow I would suggest that all of you onlooker [sic] to this discourse be wary of false teachers who do not show the fruits of righteousness including the revivalists.

As an onlooker, might I point out that you come across as:

1) ignorant: e.g. you accused Ian of failing to clarify what he understood about salvation, when he clearly had

2) self-righteous: your "spiritual" understanding of scripture is better than the Spirit-led understanding of the well-over one-billion orthodox Christians down through the centuries

and

3) somewhat foolish: e.g. trying to correlate Ian's "larger" essay with his personal spirituality, interpolating your own interpretations when you quote scripture and interpolating some truly pointless matters (folly = meaningless nonsense) (e.o. 44#); your fantasy that Ro 10 speaks about "maintaining" rather than "entering" salvation

BTW recognising that the Spirit through scripture had pwned my beliefs led me back from "Revivalism" to Christianity. I pray the same for you.
The evidence for Mann-made global warming is unequivocal.
IHOP Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #48
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Australia
  • Register:19/12/2011 6:09 AM

Re:Tongue speaking? - anyone can do it

Date Posted:15/01/2012 5:59 AMCopy HTML


I do feel for you guys (but for the Grace of God go I) in so far that you are seemingly totally blind to the meaning of so much of scripture. You read everything in such a physical way that the spiritual meaning is lost to you.

I am at a loss as to how I can assist you in seeing what you clearly do not want to see. I guess only Jesus can help you.

Maybe if I spent several hours every day to explain the scriptures to you then maybe you would begin to see that as John wrote "thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked"Rev 3:17 

I will persist to try to help and God willing I may be of some help to someone.


Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #49
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:Tongue speaking? - anyone can do it

Date Posted:15/01/2012 6:29 AMCopy HTML

Hi, IHOP.

I do feel for you guys (but for the Grace of God go I) in so far that you are seemingly totally blind to the meaning of so much of scripture. You read everything in such a physical way that the spiritual meaning is lost to you. 'Been there, done that', wiser now. I have a very simple question, one that I hope you will answer this time rather than continuing to avoid doing so as you have to date. My question is this: what objective, external controls temper your subjective, personal and individualistic (but) 'spiritual' reading of Scripture?

I am at a loss as to how I can assist you in seeing what you clearly do not want to see. I take it you've not encountered people who want more than just your private opinion about Scripture before? I guess only Jesus can help you. As I keep pointing out to you, he has. It's because Jesus helped the likes of me that I no longer believe Revivalist fables. The same is clearly true for others as well :) Maybe if I spent several hours every day to explain the scriptures to you then maybe you would begin to see that as John wrote "thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked" Rev 3:17. Well, you could start by trying to explain such passages to us, instead of simply quoting them seriatim.

I will persist to try to help and God willing I may be of some help to someone. And I warmly invite you to do so. Now, let's see less of the pointless rhetoric, and more effort at trying some actual, factual biblical exegesis, m'kay?

Blessings,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Uncoolman Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #50
  • Rank:Poster Venti III
  • Score:10080
  • Posts:324
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:05/04/2003 2:38 PM

Re:Tongue speaking? - anyone can do it

Date Posted:16/01/2012 9:29 AMCopy HTML

Reply to Didaktikon

Hi, Eric.

I would've thought it obvious to someone with a working knowledge of Greek, that I was discussing the grammatical subset of 'condition' (as in their structural categories: first class conditions, second class conditions, etc), rather than the idea of election along systematic theology lines.

Or were you, perhaps, simply responding 'tongue-in-cheek'? If you were, then I reckon your response wasn't particularly helpful, given that it would simply serve to confuse the issue for the average reader :/

Blessings,

Ian

Apologies Dude - couldn't resist myself when you popped up with the Arminian acronym "FACTS"

"FACTS - Freed by Grace (to Believe)
Atonement for All
Conditional Election
Total Depravity
Security in Christ "

 - but I do hold to the Arminian view of libertarian free will ..

blessings

Eric


RCI prophesies
Copyright © 2000-2019 Aimoo Free Forum All rights reserved.