Forum for ex-members of Revival Churches
Revival_Centres_Discussion_Forums > Bible, Beliefs, Scriptures and 'The Word' > Didaktikon debunks Revivalist 'Theology' Go to subcategory:
Author Content
Ex_Member
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Date Posted:12/03/2007 8:29 PMCopy HTML

In the closing months of 1900 Pastor Charles Parham established theffice:smarttags" />?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comBethelBibleSchoolon the outskirts ofTopeka,Kansas,U.S.A.It was there that he challenged his thirty-four students to search the Scriptures for evidence of receiving the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.His students were soon in agreement that the outward physical evidence of such an experience was the glossolalia or speaking in tongues.At a New Year Service to usher in 1901, Parham prayed for a young student named AgnesOzman, he laid his hands on her and she began to speak in a language she had never learned or heard. Over the next few daysParham and other members of the students body had the same experience; the Pentecostal movement had begun. Soon it wasto spread to theBritish Isles,Scandinaviaand across the English-speaking world.Sadly after almost a century the concept of an experience subsequent to conversion, commonly known as the Baptism of theHoly Spirit, and accompanied by supernatural phenomena, remains a source of deep rooted division amongst many.I for one believe that this event was one of many at that time that heralded the Latter Rain, Holy Spirit outpouring.If I am wrong, please someone, anyone, everyone show me where!let the battle be joined. With Sword drawn I await your response.
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #1
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:Tongues: The 'Rest' and Isaiah 28

Date Posted:13/03/2007 5:59 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : Gods Word Matters

Righto,

In the closing months of 1900 Pastor Charles Parham established the ffice:smarttags" />Bethel Bible School on the outskirts of Topeka, Kansas, U.S.A. It was there that he challenged his thirty-four students to search the Scriptures for evidence of receiving the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. His students were soon in agreement that the outward physical evidence of such an experience was the glossolalia or speaking in tongues. At a New Year Service to usher in 1901, Parham prayed for a young student named Agnes Ozman, he laid his hands on her and she began to speak in a language she had never learned or heard. Over the next few days Parham and other members of the students body had the same experience; the Pentecostal movement had begun. Soon it was
to spread to the British Isles, Scandinavia and across the English-speaking world.


Yes, I knew all of this already.

Sadly after almost a century the concept of an experience subsequent to conversion, commonly known as the Baptism of the
Holy Spirit, and accompanied by supernatural phenomena, remains a source of deep rooted division amongst many.


Well here's something interesting: the above concept wasn't 'invented' by the early Pentecostals, All they added to the mix was the 'tongues' bit

I for one believe that this event was one of many at that time that heralded the Latter Rain, Holy Spirit outpouring. If I am wrong, please someone, anyone, everyone show me where!

Okay. Happy to But first, you can start by showing me, from Scripture, where you find biblical support for your particular brand of 'latter rain' theology

let the battle be joined. With Sword drawn I await your response.

Sword? Try butter knife, friend.

God bless,

Ian
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #2
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:Tongues: The 'Rest' and Isaiah 28

Date Posted:14/03/2007 3:35 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : MothandRust


Hi Moth: I have taken your advice, I have printed all other discussions on this site on Tongues. (a small novel) It will take some time to absorb, pray and respond to with FACT.


My intent was to start a thread where the predominance was Scriptural text NOT OPINION.

The First subtopicr is THE REST.

The Rest of God:

The Old Testament was a "schoolmaster" instructor designed to bring us to Christ, (Gal 3:24-25) to prepare us for salvation through faith. The things that happened to Israel, "happened as an example and is there for our admonition upon whom the end of the world is come," (I Corinth 10:11). Bearing these two verses in mind consider the fourth Commandment in Exodus 20:8-11. This commandment speaks of the Sabbath or rest day. In Israel this took place on the seventh day of the Hebrew week. Failure to adhere to this law resulted in death.

Exodus 31:12-17
12 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
13 Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you.
14 Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. {holy: Heb. holiness}
16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.
17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.
18 And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.
Here we see that the Sabbath was set as a sign and that God "rested and was refreshed". The Sabbath was the literal example of a spiritual rest that would one day come when God poured out his Holy Spirit and we would enter a perpetual rest. Ceasing from our own works to be saved by grace. Heb 4:10

Hebrews 4:9-10
9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. {rest: or, keeping of a sabbath}
10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.
11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief. {unbelief: or, disobedience}

Question: At what point do we enter the Rest?
Isaiah 28:5-13

5 In that day shall the LORD of hosts be for a crown of glory, and for a diadem of beauty, unto the residue of his people,
6 And for a spirit of judgment to him that sitteth in judgment, and for strength to them that turn the battle to the gate.
7 But they also have erred through wine, and through strong drink are out of the way; the priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink, they are swallowed up of wine, they are out of the way through strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble in judgment.
8 For all tables are full of vomit and filthiness, so that there is no place clean.
9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. {doctrine: Heb. the hearing?}
10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: {must be: or, hath been}
11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. {stammering...: Heb. stammerings of lip} {will...: or, he hath spoken}
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.
13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

Compare verses 11 and 12 to (I Corinth 14:21) where Paul quotes from Isaiah in reference to speaking in tongues.

I Corinthians 14:19-22
19. Yet in the church I had rather speak five words in my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.
20. Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.
21. In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak to this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me saith the lord.

Is it fair to say that Paul wants people to view that Isaiah verse as being fullfilled in Tongues and its place in the church is to draw attention to the fact that we MUST enter the Rest.


22. Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

In Isaiah 28:11-12 says that entry into the rest and the refreshing of God was at the same time as the individual spoke in tongues, here attested to by Paul. Now compare to Acts 3:19.

Acts 3:19
Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
Matthew 11:28-30
28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
30. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

The rest is not feeling good about yourself or an emotional concept, it is a place at which you arrive upon belief in God and is confirmed by God with signs following.


Jeremiah 6:14-17
13 For from the least of them even unto the greatest of them every one is given to covetousness; and from the prophet even unto the priest every one dealeth falsely.
14 They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace. {hurt: Heb. bruise, or, breach}
15 Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore they shall fall among them that fall: at the time that I visit them they shall be cast down, saith the LORD.
16 Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.

Sounds to me like we should get back to the "Good old time Gospel"
17 Also I set watchmen over you, saying, Hearken to the sound of the trumpet. But they said, We will not hearken.

Compare to I Corinth 14:8 " If the trumpet give an uncertain sound who shall prepare himself for battle?"


Hebrews 4:1-12
1 Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.

Please find anywhere in the Bible where there is a PROMISE of entering a REST! 

I will save you the time try Isaiah 28


2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it. {the word...: Gr. the word of hearing} {not being...: or, because they were not united by faith to}
3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.
4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.
5 And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest.
6 Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief: {it was: or, the gospel was}
7 Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.
8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. {Jesus: that is, Joshua}
9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. {rest: or, keeping of a sabbath}
10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.
11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief. {unbelief: or, disobedience}
12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

No doubt SOTT will find a 1000 things to be criticle of (same old same old) but what is the intent of the Auther.

Zeph 3:4-9

4 Her prophets are light and treacherous persons: her priests have polluted the sanctuary, they have done violence to the law.

9 For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent. {language: Heb. lip} {consent: Heb. shoulder}

It is interesting to compare these verses to Isaiah 28 given that Isaiah says that the priest and the prophets are drunks and are out of the way. The fact that these people were the only people through whom God communicated his will for his people Israel. The question was asked "Whom shall he teach Knowledge and Whom shall he make to understand doctrine."

SOTT will read this and say that this is just  EXEGESIS or what ever he wants but his approach of deriding everyone els without ACTUALLY refering to the text disturbs me.

He talks about bias and the apparent RF isms and so on but all of his work is underpinned by the same.

Admit it we all have bias, either pro or con.

SOTT's  approach is avoid the simple and make complex. Im sure when God who sees the end from the beginning designed everything he didn't intend for all to be Greek Scholars.

Calling any one who quotes scripture an EXEGETE is a vain attempt to a scriptural debate. plain and simple.

The most  important thing when reading any text is (The intended Audience)


The more I read SOTT the more I think he is like the OLD PROPHET of Kings 13. Readers of SOTT, BEWARE.

The Man of God out of Judah, who we are ended up being Buried in the same Grave as the OLD (False) Prophet.

It is also helpfull to read 2Tim Chapters 3 & 4 with this story in mind.

and while your at it read the story of Josiah that the Man of God out of Judah is refering to!!!

As I said this is only the beginning of a long essay.

PS I also studied the Koine Greek through University of New England, but I believe the simplicity that is in Christ should be evident without having to. But most of my references to Greek will be well referenced to my text books. SOTT will enjoy that, he will probably recognise the authors.

There appears at first glance to an undercurrent of Pride in many of the Posts. Getting deep into Greek, Hebrew can over complicate the matter and cloud the real issue. Bare this in mind SOTT. Ther are unbelievers reading and if they think that salvation is so complicated that its not worth it, that would be a shame.

Please respond with a scriptural rebuttal NOT OPINION.

I have much more on the Rest but this will suffice for now.

Bye for Now. Luke 7:35

Text to be made bold

Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #3
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:Tongues: The 'Rest' and Isaiah 28

Date Posted:14/03/2007 6:34 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : Gods Word Matters

Well,

I've read your rather lengthy post, and find myself fully in agreement with M & R's comments. So I feel I need to ask you this, "what's the point you're trying to make?" Anyone can quote great chunks of Scripture, seriatim, as you've done; but you've not explained in any way, how all those Bible passages supposedly support your POV.

Further, for one who apparently decries ad hom argumentation, you've done a 'bang-up' job of it yourself. And finally, please excuse me if I choose to remain skeptical of your supposed proficiency in Greek. Sorry, but I've seen nothing to date that demonstrates that you can competently distinguish between an ablative and an absolute, or a genitive and a gerund.

Blessings,

Ian
prezy Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #4
  • Rank:Poster Venti II
  • Score:7160
  • Posts:343
  • From:Scotland
  • Register:06/02/2007 11:02 AM

Re:Tongues: The 'Rest' and Isaiah 28

Date Posted:14/03/2007 8:13 AMCopy HTML

ACTS 2.4 The miracle recorded here had a real purpose. God's message being told in everyone's language in attendance so they may understand. At the GRC there were people there who struggled with English but I never heard a Dutch tongues message or Croation or whatever spoken from a person who doesn't understand that particular language so that those that didn't have good English could understand. I think it is fair to say putting ACTS 2.4 into its intended context it is a totally different thing happening in pentecostal churches. I am not saying tongues aren't a sign of recieving the Holy spirit but we need to be carefull using this scipture as even supplimentary evidence that all Christians must speak in tongues.

1 COR 12 v10 couldn't be clearer that only part of the body will have the GIFT of tongues. I think that GRC and probably its long lost sister assemblies (or mother assemblies) twist or ignore this verse. It also is important to distiguish between the sign of tongues and the gift of tongues. Even if you subscribe to the belief that all Christians must recieve the sign it would be contrary to scripture to say that all must have the gift. And why should a faithful christian need to have a sign every day. need some room for faith! See also 1 COR 12 v29&30 Do all have the gift of tongues? evidently not.  1 COR 14v5 I would that ye all spake in tongues. So obviously they didn't even though Paul desired it he never said it was neccessary.

As for my opinion I experienced the sign of tongues but have also met people who have been converted to Christianity which can clearly be seen by their fruits and other gifts and have never spoke in tongues. I have also met wicked people who do speak in tongues. Welcome comments.   

¡uıɐƃɐ ʎɐqǝ ɯoɹɟ pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ɐ ƃuıʎnq ɹǝʌǝu
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #5
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:Tongues: The 'Rest' and Isaiah 28

Date Posted:14/03/2007 8:28 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : prezy

Hi, Prezy.

As for my opinion I experienced the sign of tongues but have also met people who have been converted to Christianity which can clearly be seen by their fruits and other gifts and have never spoke in tongues.

Well, speaking from a strictly biblical perspective, the sign of 'tongues' was the manifestation of human languages as we find in the book of Acts. So unless your personal experience mirrors what we read of in (for example) Acts 2, then you've not experienced the 'sign' at all, although it's possible that you've experienced the 'gift'.

As for the rest of what you've said, I couldn't agree more: bad root, bad fruit and vicky verca.

Blessings,

Ian
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #6
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:Tongues: The 'Rest' and Isaiah 28

Date Posted:14/03/2007 11:33 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : MothandRust



Reply to : Gods Word MattersSOTT does not discuss the text as much as his opinion. He certainly does not offer an explaination of the detail of each and EVERY text.I disagree, but if that's the way you see it then there's not much I can add.Study the text and don't rush to judgement. Only a fool answers a matter before he hears it !!!!But you don't answer to it so far. You just prattle it on. I haven't answered anything with judgement yet because we haven't heard your matter. Sure, I can probably guess your 'matters', but lets hear them first.You know I am sinsere, If I am wrong with my interpretation of scripture. Opinion isn't going to help. The Word God needs to be addressed FULLY.Okay, the ball is in your cour




Hi Moth: Firstly I am leaving the post as is for 24 hours or so. The word of God does more Raw than we could ever do with our two cents worth.

1Co 2:1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.

1Co 2:2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

1Co 2:3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.

1Co 2:4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:

1Co 2:5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

After all the Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. One man's butter knife is another man's Sword. "His sheep hear his voice".

After that I will add a commentry, then we will get thing happening for real.


Bare in mind I am very very busy and I dont always get alot of time to sit down and repond. I am aware to date that this type of discourse is not the norm for this site. The reason for my doing this will over time become crystal clear.

God Bless and don't forget Study the scriptures on the Rest.

ALL of them.

The "Rest" is the 1st of about 25 or so aspects of my argument, so this may take a while.

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:Tongues: The 'Rest' and Isaiah 28

Date Posted:14/03/2007 12:20 PMCopy HTML

25 parts?

I'm bored already, but if you want to let the raw scripture speak without commentary for now, I can easily play that game - My argument is that salvation is not only given to the tongue babblers: Part one - Salvation for all (Selah on this, when you're not so busy):

gave Himself as a ransom for all, to be testified in due season" (1Tim. 2:6), and that although all are now dying in Adam, "so in Christ will all be made alive--but each in his own order" (1Cor. 15:22-28.)

the savior of all men (and women), especially of those who believe" (1Tim. 4:10.)

AND IN THY SEED SHALL ALL THE KINDREDS OF THE EARTH BE BLESSED. Unto you first, God, having raised up his son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities." (Acts 3:25-26)

"And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, IN THE SHALL ALL NATIONS BE BLESSED." (Gal 3:8)

But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he, by the grace of God, SHOULD TASTE DEATH FOR EVERY MAN." (Heb. 2:9)

and I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me." (John 12:32)

Behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which SHALL BE TO ALL PEOPLE." (Luke 2:10)

we have heard him ourselves, and we know that this is indeed the Christ, THE SAVIOR OF THE WORLD." (John 4:42)

"And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you, whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets, since the world began." (Acts 3:20-21)

For I give over to you among the first what I accepted also, that CHRIST DIED for OUR SINS according to the Scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:3).

But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those
who are asleep. For since by a man came death, by a man also came the
resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all
will be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits,
after that those who are Christ's at His coming, then comes the end,
when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has
abolished all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign until
He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be
abolished is death. (I Cor. 15:20-26)

For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth,
visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or
authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him. He
is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. He is also head
of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from
the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.
For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in
Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made
peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether
things on earth or things in heaven.   (Col. 1:15-20)

For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope
on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of
believers. (1 Tim. 4:10)

And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only,
but also for those of the whole world. (1 John 2:2)

And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under
the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying, "To
Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and
glory and dominion forever and ever." (Rev. 5:13)

But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of
the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the
grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. The gift is not like
that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the
judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the
other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification.
For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much
more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness
will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. So then as through one
transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of
righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. For as through the one
man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience
of the One the many will be made righteous. The Law came in so that the
transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the
more, so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through
righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 5:15-21)

Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth; For I am God, and
there is no other. " I have sworn by Myself, The word has gone forth
from My mouth in righteousness And will not turn back, That to Me every
knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance. "They will say of
Me, 'Only in the LORD are righteousness and strength.' Men will come to
Him, And all who were angry at Him will be put to shame. "In the LORD all
the offspring of Israel Will be justified and will glory. (Isaiah 45:22-25)

In all wisdom and insight He made known to us the mystery of His will,
according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him with a view to
an administration suitable to the fulness of the times, that is, the
summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things
upon the earth (Ephesians 1:8b-10)

For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to
all. (Romans 11:32)

For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing
of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not of
its own will, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the
creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption
into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that
the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together
until now. (Romans 8:19-22)

He spoke another parable to them, "The kingdom of heaven is like
leaven, which a woman took and hid in three pecks of flour until it was all
leavened." (Matt. 13:33)

Even as You gave Him authority over all flesh, that to all whom You
have given Him, He may give eternal life. (John 17:2)

[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:Tongues: The 'Rest' and Isaiah 28

Date Posted:14/03/2007 1:12 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : Gods Word Matters

Mate,

If you keep going the way that you currently are, then this whole exercise will become very tired, very quickly

I, for one, have neither the time nor the inclination to read through screeds of biblical text in the vain hope that I can somehow make sense of just what it is that you're hoping to prove, or which you currently believe to be patently obvious, and that without any sort of discussion or commentary. And thus far your prolegomena has been neither clear, nor helpful. In short, I reckon you could probably bore me into a coma if you tried hard enough!

Brother, if your beef is with my explanation of 'tongues', which it apparently is, then how about you start defending/promoting your view by engaging with what I've already written on the subject? Is that too much to ask? And, further, if you still think that I don't go into anywhere near the detail that I should in my exegeses (and I'm suggesting that such an opinion would put you in a class of one on this forum), then I'm more than happy to 'deconstruct' any and every passage that we discuss down to the 'nth' level, so to satisfy your curiosity (by including grammatical diagrams, complete conjugations and declinations, etc). Personally, from what I've seen thus far, I harbour serious reservations as to your ability to keep pace, but I'd be very pleased to be proven wrong.

In summary, how about saying something substantive, for a change?

Blessings,

Ian
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #9
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:Tongues: The 'Rest' and Isaiah 28

Date Posted:14/03/2007 1:28 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : SOTT1



Reply to : Gods Word MattersMate,If you keep going the way that you currently are, then this whole exercise will become very tired, very quicklyI, for one, have neither the time nor the inclination to read through screeds of biblical text in the vain hope that I can somehow make sense of just what it is that you're hoping to prove, or which you currently believe to be patently obvious, and that without any sort of discussion or commentary. And thus far your prolegomena has been neither clear, nor helpful. In short, I reckon you could probably boremeinto a coma if you tried hard enough!Brother, if your beef is with my explanation of 'tongues', which it apparently is, then how about youstartdefending/promoting your view by engaging with whatI'




Once again you have managed to imply that God's word is without substance. Duck and weave as you may please address the Rest. Tell me Ian, When did you enter the Rest? How did you know when it happened? Can you identify with Isaiah 28:11
MothandRust Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #10
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:41380
  • Posts:1877
  • From:Australia
  • Register:27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re:Tongues: The 'Rest' and Isaiah 28

Date Posted:14/03/2007 1:36 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : Gods Word Matters

Once again you have managed to imply that God's word is without substance. Duck and weave as you may please address the Rest. When did you enter the Rest?

Look here you rambling man, it's getting old quick and you're sounding like Chartdoctor used to. You're ducking and weaving quite expertly yourself and then pointing the finger at us. You're saying very little other than trying to manouvre us into your "REST' trap... A premeditated and obvious Chess that I'm sure is coming up.

Just explain to us in your own words what your version of the REST is and don't cry and sulk a sooky if we try to answer you in a way that needs more embelishment on the context and greek other than relying on the King's James translators from the middle ages, can you do that? Remember, "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; but the glory of kings is to search out a matter." - Proverbs 25:2. 

You keep saying how simple the raw scripture is in explaining itself, and that you don't have to be a Greek scholar (or educated at all for that matter) but on the other hand it's gonna take you 25 essays to explain your simple 'tongues' doctrine... uh-huh... very simple eh?

You use this verse in your tagline, but cry unfair if anyone does try to scratch further into the scripture further than your current understanding. 2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: There's a word for people such as you who remain ignorant by their own choice. Can you guess what that word it?

But you're not really reading anything we type or have said in previous threads, are you? You're just waiting for your next chance to dribble on. I'm gonna ask you now to cut down your simple 25 steps to salvation and give us the abridged version... or you can simply go away because you seem far too simple to continue on with. Thanks and god bless.

[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 #11
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:Tongues: The 'Rest' and Isaiah 28

Date Posted:14/03/2007 1:39 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : Gods Word Matters
Again,

Once again you have managed to imply that God's word is without substance.

Amazing! In all my time over the past decade of interacting with Revivalists and former Revivalists on forums such as this, no-one before you has ever claimed that I've implied God's Word to be without substance! Are you serious?!

Duck and weave as you may please address the Rest. When did you enter the Rest?

Ducking and weaving? Moi? Buddy, you've been asked a number of times to engage with the conversation that's taken place thus far. Further, I've also asked that you provide the scriptural support that you believe exists for your 'latter rain' theology. To date I've been (a) deafened by your silence, and (b) underwhelmed by your handling of Scripture.

Your email address indicates that believe yourself to be some sort of RF 'knight'. Perhaps, but only of the ilk of the famed Don Quixote of La Mancha!

Please, get with the program.

God bless,

Ian
Uncoolman Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #12
  • Rank:Poster Venti III
  • Score:10080
  • Posts:324
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:05/04/2003 2:38 PM

Re:Tongues: The 'Rest' and Isaiah 28

Date Posted:14/03/2007 1:56 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : MothandRust



Reply to : Gods Word MattersOnce again you have managed to imply that God's word is without substance. Duck and weave as you may please address the Rest. When did you enter the Rest?Look here you rambling man, it's getting old quick and you're sounding like Chartdoctor used to. You're ducking and weaving quite expertly yourself and then pointing thefinger at us. You're sayingvery littleother than trying to manouvre us into your "REST' trap... A premeditated and obvious Chess that I'm sure is coming up.Just explain to us in your own words what your version of the REST is and don't cry and sulk a sookyif we try to answer you in a way that needs more embelishment on the context and greek otherthan relying on the King's James translat




Sorry Moth but no one's got a gun to your head. If you dont want to respond to the simple text of the Rest then dont.

You and SOTT are not the audience to whom I write. unless of course you can simply answer the SIMPLE question. When did you enter the REST?

It seems to be making you uncomfortable.

When Jesus was tempted by the Devil. Jesus responded with just scripture. Jesus was met with similar constanation.

Why are you afraid to enter the realm of God's word. Address the Rest, Address the Rest,Address the Rest, Address the Rest PLEASE. How hard is it?

I have travelled all over this country speaking to large groups of Adventists, JW's,Mormons, Pentecostals. and many more. University campuses, parks, even lectured at a Church of England national rally and everyone has the same response. OPINION, OPINION, OPINION.

I would love to have a face to face debate, that would be fun.

1Co 1:19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
1Co 1:20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

1Co 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
1Co 1:28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to naught things that are:
1Co 1:29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

When I entered the rest, I Knew because I soke in tongues.

Don't get me wrong I'm not mocking you. It seems you are very troubled.

This may be why.

2Co 3:2 Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men:

2Co 3:3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

2Co 3:4 And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward:

2Co 3:5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;

2Co 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

2Co 3:12 Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:

2Co 3:13 And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:

2Co 3:14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same veil untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which veil is done away in Christ.

2Co 3:15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart.

2Co 3:16 Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away.

2Co 3:17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

Uncoolman Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #13
  • Rank:Poster Venti III
  • Score:10080
  • Posts:324
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:05/04/2003 2:38 PM

Re:Tongues: The 'Rest' and Isaiah 28

Date Posted:14/03/2007 2:08 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : SOTT1



Reply to : Gods Word MattersAgain,Once again you have managed to imply that God's word is without substance.Amazing! In all my time over the past decade of interacting with Revivalists and former Revivalists on forums such as this, no-one before you haseverclaimed thatI'veimplied God's Word to bewithout substance!Are you serious?!Duck and weave as you may please address the Rest. When did you enter the Rest?Ducking and weaving?Moi?Buddy, you've been asked a number of times to engage with the conversation that's taken place thus far. Further, I've also asked that you provide the scriptural support that you believe exists for your 'latter rain' theology. To date I've been (a) deafened by your silence, and (b)




Are you guys ever gonna answer the simplest of questions?

A lot of Fair speeches but still not answering with scripture. Maybe because you have not yet entered the rest I should give my commentry, respond to your rebuttal and move on to the latter rain.

Well did Paul write:
Rom 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
Rom 16:18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

prezy Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #14
  • Rank:Poster Venti II
  • Score:7160
  • Posts:343
  • From:Scotland
  • Register:06/02/2007 11:02 AM

Re:Tongues: The 'Rest' and Isaiah 28

Date Posted:14/03/2007 2:30 PMCopy HTML

Sorry Gods word matters, 25 times what I've read so far wont bring me back to cult land. I have entered the REST and am no longer shackled to Satans yoke.This is the new sabbath not tongues, as plenty Ive seen beautifully at peace living in Christ's rest dont speak in tongues. Salvation is fairly simple and to receive at as a child is what Jesus taught us not to try to confuse with lots of old testament/covenant . Remember who the author of confussion is. Love God with all your heart and love your neighbour as yourself
¡uıɐƃɐ ʎɐqǝ ɯoɹɟ pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ɐ ƃuıʎnq ɹǝʌǝu
old holborn Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #15
  • Rank:Regular Member
  • Score:4430
  • Posts:217
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:27/11/2005 8:22 PM

Re:Tongues: The 'Rest' and Isaiah 28

Date Posted:14/03/2007 6:16 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : Brolga

Just a thought. Considering signs following and doctrine of RC's, that you have to speak in tongues to be saved, may I ask, if we pray for a healing and it does not happen, does it mean we are not saved? Afterall it is one of the signs.
 Well , the RF line would be that you are'nt "pressing in " hard enough.. My wife who has a medical condition requiring daily medication was constantly made to feel guilty over this. I t was somehow her fault that she was never healed., and they loved telling her of the wonderful healing so and so somewhere or other  had recieved, when he/she stopped being double minded, and threw away their medication. As I mentioned before, picking up serpants is also one of the signs, some sects in US,regularly practise this, and many get bitten and die, surprise, surprise.
"But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord "
old holborn Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #16
  • Rank:Regular Member
  • Score:4430
  • Posts:217
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:27/11/2005 8:22 PM

Re:Tongues: The 'Rest' and Isaiah 28

Date Posted:15/03/2007 6:50 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : franks ghost

Reply to : old holbornReply to : franks ghostReply to : old holbornIf I read this right Old Fart (love is in the air), AM I the arrogant and self important, but willing to listen one?Must have read it wrong ha!Noooo Frank, did'nt mean you, I phrased that badly, I ve never considered you were any of those things, only deluded andmisguided on some things. Unlike our friend Moth who thinks we arealldeluded and misguided on all things. lolThanks O' smelly one I can handle that. I'll be praying from now on as one who needs to knowhow much moreGod has for me. Steep learning Curve!

Another latish night reflection, seem to having more and more of those lately. Frank, you may have thought that I considered you some kind of enemy , to be attacked, but I assure you thats not the case. I wish you joy in your new found freedom.

I have nothing against anyone who gets spiritual uplift from the way they choose to worship. I 've accepted the differences as a normal part of the working of the body. Any attacking I do on these posts is directed at what has  been proved to be a controlling cult with very few redeeming features. Both from my own experience, and the experience of many other posters.

I came out of one organisation that has always claimed to be the one true church, with unbroken links back to Peter, you know the one I mean, it also had elitist, and closed shop attitudes and regulations. Unfortunately I jumped out of the frying pan into the fire, discovering beneath the outward show of  love and joy  in the Holy Spirit, a far more tyranical and controlling system. Maybe because I was already conditioned I lapped up all the rubbish I was fed, and happily, and religiously passed it on to any one who would listen , alienating all my friends, and some of my own family.

My corner of the field was often hard going, on construction sites up and down the country, but I had some success here and there, managing to preach Jesus, altho. mixed up with a lot of RF rubbish. I brought people along , only to see them mecilessly  hounded and bible bashed until they very sensibly walked away.

Old Fart  I well may be, old certainly, but what I have come to believe is that we arent clones, we are all different, and all try to serve one Lord, that was our intention when we made our descision. But claiming tongues as sole evidence of salvation I now understand is not supported by scripture., the claimants for this heresy, and thats what it is according to the Oxford dictionary, havent presented any  real convincing scriptural evidence to substantiate their claims., giving an induced, or suggested extatic experience precedence over the word of God.   As I see it.

Personaly I dont see   any great reason to argue and get het up over the tongues issue unless it is claimed as nessecary  for , and evidence of salvation. Spiritual uplift is not to be sneered at , I enjoy it as much as the next man, and I'm fairly sure God is not displeased when we put off that hard cynical outer shell, and allow Him to minister to us , through music and song, through hearing His word, and if you like by babbling tongue, by raising the hands  in an expression of worship. After all decently and in order is open to many interpretations, and changing fashions.

Surely if we truly show love for each other, we can tolerate each others little foibles.of practice, or operation, and all attack heresy together,  The practise of tongues itself is'nt heretical, only the RF doctrine. But cults, under whatever banner, should be fought tooth and nail, along with any commercial,  money making enterprise that s main reason for existing is to line some ones pockets.

There endeth the last lesson. I'm away to my bed.  blessings to all , and thinking of all you who are already up and working.

PS wonder if it will be a quiet night , or day ,on here, .or will there be another battle  to wake up and read 

                                                     Sleeping





"But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord "
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #17
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:Tongues: The 'Rest' and Isaiah 28

Date Posted:15/03/2007 5:12 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : old holborn



Reply to : UnkoolmanReply to : Gods Word MattersIf this was the Gong Show or Red Faces, then this would be an appropriate time for Red Simonsto swing his stick. First impressions are everything.This Revivalfellow once thought I had blocked him out of fear, butI did not fear him nor did I block him. However, I do not want to publicly air his next twenty-four pro-Revival sermons either, or anymore ofhis circular debating which seemed to have become circular waybefore the debate even beganFrank, I like. This individual,I don't think anyone here could warm up to. GWM can certainly e-mail me and express his feelings haviing his freedom of speech impeded upon -I'm atunkoolman@gmail.comWhat's your take on the fellow, Frank?There will be no GWM's Ghost.Wowwwww This time diffe




Hi Moth, SOTT1, Prezy, Earth5, Brolga, old holborn and last but not least UNKOOLMAN.

I will respond to the many thoughts expressed so far. Firstly I would like to apologise, I obviously am speaking in a different language to you guys (no pun intended) however I think I should start again and in doing so maybe our relationship may develop along a healthier path.

I first heard the gospel 18 years ago. That week I went from being a very active drug dealer, servicing a large customer base, to a completely changed person. This change occurred subsequent to me asking God the following question " If you are there, and Jesus Christ was your son please fill me with the Holy Spirit". That moment I began to speak fluently in another language.

I spent the next month going around to my friends (other drug dealers) telling them what had happened to me. In total 22 of them had the same experience as I did, including my parents. I saw my father healed of debilitating illnesses, the deaf healed and the lame walk. I didn't originally want to be a Christian but I found the evidence overwhelming.

I realised immediately that there were a myriad of ideas out there and all cannot be correct. I set about going around to all the groups I could find measuring what they said against the scriptures. I realised also that the simple King James Version was not enough of a resource to be solely reliable. (Though it is my favoured version)

After three years of almost constant study trying to prove: (You ARE NOT required to speak in Tongues to be saved) I came to the opposite conclusion i.e. that ALL Christians do in fact speak in Tongues. I am glad I did this, because no one could say that I was intellectually biased. I enrolled in The University of New England to pursue an Arts Degree. I majored in Ancient and Classical History. This is where I studied the Classic Koine Greek. I also studied the History of the Christian Church (all denominations, sects and cults.) as well as all my other subjects.

To summarise my thinking please read the following. 

1)       The Rest: God spoke of the Rest as something that we absolutely MUST enter. The only scriptural position I could find in response to the ABSOLUTE STATEMENT from GOD was found in Isaiah 28:9-12. This verse placed me in a position where Tongues was the only initial outward evidence to the individual where they could know with scriptural certainty that they had entered this place of Rest. I feel cornered by this statement. If I profess to be in agreement with Hebrews Chapter 4, which emphasises the requirement of entry into the/a Rest. But cannot say amen to "stammering lips and another tongue" where does that leave me. The 1st verse of Hebrews 4 states clearly that there was a "promise" of entry into a Rest. The only place this is found is in Isaiah 28:9-12

 

2)       The 16th Chapter of Mark: Mark 16:15-20 gives five signs of believers. These signs were evident with the early church as they have been in my life. The critic would say, "Have you picked up snakes with your hands"??? The answer is no insomuch as physical serpents. I have however seen from scripture that the term "Pick up" can be and indeed should be, given the context "make to doubt". Equally to drink any deadly thing should be "imbibe, take in and keep mentally". As you read through the book of Acts this interpretation of both "take up" and drink are supported. So in this regard I can identify with all five signs listed. Mark 16:15-20 as is the case with any ONE scripture reference cannot however be regarded as your sole rationale for subscribing to the necessary tongues theology. 

 

3)       The Day of Pentecost: The day of Pentecost as fulfilment of Joel's prophecy is often confused with communication between the Apostles and the people who made up the 17 different dialects. The scripture clearly says the EVERY MAN (un believer) heard EVERY MAN (Believer) in EVERY language in which he was born. Call me crazy but that to me says the EVERY ONE of the unbelievers heard all languages being spoken by each and every believer. (I stand to corrected) The closing section of scripture in Acts 2:37-44 is a verse that I agree with the RF captures the sum of the gospel message of Jesus Death, Burial and resurrection referred to by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:1-7

 

4)       Jesus and Nicodemus: In John 3:8 we read that EVERYONE who is born of the Spirit will hear a (Vocal) sound, language. If I position myself; as I once did to say Tongues was just one off the gifts of the spirit then this becomes a hurdle. I would especially like to hear SOTT's examination of this verse.

 

5)       Simon the Sorcerer: This story perhaps best sums up my position. When the Apostles arrived on the scene they knew that the new Christians were not in fact filled with the Holy Spirit Act 8:15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: Act 8:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) BECAUSE they had some sort of logical evidence that it had happened. I have prayed with many people who are seeking to be filled with the Holy Spirit. What other reasonable response could I give them to the question, if they ask me: "have I received the Holy Spirit?"

 

Some would say "you will know them by their fruits" When I try to apply this rationale I     find it floored when applied to Apollos and Cornelius to name just two.

6)       The Conversion of Cornelius: When I pray with people the ONLY template I have you use as a guide that lets me know for certain that the person I am praying with had, with scriptural certainty is Act 10:46  For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

Act 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? These are but a fraction of  my argument, 6 points will suffice for now.

I am aware that I am looking at this from an entirely FUNDAMENTALIST POV.
 But this is my quandary:
I cannot subscribe to the logic that God would not have a measure of control over the finished product with respect to the Biblical text. It should be fairly clear to the average sincere reader, what the steps required for a right relationship with him would be. 
The RF/RCI version of the Gospel, ala Acts 2:38 represented the best that I have seen. The several other similar AOG type versions though similar in my experience failed to address these first 6 points, let alone the many more I would like a clear discussion about. I have found countless people in various assemblies of a variety of churches that simply sidestep the scripture. (Maybe this explains my lack of tolerance) A discussion with a large AOG group's Pastor sums it up.  GWM: "What do you think about John 3?" AOG Pastor: "Well I really don't thing you need to be born again to enter the ffice:smarttags" />kingdom of God." This is the exact opposite to Jesus' words.

1 Corinthians 13 The most important thing is Love. 
I have very serious concern about the legalistic approach by the RCI/RF represented by the many Posts on this site.
I have seen this type of behaviour arise over the years (isolated cases) and in every case God has been faithful to his word and dealt with those individuals (oversight) removing those who are harmful to his sheep.
I am sure that many who accuse the RF of being legalistic are people who similar to myself have witnessed behaviour by oversight that was inconsistent with the role of oversight as SERVANTS. This I believe is a pride issue born of  a) a laps in prayer life, b) Poor shepherding practices learned in the RCI c) Having a DROVER approach rather than the model that Jesus showed us i.e. the Shepherd. (Leading by example while caring for every single sheep)
I believe some, when they accuse their Pastor of being legalistic are really accusing the Bible of being legalistic. What I mean by that is; that from time to time there are people in the fellowship whose lifestyle is out of line with the Biblical standard. This behaviour could also be harmful to the sheep. These people should be carefully and prayerfully helped through these difficulties. Not Judged and Persecuted. If their behaviour continues to get worse this person or persons should be ask not to fellowshipping until they are able to walk in the spirit. 1Co 5:4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 1Co 5:5 To deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. This should be a last resort.
 I am aware of the RF's policy regarding defaulters. I am unaware of a conflict with the scriptural directive (I stand to be corrected).
 What seems to be the BIGGEST ISSUE is the OVERLORDSHIP of some Pastors and the subsequent damage that this causes. I firmly believe that the way that this handled over the next few years will go along way towards determining my and many others personal support for the RF's scriptural position.
 It is evident that many readers on this site have been mishandled at some time. I also suggest that perhaps many were handled exactly scriptural (but just were unable to accept the consequences of their actions) only God knows the difference.
Certainly many who have left and are leading overcoming lives in other fellowships. I believe these individuals will be fine when Jesus returns. Being put out of fellowship should not be viewed as punishment, it is a process of reflection of our actions in the hope of a prayerful focus on the deeds of the flesh that are robbing us of effectiveness for the Kingdom of God. I hope and pray that they find a place of repentance to the saving of the soul.
 I am inexperience at this genre of chat-room discourse, so please excuse my obvious clumsiness. I am willing to see error, insofar as it is consistent with the biblical standard. I am looking forward to All of your input, and I mean ALL.

Bye for now GWM

The GWM fellow is happy to await your response and I've asked him to hold off from posting until it's been released.

I'm also looking forward to reading it and I would ask others to restrain themselves from getting too personal in the manner of responses to the ensuing comments. Let's keep it civil and see what happens.
 Sorry about that UNKOOLMAN. I misunderstood. I had already posted this before reading the above Post. Im sure SOTT will use it as well.

This journey is going to be a long one.

GWM

prezy Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #18
  • Rank:Poster Venti II
  • Score:7160
  • Posts:343
  • From:Scotland
  • Register:06/02/2007 11:02 AM

Re:Tongues: The 'Rest' and Isaiah 28

Date Posted:15/03/2007 6:38 PMCopy HTML

Reply to: GWM

Thankyou for your much clearer post that even my poor little brain can understand. I didn't quite get what you were trying to say before. Can't say I agree with all your interpretation of scripture but have a huge respect for anyone who goes to so much trouble to seek out God's truth and live it. Ill leave it up to sott, old hol. etc to argue points of scripture as they are much more able than I. Good on you for seeking truth and being prepared to listen to others.Rob

¡uıɐƃɐ ʎɐqǝ ɯoɹɟ pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ɐ ƃuıʎnq ɹǝʌǝu
MothandRust Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #19
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:41380
  • Posts:1877
  • From:Australia
  • Register:27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re:Tongues: The 'Rest' and Isaiah 28

Date Posted:15/03/2007 6:45 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : Gods Word Matters

1)       The Rest: God spoke of the Rest as something that we absolutely MUST enter. The only scriptural position I could find in response to the ABSOLUTE STATEMENT from GOD was found in Isaiah 28:9-12. This verse placed me in a position where Tongues was the only initial outward evidence to the individual where they could know with scriptural certainty that they had entered this place of Rest. I feel cornered by this statement. If I profess to be in agreement with Hebrews Chapter 4, which emphasises the requirement of entry into the/a Rest. But cannot say amen to "stammering lips and another tongue" where does that leave me.

I thought you said you gave this some study and knew bible history? Let's have a look at the verse: Isa.28:11 "For with another tongue will he speak to this people."  As you would know, the Isaiah scripture clearly records the time when the Babylonians came in to destroy and captivate Judah, and by hearing those who spoke in a foreign strange language they would know God's judgement had come. This was the rest and refreshing they were trying to enter but could not because 'they did not hear'... They would not hear. Paul refered to this terrible time in history and reminded his church that the tongues (languages) of the enemy at that terrible time were a sign of their unbelief. Tongues are a sign of God's judgement to unbelievers.

Haven't you and the rest of Revivians ever thought it weird that it says that it's another tongue he will speak to this people. It's not the this people that are actually doing the tongue speaking. It's refering to a normal human language that is different to the native tongue. Amazing how self-centred we can be to imagine that the language we personally speak is the central important one.

1 Corinthians 14 that "tongues are a sign to the unbelievers, tongues are a sign of God's judgment to unbelievers

Isaiah 28:11 "For with another tongue will he speak to this people."

This people were the Jews at Pentecost to authenticate the Gospel they were preaching. When the Northern kingdom were gobsmacked in disbelief they were taken captive by the Assyrians and could not understand the language spoken. Amazing this historical and well known even in Jewish history has been convoluted into the glossalalian theology.

[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 #20
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:Tongues: The 'Rest' and Isaiah 28

Date Posted:15/03/2007 6:57 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : MothandRust







I thought you said you gave this some study and knew bible history? Let's have a look at the verse: Isa.28:11 "For with another tongue will he speak to this people." As you would know, the Isaiah scripture clearly records the time when the Babylonians came in to destroy and captivate Judah, and by hearing those who spoke in a foreign strange language they would know God's judgement had come. This was the rest they were trying to avoid but did not because 'they did not hear'... They would not hear. Paul refered to this terrible time in history and reminded his church that the tongues are sign of unbelief. Tongues are a sign of God's judgement to unbelievers.

Haven't you and the rest of Revivians ever thought it weird that it says that it's another tongue he will speak to this people. It's not the this people that are actually doing the tongue speaking. It's refering to a normal human language that is different to the native tongue. Amazing how self-centred we can be to imagine that the language we personally speak is the central important one.

1 Corinthians 14 that "tongues are a sign to the unbelievers, tongues are a sign of God's judgment to unbelievers

Isaiah 28:11 "For with another tongue will he speak to this people."

This people were the Jews at Pentecost to authenticate the Gospel they were preaching. When the Northern kingdom were gobsmacked in disbelief they were taken captive by the Assyrians and could not understand the language spoken. Amazing this historical and well known even in Jewish history has been convoluted into the glossalalian theology.

Yes I am aware that many conclude that this Isaiah verse speaks to the Assyrian conquest of Israel. Pauls reference to it in 1 Corinthians 14:21 though and again in Hebrews 4 This is enough for me to conclude that Paul was refering to Tongues. Yes an argument can be made that he was making a simple "shadow of things to come" type statement.

Why do you think Paul refered to Isaiah 28 when refering to Tongues as a sign to the unbeliever?

MothandRust Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #21
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:41380
  • Posts:1877
  • From:Australia
  • Register:27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re:Tongues: The 'Rest' and Isaiah 28

Date Posted:15/03/2007 7:00 PMCopy HTML

I will respond to the many thoughts expressed so far.

Welcome back 'RevivalFellowship Knight'. Although not wanting to steal Ian's thunder I'm compelled to write before he publishes his report on the Revival's 'rest' stand. He who comes after me will use deeper scritptures I'm sure, but humour me a little... I'll only dabble. You said this is a response to our thoughts so far but that's only in part. Your following essay doesn't respond to the thoughts expressed so far, it just asks us to restate them all.. fine, so be it.  

 That moment I began to speak fluently in another language. I spent the next month going around to my friends (other drug dealers) telling them what had happened to me. In total 22 of them had the same experience as I did.

Yes, that's certainly a familiar testimony and I wouldn't argue anyone on their personal experiences because 1. They're your own and 2. they're heresay. I'm also aware many people claim to have been abducted and anally probed by aliens and I wouldn't question their experiences either. I must say I'm highly dubious though. They also share a common experience that inexplicably shows a similar story in very different personalities.

including my parents. I saw my father healed of debilitating illnesses, the deaf healed and the lame walk. I didn't originally want to be a Christian but I found the evidence overwhelming.

Again healing and recovery from illnesses is not something only Christianity can lay claim to. In fact, non-Christians have an equal chance of medical recovery and possibly more, seeing they don't see that visiting professionals as a fracture of faith (some not all).  Have you noticed that God doesn't heal amputees? If you think he has I would love to see some before and after pictures... but tthat may be a silly point to prattle on about. We're not here to debunk Christianity (well, maybe I will just for a quick jibe).

[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 #22
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:41380
  • Posts:1877
  • From:Australia
  • Register:27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re:Tongues: The 'Rest' and Isaiah 28

Date Posted:15/03/2007 7:07 PMCopy HTML

GWM - Why do you think Paul refered to Isaiah 28 when refering to Tongues as a sign to the unbeliever?

Okay... I did cover that but obviously you weren't reading me because I explained what Paul was referrring to when he reminded his church of Isaiah 28... perhaps if I reword it a little for you:

Isa.28:11 "For with another tongue will he speak to this people."  - by hearing those who spoke in a foreign strange language they would know God's judgement had come. Paul refered to this terrible time in history and reminded his church that the tongues are a sign of unbelief. Tongues are a sign of God's judgement to unbelievers.

You see, it's all about context. The ones in Isaiah who were speaking in another tongue were the enemy! EEK!!! He wasn't talking about.

See, the funny thing is that Paul was using the story to warn the followers of what would happen if they ignore the gospel message they were preaching. Because he slips in a reference to the enemy using another language, Revivalsists and co slip it into the bag of 'tongues' references.


Now a question back at you... so be fair okay? I answered your 'rest' concept and the readers of this site can make up their own minds now that we've discussed it. That is unless and until Ian and others have expressed their points of view on the subject, of course. So my question to you is:

Do you deny that tongues were always given unexpectedly (Acts 2,10,19) they were not expecting to see this sign gift. They did not seek it at Pentecost or any of the outpourings in the book of Acts.

[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 #23
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:Tongues: The 'Rest' and Isaiah 28

Date Posted:15/03/2007 7:23 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : MothandRust



GWM - Why do you think Paul refered to Isaiah 28 when refering to Tongues as a sign to the unbeliever?Okay... I did cover that butobviously you weren't reading me because I explained what Paul was referrring to when he reminded his church of Isaiah 28... perhaps ifI reword it a little for you:Isa.28:11 "For with another tongue will he speak to this people."-by hearing those who spoke in a foreign strange language they would know God's judgement had come. Paulreferedto this terrible time in history and reminded his church that the tongues are sign of unbelief. Tongues are a sign of God's judgement




Interesting take! Wrong, a little weird but whatever. I wonder what other readers think of your take?
Why the REST and REFRESHING ?
MothandRust Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #24
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:41380
  • Posts:1877
  • From:Australia
  • Register:27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re:Tongues: The 'Rest' and Isaiah 28

Date Posted:15/03/2007 7:27 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : Gods Word Matters

Interesting take! Wrong, a little weird but whatever. I wonder what other readers think of your take?Why the REST and REFRESHING ?

Of course you would think it wrong... and everyone's take on it is weird compared to another.

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.

However you did not answer my question. It's your turn to answer mine.

 So I'm waiting.

[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 #25
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:Tongues: The 'Rest' and Isaiah 28

Date Posted:15/03/2007 7:52 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : MothandRust



GWM - Why do you think Paul refered to Isaiah 28 when refering to Tongues as a sign to the unbeliever?Okay... I did cover that butobviously you weren't reading me because I explained what Paul was referrring to when he reminded his church of Isaiah 28... perhaps ifI reword it a little for you:Isa.28:11 "For with another tongue will he speak to this people."-by hearing those who spoke in a foreign strange language they would know God's judgement had come. Paulreferedto this terrible time in history and reminded his church that the tongues are a sign of unbelief. Tongues are a sign of God's judgemen




This is a good question I do agree at first glance they did not expect it.
break free Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #26
  • Rank:Rookier IV
  • Score:2400
  • Posts:114
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:18/02/2007 5:01 PM

Re:Tongues: The 'Rest' and Isaiah 28

Date Posted:15/03/2007 8:24 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : Gods Word Matters


ok im not going to touch the scriptures- im still trying to work my way out of the mire left after the revival centeres, and there are people far more capable of discussing/arging with you about them, however i do want to address your comments on the way people are treated in the revival cults......

 

I believe some, when they accuse their Pastor of being legalistic are really accusing the Bible of being legalistic. What I mean by that is; that from time to time there are people in the fellowship whose lifestyle is out of line with the Biblical standard. This behaviour could also be harmful to the sheep. These people should be carefully and prayerfully helped through these difficulties. Not Judged and Persecuted. If their behaviour continues to get worse this person or persons should be ask not to fellowshipping until they are able to walk in the spirit. 1Co 5:4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 1Co 5:5 To deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. This should be a last resort.
 I am aware of the RF's policy regarding defaulters. I am unaware of a conflict with the scriptural directive (I stand to be corrected).

 

i would like you to show me one person on this forum who is accusing the oversite of unfairness because they were behaving badly and dont want to admit they deserved it.

nowhere in the bible that i can see does it say to put out of fellowship anyone that questions the oversite, (since when is asking questions wrong??) but many people have been.

and for those who are put out for their behaviour it says that first you should go to them and confront them, if they do not listen get 2 witnesses an confront them again, if they still dont listen get the curch and if they still dont listen put them out for a time- it doesnt say that while out they should be shuned!!

and yet many people are put out on the word of others without ever getting the chance to defend themselves (i know i was one of them- i wasnt even pressent when the pasters told my father what i was acused of and my punnishment, and i was never given the oppertunity to deny the claims)

being put out of the church was ment to be a last resort to stop the bad behaviour of one indevidual from corupting others- not a way of control by the oversite to hold a congrgation with fear, but that is how it is used in the revival centers.

and i will say again- if it was just one or people going a bit overboard there wouldnt be so many people all over the world with the same stories. unless you belive we are all making it up.

these cults are responcible for damaging gods children, spritualy, emotionaly, and for some sexualy

no amount of self ritious talk about how they preach the truth will ever wipe their sins, only god can do that but first the need to repent and stop sinning

 


MothandRust Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #27
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:41380
  • Posts:1877
  • From:Australia
  • Register:27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re:Tongues: The 'Rest' and Isaiah 28

Date Posted:15/03/2007 9:16 PMCopy HTML

2)       The 16th Chapter of Mark: Mark 16:15-20 gives five signs of believers. These signs were evident with the early church as they have been in my life. The critic would say, "Have you picked up snakes with your hands"??? The answer is no insomuch as physical serpents. I have however seen from scripture that the term "Pick up" can be and indeed should be, given the context "make to doubt". Equally to drink any deadly thing should be "imbibe, take in and keep mentally".

Good ol' Mark 16. What can I say that hasn't been said far so often throughout this forum. No use re-inventing the wheel here. I'm not in agreeance with Ian's beliefs (I don't believe in demons for one thing) but I think he's done a bang up job at the following thread and I'm gonna shorted it down with indirect quotes for those with really short attention spans because I know for a fact that many skim over it just to cry foul at the length of text (GWM notwithstanding):

Mark 16: An Exegetical Essay

By Ian Thomason (paraphrased by Moth without permission of the author)

Revivalists use Mark 16 as a standard 'proof-text' for their Pentecostal experience, but there seems to be some selective reading. 
For years the RCI has followed pastor Lloyd's unique interpretation that Mark 16 should be read as a parable from verse 9 onwards. Drew Dixon's essay, titled "Is it a Parable?" effectively demolishes that line of argument.

(Ian) consulted many commentaries on 'Mark' that were written from the fourth century onwards in an effort to locate anyone at any point in history, who has offered a similar suggestion to that provided by Lloyd Longfield. He was unable to find one. Therefore it should be in question.

Mark 16:15-18

You know the scripture: "...preach the gospel to everyone. The one who believes and is baptised will be saved, but the one who doesn't believe will be condemned. These signs will accompany those who believe: drive out demons..., new languages..., pick up snakes... unharmed from poison,.... place hands on sick."

Jesus' parting words to his disciples were, "go into the world, and preach the gospel to everyone!" To Christ, the most important thing in the world wasn't that the disciples go into it, but that the gospel was preached: the sole command in the verse is "preach the gospel". I offer that a misunderstanding of the nature of the gospel invariably leads to a misunderstanding of the nature of salvation. History demonstrates that such confusion all too frequently results in a rapid spiral into works-based, human-centric; fear-breeding forms of religious legalism, as such remains the natural religion of fallen human beings.

Ian has a lot of neat stuff here to say about the greek but if I skim over it I'm sure many others will. So I recommend checking the original manuscript to go deeper.

We now arrive at the most disputed portion of this biblical passage: Christ's teaching on the "signs".

Given that Jesus used the Greek plural for "signs" (sēmeia) in our passage, the first question that we need to ask ourselves is simple: how is this word used in (1) the NT record generally, and (2) Mark's gospel particularly? (Moth - more Greek stuff... refer back... I just can't bring myself to soak it in... I just can't) Mark went on further to describe five specific "signs" (note they are plural) that would "accompany" (a future tense, active voice, indicative mood verb) those who "believe" (again an active voice, aorist participle). They are:

(1) that in Christ's name they will drive out demons;

(2) they will speak in new languages;

(3) they will pick up snakes with their hands, and

(4) whatever poison they drink won't harm them; and finally

(5) that they will place their hands on the sick and they will recover.

The RCI understands the majority of these "signs" (numbers 1, 3 and 4) to be somehow parabolic or metaphorical. The RF, on the other hand, apparently accepts the literal interpretation of the majority of Mark's "signs", but understands them to be latent promises to be called upon as required. However, that confuses what Mark signs", with Paul's "spiritual gifts"! The former, however, serves to demonstrate the reality of God to an unbelieving world; the latter serves to build-up an already believing Christian assembly. In reality though, the RF has also attempted to reinterpret away the simple teaching of Scripture because it doesn't gel with the their doctrine.

Because the Revivalist groups universally claim the gift of tongues (itself a biblically defensible position), and because they universally link this particular spiritual gift with the receiving of God's Holy Spirit in the mystery of salvation (itself not a biblically defensible position); they can't simply jettison Mark 16:15-18 due to the difficulties that a straightforward reading of the passage presents them with.

"Yes, all speak in tongues! Well...we do see some people being healed through prayer sometimes. But clearly it's their fault! They must lack faith! Well, no...we'll have none of that demon stuff and nonsense here, and don't even being with the poison-drinking, snake-handling rubbish!"

Unfortunately though, Mark doesn't allow so casual a picking-and-choosing of what one is prepared to accept as valid when it comes to the "signs" that Mark 16 presents. To him, one either accepts the lot, or one rejects the lot. (see original manuscript for the grammatical reasons).

The answer

The RF in particular has assumed two things about Jesus' words at the beginning of verse 17: "these signs shall accompany those who believe". First, that the future tense indicates a promise rather than a prediction. And second, that it's a promise to all believers.

However, given that the statement appears after a conditional sentence (16:16), and given the entire range of subsequent contextual grammatical conditions that Mark presents ("...he that...and is...shall be..."), it's clear that the statement itself should be taken as a prediction rather than as a promise. This is further supported by the fact that each of the six instances of third person plural verbs mentioned with respect to the "signs" of verses 17 and 18, are categorical (or ?generalising') plurals. Categorical plurals separate and distinguish one group, from every other group. This form of plural exists in Greek, as it more easily yields itself to a generic notion: the focus is more towards the action, than it is towards the actor (i.e. "this is the kind of person who does this"). In our text the "signs" serve to distinguish Christian believers as a group, from every other group of people on the planet.

Our current text doesn't teach that all believers will cast out demons through to healing the sick at all. The stress isn't on the notion of promises given to believers it's on the authentication of Christianity as being from God before an unbelieving world. The passage, therefore, 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 effects?the "signs"?aren't individual promises, they're corporate predictions.

Conclusion

Revivalists collectively appeal to Mark 16:15-20 to authenticate their shared spiritual experience of "tongues", and further, to validate their unique theology that one must speak in tongues in order to be a "true" believer. However, Mark 16:15-20 doesn't reflect or represent the Revivalist theology at all. Each of the Revivalist groups has gone to extraordinary lengths over the years to explain-away the "missing signs", when what has really been missing is a proper appreciation of the passage's true meaning, as it stands. The Revivalist groups, quite simply, have gotten Mark 16 wrong.

[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
break free Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #28
  • Rank:Rookier IV
  • Score:2400
  • Posts:114
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:18/02/2007 5:01 PM

Re:Tongues: The 'Rest' and Isaiah 28

Date Posted:15/03/2007 9:18 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : Gods Word Matters

Reply to : break freeReply to : Gods Word Mattersok im not going to touch the scriptures- im still trying to work my way out of the mire left after the revival centeres, and there are people far more capable of discussing/arging with you about them, however i do want to address your comments on the way people are treated in the revival cults......I believe some, when they accuse their Pastor of being legalistic are really accusing the Bible of being legalistic. What I mean by that is; that from time to time there are people in the fellowship whose lifestyle is out of line with the Biblical standard. This behaviour could also be harmful to the sheep. These people should be carefully and prayerfully helped through these difficulties.Not Judged and Perse
my point wasnt that i was unfairly treated (altho i did use y own experiences as an example) but that the revial churches continualy treat their congregation this way, im not the only person, im one of many, this is normal treatment in the revival churches.
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #29
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:Tongues: The 'Rest' and Isaiah 28

Date Posted:15/03/2007 9:36 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : MothandRust



2)The 16thChapter of Mark:Mark?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com16:15-20givesfivesigns of believers. These si




Finally we agree on something, the RCI and others have over exagerated this passage at times mis-applying it.etc

These five signs were very much evident in the 1st through 3rd century churches. After the reign of Diocletian came to an end in 313AD the Church was bombarded by influential people seeking position in the church. The signs left soon after. I see Mark 16 as supportive evidence. Not conclusive

One way of looking at. It is better to have tongues and not need it for salvation. Than need it and not have it. We are Human after all and prone to error. oh sorry with of course the exeption of Ian and yourself.

Just Kidding no malice intended.

Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #30
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:Tongues: The 'Rest' and Isaiah 28

Date Posted:15/03/2007 9:42 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : break free



Reply to : Gods Word MattersReply to : break freeReply to : Gods Word Mattersok im not going to touch the scriptures- im still trying to work my way out of the mire left after the revival centeres, and there are people far more capable of discussing/arging with you about them, however i do want to address your comments on the way people are treated in the revival cults......I believe some, when they accuse their Pastor of being legalistic are really accusing the Bible of being legalistic. What I mean by that is; that from time to time there are people in the fellowship whose lifestyle is out of line with the Biblical standard. This behaviour could also be harmful to the sheep. These people should be carefully and prayerfully helped through these difficulties.Not Judged and Perse




I understand. I have over the years moved around the country alot living in different places for a while. I have witnessed the Best of people and the not so Best. I wonder whether this "legallism" is only a select set of fellowships? It certainly has not been my experience and I am very aware and watchfull for  this kind of thing.
break free Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #31
  • Rank:Rookier IV
  • Score:2400
  • Posts:114
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:18/02/2007 5:01 PM

Re:Tongues: The 'Rest' and Isaiah 28

Date Posted:15/03/2007 9:58 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : Gods Word Matters

I understand. I have over the years moved around the country alot living in different places for a while. I have witnessed the Best of people and the not so Best. I wonder whether this "legallism" is only a select set of fellowships? It certainly has not been my experience and I am very aware and watchfull for  this kind of thing.

i have also moved around the country an been to many of the different assemblys and this "leagalism" is not only common amongst them all but apart of the internal workings of the revival "churches" yes it is in varing degrees but it is common to ALL of them.

the written and unwritten rules of the "church" are the same for every assembly.

and again i will point out that the fact that so many people from all over the world and across australia have the same stories of abuse from the church in its self shows how much it spread out throughout the "church"

just because your eyes have been closed to it or that you havent personaly exprienced it doesnt mean it isnt there or that if you do or say something to make you stand out as someone to squash down, that you wont experience exactly what the reast of us have.

Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #32
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:Tongues: The 'Rest' and Isaiah 28

Date Posted:15/03/2007 10:08 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : break free
[Q]
Reply to : Gods Word MattersI understand. I have over the years moved around the country alot living in different places for a while. I have witnessed the Best of people and the not so Best. I wonder whether this "legallism" is only a select set of fellowships? It certainly has not been my experience and I am veryaware and watchfull for this kind of thing.i have also moved around the country an been to many of the different assemblys and this "leagalism" is not only common amongst them all but apart of the internal workings of the revival "churches" yes it is in varing degrees but it is common to ALL of them.the written and unwritten rules of the "church" are the same for every assembly.and again i will point out that the fact t
[/Q]
Thanks for the warning. I will be aware. I will also keep my eyes open!

As for life we are very cookies and definately not relient anything or anyone but God.

ps I don't doubt you I have seen first hand some bad, very bad behaviour.

Num 12:1 And Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman.

Num 12:2 And they said, Hath the LORD indeed spoken only by Moses? hath he not spoken also by us? And the LORD heard it.

Num 12:3 (Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth.)

Num 12:4 And the LORD spoke suddenly unto Moses, and unto Aaron, and unto Miriam, Come out ye three unto the tabernacle of the congregation. And they three came out.

Num 12:5 And the LORD came down in the pillar of the cloud, and stood in the door of the tabernacle, and called Aaron and Miriam: and they both came forth.

Num 12:6 And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream.

Num 12:7 My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house.

Num 12:8 With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?

Num 12:9 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against them; and he departed.

Num 12:10 And the cloud departed from off the tabernacle; and, behold, Miriam became leprous, white as snow: and Aaron looked upon Miriam, and, behold, she was leprous.

I let the Lord sort out Oversight (to a point) It has worked for me thus far.

God Bless.

MothandRust Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #33
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:41380
  • Posts:1877
  • From:Australia
  • Register:27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re:Tongues: The 'Rest' and Isaiah 28

Date Posted:15/03/2007 10:20 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : Gods Word Matters

One way of looking at. It is better to have tongues and not need it for salvation. Than need it and not have it. We are Human after all and prone to error. oh sorry with of course the exeption of Ian and yourself. Just Kidding no malice intended.

No malice.. hmm.. many a true word is said in jest. Forgive my backyard psychoanalysis, but I've seen how some of us work in these forums and you're the orneriest I've seen in a while. Don't bullshit a bullshitter eh? You've already spent a lot of time subtely discrediting anyone who opposes your views before they can even make a rebuttle. You've got an agenda and you seem to be somewhat aggressive in your promoting of it. Let's get down to brass tacks shall we? You 'know' you've got the absolute and true gospel messages, just like puh-lenty of others have also convinced themselves of having. Me, I'm pretty happy to be completely outside of religion although some might actually argue that I fellowship here happily amongst christians and other time come across as a passionate prosetlyzer for agnosticism. I don't have a creed and I enjoy taking the devil's advocate role. I'm certainly not closed-minded, but I've spent long enough in churchdom to effectively smell a Revival rat.

From your perspective, you need and have to spread your version of the gospel as much as you can. Lives are at stake and you've got to stand before your god on judgement day making sure you are able to let him know that you've spent every opportunity available spreading his tongues gospel. It's quite a normal stereotypical Christian thing to seek to convert others to their particular brand of superstition. However, we then take this notion another step so that we end up with an image of Christians as being preoccupied with spreading their "good news,"  I suppose you do this because you actually believe what you say and you're character doesn't like to have its failings proven.

It is better to have tongues and not need it for salvation. Than need it and not have it.

I remember using that line often as a Revivalist. Cover all angles just in case. Why not call him Jehovah all the time, not give blood, and follow all the laws just in case? It's not better, it just doesn't make any frikken difference.

it's quite puzzling that a god would only offer such a round about, suspect path to salvation. Why not just make the path something easier, more universal. Have a drink of water? You're saved! Form a gramattically correct sentance? You're saved! God must not love us that much if he made it that hard to be saved. Hey, um folks, I'm gonna send my son to die on your behalf, don't worry though, he won't be dead for long. Ok, now the trick is when he does resurrect and leaves the earth, you can only accept his temporary sacrifice by dipping underwater and praying until your language is confused. I know that was a punishment at the tower of babal but this time it's ok....

Many Christians believe Jesus was just the messanger. "God loves you and wants you in heaven." No strings attached. Believe in Jesus or not, you go to heaven. Still no evidence for it, but at least it's not inherently contradictory or suspect. Let god stand at the pearly gates to heaven, and when we all die, he can ask us face-to-face, "do you wish salvation?"

[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
break free Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #34
  • Rank:Rookier IV
  • Score:2400
  • Posts:114
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:18/02/2007 5:01 PM

Re:Tongues: The 'Rest' and Isaiah 28

Date Posted:15/03/2007 10:22 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : Gods Word Matters

Reply to : break free

Reply to : Gods Word MattersI understand. I have over the years moved around the country alot living in different places for a while. I have witnessed the Best of people and the not so Best. I wonder whether this "legallism" is only a select set of fellowships? It certainly has not been my experience and I am veryaware and watchfull for this kind of thing.i have also moved around the country an been to many of the different assemblys and this "leagalism" is not only common amongst them all but apart of the internal workings of the revival "churches" yes it is in varing degrees but it is common to ALL of them.the written and unwritten rules of the "church" are the same for every assembly.and again i will point out that the fact t
Thanks for the warning. I will be aware. I will also keep my eyes open!As for life we
you want to compare the corrupt, abusive, ect oversite of a cult to moses???
old holborn Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #35
  • Rank:Regular Member
  • Score:4430
  • Posts:217
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:27/11/2005 8:22 PM

Re:Tongues: The 'Rest' and Isaiah 28

Date Posted:16/03/2007 5:49 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : break free

Reply to : Gods Word MattersReply to : break freeReply to : Gods Word MattersI understand. I have over the years moved around the country alot living in different places for a while. I have witnessed the Best of people and the not so Best. I wonder whether this "legallism" is only a select set of fellowships? It certainly has not been my experience and I am veryaware and watchfull for this kind of thing.i have also moved around the country an been to many of the different assemblys and this "leagalism" is not only common amongst them all but apart of the internal workings of the revival "churches" yes it is in varing degrees but it is common to ALL of them.the written and unwritten rules of the "church" are the same for every assembly.and again i will point out that the fac

Hi BF, I think in his peculiar way of answering by scripture  he is telling us that the bad shepherds will get their comeuppance. God is not mocked, and  thats true. I also think he is comparing us with murmerers against Gods annointed, ie pastors., he blathered on before about not lifting his hand aginst ect.. I think he would like us all to repent, and return to the RF fold , and be good little sheep, and somehow he is going to single handedly root out the corrupt oppressive leaders, or change them from being drovers into  gentle shepherds leading their flocks, protecting them from wolves , like Sott1, Mothy you, me , old uncle Tom Cobbley and all.

He still atempts to burden us with guilt, though,., laced with sympathy. I'm afraid I get a whiff of religious mania from him.  Sorry GWM, if I'm judging you harshly, but I see in your posts everything I consider myself and mine  lucky to be free of.

"But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord "
break free Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #36
  • Rank:Rookier IV
  • Score:2400
  • Posts:114
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:18/02/2007 5:01 PM

Re:Tongues: The 'Rest' and Isaiah 28

Date Posted:16/03/2007 1:21 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : old holborn

Reply to : break freeReply to : Gods Word MattersReply to : break freeReply to : Gods Word MattersI understand. I have over the years moved around the country alot living in different places for a while. I have witnessed the Best of people and the not so Best. I wonder whether this "legallism" is only a select set of fellowships? It certainly has not been my experience and I am veryaware and watchfull for this kind of thing.i have also moved around the country an been to many of the different assemblys and this "leagalism" is not only common amongst them all but apart of the internal workings of the revival "churches" yes it is in varing degrees but it is common to ALL of them.the written and unwritten rules of the "church" are the same for every assembly.and again i will point out that the fac

lmao

well in that case he is doomed to fail i will never ever go back, i will admit i still need to find my path, that i have alot of issues to work through. but i dont feel guilty about that or about finding the courage to stand up an say this happend to me, no amount of convoluted posts by GWM or any other revival fanatic will change that- the truth will set you free, and i like being free

prezy Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #37
  • Rank:Poster Venti II
  • Score:7160
  • Posts:343
  • From:Scotland
  • Register:06/02/2007 11:02 AM

Re:Tongues: The 'Rest' and Isaiah 28

Date Posted:16/03/2007 1:54 PMCopy HTML

REPLY TO:  BREAK FREE

Its good you don't feel guilty as your not guilty. I think when we gave over to our different revival cults it was with a good heart to God. We were misled but our intentions were good. God would not want or expect you to stay where his Word is twisted and misused, so nothing there to feel guilty for regarding leaving. Hope you find your way as we have and sort your issues. Do be careful as there are plenty who will misleed under all sorts of names, but there are some good honest people out there who can be trusted. Test everything! best wishes , Rob

¡uıɐƃɐ ʎɐqǝ ɯoɹɟ pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ɐ ƃuıʎnq ɹǝʌǝu
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #38
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:Tongues: The 'Rest' and Isaiah 28

Date Posted:17/03/2007 4:15 PMCopy HTML

Reply to: God's Word Matters

Righto,

'GWM', you recently laid a challenge at my feet. Your claim was that speaking in 'tongues' equalled entering into the 'rest' of which Isaiah 28 briefly alludes, because Paul cited a portion of that chapter in 1 Corinthians 14 during his discussion on 'tongues'. In effect, your position appears to be that if a person hasn't 'tongues', then such a one hasn't entered into the biblical 'rest', or to put this another way, such a person can make absolutely no claim whatsoever to being 'saved'. FWIW, I suspect that you believe your current position to be a workaround that somehow defeats the Scriptural positions that I've previously posted on this subject. Well, I for one certainly don't believe this to be the case, and am confident that I can demonstrate as much, below.

To those others who read this I apologise unreservedly that the following post is, at times, a little technical; consequently some might find it tedious. Again, sorry. But it's my intention to demonstrate conclusively that 'GWM' has completely missed the point with respect to his claims as summarised above. But first, a confession: I know absolutely nothing about this chap other than what he's shared, and what he's claimed. He's shared that he's a supporter of the RF. Fair enough, so far as that goes. But he's also claimed to be 'strong' in the Scriptures, and to have some measure of competence in koine Greek. Well, I intend to test both of these admissions. And given that 'GWM' has challenged me to a debate, I expect that he'll address each and every point that I raise below, when he attempts his rebuttal. If he doesn't, I can only conclude that he accepts what I've said is correct.

Okay, given that we'll be touching upon Isaiah 28, I note the remarkable irony of my current situation when I read in the prophet's words (vv. 9 & 10): "Whom will he teach knowledge, and to whom will he explain the message? Those who are weaned from milk, those taken from the breast? For it is precept upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a little, there a little." As I hope will become clear, given the current circumstance, that the prophet's words are very ironic indeed!

I strongly recommend that you have a Bible handy as you read along with what I've written, so as to follow the flow of the argument that I am attempting to make.

So let's hook in!

In 1 Corinthians 14:20 and 21 Paul 'quotes' from Isaiah 28:11and 12; when he says, "Brothers and sisters, do not become children in your thinking; rather, be infants in evil, but in thinking be adults. In the law it is written, "By people of strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners I will speak to this people; yet even then they will not listen to me," says the Lord.". Paul's quoting of this passage finds it's immediate context in the situation that he faced concerning certain of the Corinthian believers: those who held to too high an opinion of the relative value and merit of the gift of 'tongues', above and over all other manifestations of the Spirit. Given that I've already addressed this subject elsewhere on this forum recently, I've no intention of unnecessarily covering 'old ground'. Anyone who is interested can chase down and read my previous posts. What's of importance to us, now, is (a) the working out of Paul's intent in his using the Isaiah passage, and (b) the context of Paul's quote with respect to Isaiah's own situation. Given the emphasis that 'GWM' has placed on Paul's situation, it's best we begin there.

To begin with, we need to remember that Paul had previously said that he couldn't address the Corinthians as "spiritual", given that they'd demonstrated themselves to be "babes in Christ" (see 3:1). Later, he used the image of childishness as a contrast to reaching maturity, to illustrate the superiority of love over spiritual gifts (see 13:11). Now, in 14:20, he takes up the same theme again. Paul fervently exhorts the Corinthians not to become children in their understanding, (he wants them so only with respect to wickedness), but rather to become mature. His contrast--quite simply--is between spiritual immaturity versus spiritual maturity. Interestingly, the Corinthians fascination with 'tongues' placed them into the former category!

Next, although Paul avoided accusing the Corinthians of being 'childish' by saying, "...do not become (ginesthe) children...", he certainly did imply that they weren't all that 'adult' in their thinking. This 'wrist-slap' was tied to his negative appraisal of their use of 'tongues' during their worship, where he just said that 'tongues' bypasses the mind. The implication seems clear enough: the Corinthian fondness for 'tongues', at the expense of the other gifts which use the mind, would result in their church degenerating into an immature and unthinking mess! Paul wanted the Corinthians to use their God-given intelligence to develop a more enlightened level of spiritual maturity, and so be weaned from their overemphasis on 'tongues'.

Here's where things get really interesting! Paul cited Isaiah 28:11 and 12 as his crowning argument against uninterpreted 'tongues' in worship. In Isaiah's context, the prophet pronounced a judgement against Israel. And given that Israel had refused to take any heed what God had spoken in understandable language through Isaiah, God would approach them again by means of the foreign languages spoken by the conquering Assyrians! Also notice that when Isaiah had clashed with certain priests and prophets, they'd ridiculed his prophetic declarations by stating that they were simplistic nonsense lessons for small children (see 28:9-10 and 13). In Hebrew, these priests and prophets taunted Isaiah by mimicing baby talk: the words they used are almost a direct approximation of 'tongues', "tsaw latsaw, tsaw latsaw, qaw laqaw, qaw laqaw, ze'er sham, ze'er sham". Isaiah dismissed his critics by likening them to reeling drunks, men who were overconfident in their own judgements (see 28:7). More importantly, however, God's judgement against them for rejecting Isaiah's simple and straightforward message was that the word of the Lord would come to them through the childish-like 'babble' of the Assyrian language! And since Israel wouldn't be able to understand this message, it assures their unbelief and becomes a sign of God's judgement. It's all rather simple really!

When I wrote this post originally (on Saturday), I went into quite a bit of detail on the rather significant textual differences between Paul's quote of Isaiah 28:11 and 12, and how the passage appears in (a) the received Hebrew (or 'Masoretic') text, and how it appears in (b) the Old Greek translation that was used by the first Christians (known as the 'Septuagint'). Fascinating stuff for people like me, but then I thought that most of you who read this probably wouldn't get so worked up by it all, so I 'chopped' it out! Here's a bit of a summary though:

1. Paul's text inverts the order of "other tongues" and "stammering lips".
2. Paul's text substitutes "other lips" for "stammering lips", the result being that it's synonymous with "other tongues", and so correlates more closely to the Corinthian situation.
3. Paul's text uses the 1st person, "I will speak", rather than the "for they [the Assyrian invaders] will speak to this people" of the Septuagint.
4. Paul's text omits completely "to whom he said, 'This is rest, give rest to the weary, and this is repose'", which doesn't apply to the Corinthian situation. The result is that the quotation is no longer a reference to past stubbornness, but to a future refusal to hear speech in 'foreign tongues'.
5. Developing on from this, Paul's text has oud houtos ('not even then') instead of ouk ('not'). This substitution 'bridges the gap' created by the previous ommission of the "this is rest..." text, and demonstrates that Paul excised it intentionally! 'GWM' take note: Paul didn't want anyone to infer as you have!
6. Paul's text uses the compound verb eisakouein, which implies both hearing and heeding, instead of akouein, which only implies hearing.
7. Paul's text has the future tense, "they will not hear and respond", instead of the infinitive, and so omits the idea that they will not want to hear. The future tense lays out the consequences if they persist in not responding. Consequently, the 'judgement' theme is altered (in Paul's version they're not blamed for their refusal to believe when they hear 'tongues'; they simply can't understand, come what may). This change makes perfect sense in the context, since Paul is urging the Corinthians to address outsiders in understandable speech. Moth take note: this makes a 'shipwreck' of your belief of the poly-lingual teaching context of 'tongues' as well. Sorry 'bout that!
8. Paul's text adds oud houtos, which means 'not even then' will they hear in respond. In Paul's context, this means that "other tongues" will be useless in causing them to hear and respond to the Lord.
9. Finally, Paul adds the phrase, "says the Lord" to add some 'punch' to the quotation!

Interestingly enough, in spite of the outward differences between what Isaiah wrote and intended, and Paul's use of Isaiah; the two contexts actually match quite well! Those who see themselves as 'wise' and 'gifted' in their own eyes dismiss the plain message as being 'childish', when in reality it's the supposedly 'wise' who think and act like children. The disdain of the Corinthian 'tongues-speakers' for plain speech strikes home: if they want something other than intelligible speech, they can have it. However, it'll actually serve as something of an 'uncomfortable' judgement, given that it'll place many of God's own people, those they ought to care for, in the position of being aliens and foreigners. In effect, Paul was both quoting and applying the passage, and this accounts for the simularities and differences. Paul applies the passage to the effect that 'tongues' has on unbelievers as well as on fellow Christians in the Corinthian context! To Paul, 'tongues' speaking in public worship can be inappropriate, because it places many of God's own people in the situation of feeling like foreigners in a foreign land; and second, contrary to some mistaken assumptions about 'spirituality' in Hellenism, 'tongues' won't bring the message of the gospel home to unbelievers!

'GWM', I believe you've completely misunderstood what Paul was saying to the Corinthian 'glossolalics' through his quoting of Isaiah. As for your challengto me as to when I entered into the biblical 'rest', well, the answer to that question is dead easy, and doesn't require anywhere near the detailed explanation that I provided above. It's simple: "Come to me, all who labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls." Jesus Christ, as quoted by Matthew (11:28 and 29). I entered my 'rest' when I fell upon Christ's mercy

'GWM', please read what I've written and check the contexts against the relevant biblical passages. Once you've done so, please reflect on the outcomes, and then repent of your error.

God bless,

Ian

Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #39
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:Tongues: The 'Rest' and Isaiah 28

Date Posted:18/03/2007 6:01 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : Gods Word Matters

'GWM', good morning.

I realised immediately that there were a myriad of ideas out there and all cannot be correct. I set about going around to all the groups I could find measuring what they said against the scriptures. I realised also that the simple King James Version was not enough of a resource to be solely reliable. (Though it is my favoured version)

So, in effect, are you suggesting to me that the sole measure that you assessed the various churches competing 'truth-claims' against, was your own opinion of what the KJV taught? That would be a little arrogant, and quite the uninformed thing to do, given your situation at the time, wouldn't you think?

After three years of almost constant study trying to prove: (You ARE NOT required to speak in Tongues to be saved) I came to the opposite conclusion i.e. that ALL Christians do in fact speak in Tongues. I am glad I did this, because no one could say that I was intellectually biased. I enrolled in The University of New England to pursue an Arts Degree. I majored in Ancient and Classical History. This is where I studied the Classic Koine Greek. I also studied the History of the Christian Church (all denominations, sects and cults.) as well as all my other subjects

Sure. But some questions, if I may: did you finish your Arts (which is not a theology) degree? Next, precisely how much Greek does a person 'pick up' in a history major at UNE? (I ask this because I majored in Biblical Greek Language and Literature during my own undergraduate theology degree). Third, koine Greek isn't "Classical" Greek. You should know this. Fourth, during your 3 years of constant study (and which led you to your current position on 'tongues'), which published Greek NT formed the basis of your labours in the NT text?

To summarise my thinking please read the following.

1) The Rest: God spoke of the Rest as something that we absolutely MUST enter. The only scriptural position I could find in response to the ABSOLUTE STATEMENT from GOD was found in Isaiah 28:9-12. This verse placed me in a position where Tongues was the only initial outward evidence to the individual where they could know with scriptural certainty that they had entered this place of Rest. I feel cornered by this statement. If I profess to be in agreement with Hebrews Chapter 4, which emphasises the requirement of entry into the/a Rest. But cannot say amen to "stammering lips and another tongue" where does that leave me. The 1st verse of Hebrews 4 states clearly that there was a "promise" of entry into a Rest. The only place this is found is in Isaiah 28:9-12


What I think is that you've been 'cornered' by your inability to read the passage in Isaiah, and Paul's partial quoting of the same, in their appropriate contexts (whether in the 'original' or in English translation). Now if you really understood Greek, you would know that Paul's adaption of Isaiah removes any possibility for his readers misconstruing his intention as you have done. I've summarised why in my recent response to you, which appears above in this thread.

2) The 16th Chapter of Mark: Mark 16:15-20 gives five signs of believers. These signs were evident with the early church as they have been in my life. The critic would say, "Have you picked up snakes with your hands"??? The answer is no insomuch as physical serpents. I have however seen from scripture that the term "Pick up" can be and indeed should be, given the context "make to doubt". Equally to drink any deadly thing should be "imbibe, take in and keep mentally". As you read through the book of Acts this interpretation of both "take up" and drink are supported. So in this regard I can identify with all five signs listed. Mark 16:15-20 as is the case with any ONE scripture reference cannot however be regarded as your sole rationale for subscribing to the necessary tongues theology.

Again, if you really understood Greek, you'd know that what you've suggested above (in your 're-defining' of selected Greek words), is complete and utter rubbish

3) The Day of Pentecost: The day of Pentecost as fulfilment of Joel's prophecy is often confused with communication between the Apostles and the people who made up the 17 different dialects. The scripture clearly says the EVERY MAN (un believer) heard EVERY MAN (Believer) in EVERY language in which he was born. Call me crazy but that to me says the EVERY ONE of the unbelievers heard all languages being spoken by each and every believer. (I stand to corrected) The closing section of scripture in Acts 2:37-44 is a verse that I agree with the RF captures the sum of the gospel message of Jesus Death, Burial and resurrection referred to by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:1-7

Brother, this just gets worse! These comments demonstrate conclusively to me, that you haven't the first idea about Greek at all. A student with as little as six months of study in the language would find no difficulty in disposing of your position, immediately above. I'd appreciate you explaining for me, how you reached your conclusion with reference to the Greek text. Thanks.

4) Jesus and Nicodemus: In John 3:8 we read that EVERYONE who is born of the Spirit will hear a (Vocal) sound, language. If I position myself; as I once did to say Tongues was just one off the gifts of the spirit then this becomes a hurdle. I would especially like to hear SOTT's examination of this verse.

I've previously addressed this very passage on the Brisbane RF Forum. From memory, someone cut-and-pasted it to somewhere on this forum as well, so you might look it up if you wish. In short, though, your belief that a VOCAL sound was evidenced demonstrates conclusively to me (yet again), that you're incapable of simple and straightforward Greek exegesis. The verb 'hear' appears in a construct using the accusative case in John 3:8, which, according to the rules of Greek grammar, indicates that the 'sound' was to be perceived spiritually and not physically (which would have been the situation had the construct been in the genitive case). How did/could you miss this?!

5) Simon the Sorcerer: This story perhaps best sums up my position. When the Apostles arrived on the scene they knew that the new Christians were not in fact filled with the Holy Spirit Act 8:15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: Act 8:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) BECAUSE they had some sort of logical evidence that it had happened. I have prayed with many people who are seeking to be filled with the Holy Spirit. What other reasonable response could I give them to the question, if they ask me: "have I received the Holy Spirit?"

You might like to read my exegetical essay on Acts 8 at 'PleaseConsider' (www.pleaseconsider.info)

Some would say "you will know them by their fruits" When I try to apply this rationale I find it floored when applied to Apollos and Cornelius to name just two.

I don't. FWIW, it was no less a figure than Jesus who gave us this measure of judgment; further Paul backed him up!

6) The Conversion of Cornelius: When I pray with people the ONLY template I have you use as a guide that lets me know for certain that the person I am praying with had, with scriptural certainty is Act 10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter...Act 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

Yes. Again, you might like to read an exegetical essay that I've written on Acts 10, which you can find at 'PleaseConsider'. Interestingly enough though, Peter and his friends went to 'preach' Christ to Cornelius and his household. If the 'salvation message' necessarily includes 'tongues' as the evidence, then why were Peter and his friends amazed when such happened? Surely you'd think they were expecting as much?

These are but a fraction of my argument, 6 points will suffice for now.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that your arguments lack any substance whatsoever, and so I find them completely without merit (not to mention 'unconvincing'). Given the training that you've claimed for yourself, I also find myself dismayed at the apparently low standards promoted by such an institution as UNE

I am aware that I am looking at this from an entirely FUNDAMENTALIST POV

More a fundamentalist Revivalist POV.

But this is my quandary: I cannot subscribe to the logic that God would not have a measure of control over the finished product with respect to the Biblical text. It should be fairly clear to the average sincere reader, what the steps required for a right relationship with him would be.

And I agree with you (for the very first time). It's VERY clear to the average and sincere reader what the steps to relationship with God in Christ are. Which is why no-one prior to the 1930's ever trotted on the rubbish that Revivalists subscribe to with respect to 'salvation'. Given your claim to extensive study of Church history, I'm surprised this fact apparently slipped your attention.

The RF/RCI version of the Gospel, ala Acts 2:38 represented the best that I have seen. The several other similar AOG type versions though similar in my experience failed to address these first 6 points, let alone the many more I would like a clear discussion about. I have found countless people in various assemblies of a variety of churches that simply sidestep the scripture. (Maybe this explains my lack of tolerance)

Well, I've no intention of commenting on what the AOG does, or doesn't understand with respect to this issue. I will state this, however: what a pity you didn't seek out an Anglican minister to explain the matter to you. Chances are you would've received a far more biblical explanation. If you'd like to see my position on where Acts 2:38 fits in the entire canon, you can read two articles that I've writen and published at 'PleaseConsider'.

I summary, not a single one of the issues that you've struggled with and commented on above, is as intractible as you currently believe. In fact, they're all very easily explained when Scripture is approached as something other than as a 'mine' for proof-texts.

God bless,

Ian
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #40
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:Tongues: The 'Rest' and Isaiah 28

Date Posted:18/03/2007 6:26 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : Gods Word Matters

'GWM', again.

One way of looking at. It is better to have tongues and not need it for salvation. Than need it and not have it.

Unless, of course, one has twisted the matter to suggest that 'tongues' forms part of the 'gospel message'. In this case, one is preaching nothing less than heresy, and so places onesself under the condemnation and judgement of God (see Galatians 1:6-9). Of course, there's also the fact that following the above 'just-in-case' scenario demonstrates an alarming degree of ignorance with respect to the biblical teaching on the role, purpose, place and distribution of 'spiritual gifts'

We are Human after all and prone to error. oh sorry with of course the exeption of Ian and yourself

Rest assurred, I'm just as prone to error as anyone else. Which is why I'm so careful when it comes to my handling of the Word of God. Ignorance is one thing, but intentional stupidity is altogether another. Consequently, I've attempted to reduce the impact of the former through consistent study and careful methodology, whilst attempting to avoid the latter completely! But that's just me

Blessings,

Ian
luke7_35 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #41
  • Rank:Noob
  • Score:260
  • Posts:10
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:04/03/2007 12:51 PM

Re:Tongues: The 'Rest' and Isaiah 28

Date Posted:20/03/2007 5:01 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : SOTT1

Reply to: God's Word MattersRighto,'GWM', you recently laid a challenge at my feet. Your claim was thatspeaking in 'tongues'equalled entering into the 'rest' of which Isaiah 28 briefly alludes, because Paul cited a portion of that chapter in 1 Corinthians 14 during his discussion on 'tongues'. In effect, your position appears to be that if a personhasn't'tongues', then such a onehasn'tentered into the biblical 'rest', or to put this another way, such a person can makeabsolutely no claim whatsoeverto being 'saved'. FWIW, I suspect that you believe your current position to be aworkaroundthat somehow defeats the Scriptural positions that I've previously posted on this subject. Well, I for one certainlydon'tbelieve this to be the case, and am confident that I can demonstrate as much, below.To those others who

Hi SOTT1: I have put my rebuttal in Blue below. ( Note: It is in 6 Parts as it would not load in 1 )


Introduction:
After reading your work I felt very blessed that we came to meet on this site. The standout point for me is the apparent focus on avoiding any implication in the text to tongues. Your aim seems to be that Paul refers to the Isaiah 28 for the single purpose of chastising the Corinthian congregation on their spiritual immaturity. This is true, the scripture is however much more complex than a simple academic analysis can provide by way of explanation.

 

My post "The Rest of God" was a compilation of scripture from Old and New Testaments and was designed to emphasise the Bible truth that as God rested from his works on the seventh day. God in his wisdom instituted a "Sabbath" in the Old Testament. This Sabbath was a shadow of the eventual "Rest" that would be instituted upon the promised outpouring of the Holy Spirit. This we know and agree.

 

Where I believe you make the fatal error is in the study of the text you are prone to extrapolate only from the surface. We are told in Proverbs 25:2 that it is the glory of God to conceal a thing and the honour of Kings is to search out the matter. As I said before, I began studying the Greek supposing that matriculas study would bring spiritual wisdom. I was wrong; I realised that this was the methodology employed by the Pharisees; similarly you show the same traits that were apparent in the Pharisees.

 

An illustration may help: Your approach is as a person who looks at a forest in order to get a sense of its majesty and focuses in closer and closer until all he sees is the bark of ffice:smarttags" />ONE tree. When you do this you are left in total darkness and literally miss the forest for the tree. This is exactly what the Jewish leaders did with respect to Jesus. This is exactly the revelation that convinced me that Godly wisdom come from God and not education.

 

That said, lets take another look at "The Rest"

SOTT1: In 1 Corinthians
14:20 and 21 Paul 'quotes' from Isaiah 28:11and 12; when he says, "Brothers and sisters, do not become children in your thinking; rather, be infants in evil, but in thinking be adults. In the law it is written, "By people of strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners I will speak to this people; yet even then they will not listen to me," says the Lord. ". Paul's quoting of this passage finds it's immediate context in the situation that he faced concerning certain of the Corinthian believers: those who held to too high an opinion of the relative value and merit of the gift of 'tongues', above and over all other manifestations of the Spirit. Given that I've already addressed this subject elsewhere on this forum recently, I've no intention of unnecessarily covering 'old ground'. Anyone who is interested can chase down and read my previous posts. What's of importance to us, now, is (a) the working out of Paul's intent in his using the Isaiah passage, and (b) the context of Paul's quote with respect to Isaiah's own situation. Given the emphasis that 'GWM' has placed on Paul's situation, it's best we begin there.

To begin with, we need to remember that Paul had previously said that he couldn't address the Corinthians as "spiritual", given that they'd demonstrated themselves to be "babes in Christ" (see 3:1). Later, he used the image of childishness as a contrast to reaching maturity, to illustrate the superiority of love over spiritual gifts (see
13:11). Now, in 14:20, he takes up the same theme again. Paul fervently exhorts the Corinthians not to become children in their understanding, (he wants them so only with respect to wickedness), but rather to become mature. His contrast--quite simply--is between spiritual immaturity versus spiritual maturity. Interestingly, the Corinthians fascination with 'tongues' placed them into the former category!

GWM: I totally agree with your analysis of this section of the text. The over-emphasis of tongues in the RCI, especially in the earlier years places them fairly and squarely in this category. I have been compelling all to distance themselves from this approach as it leads to similar problems evident in the ffice:smarttags" />Corinthians Church. In fact I have preached on this topic and the pitfalls of promoting tongues above measure. I would like to use some of this essay in preaching the importance of not making the same mistakes as the Church at Corinth and the RCI in the early years. With respect to the Revival Fellowship some I am aware still hold to this "immature" understanding of the application of tongues. Your essay will be helpful to me in my endeavours to remedy this. (Thankyou)

SOTT1: Next, although Paul avoided accusing the Corinthians of being 'childish' by saying, "...do not become (ginesthe) children...", he
certainly did imply that they weren't all that 'adult' in their thinking. This 'wrist-slap' was tied to his negative appraisal of their use of 'tongues' during their worship, where he just said that 'tongues' bypasses the mind. The implication seems clear enough: the Corinthian fondness for 'tongues', at the expense of the other gifts which use the mind, would result in their church degenerating into an immature and unthinking mess! Paul wanted the Corinthians to use their God-given intelligence to develop a more enlightened level of spiritual maturity, and so be weaned from their overemphasis on 'tongues'.

 

GWM: I covered this ground about 15 years ago at the National Camp of Seventh Day Adventists. Where I debated with their theologians for two weeks. Similarly they had the tendency to make some clear statements of fact, followed by the dangerous implications. (See red font above.) They had several experienced scholars in both Geek and Hebrew. The major difference of course is that they would say that ALL modern day manifestations of the "gift of tongues" are from the Devil. The point I am making though is that we need to be very careful about making assumptions like "would result in their church degenerating into an immature and unthinking mess! Yes it is clear that they were out of order. The term unthinking mess is a loaded statement.

SOTT1: Here's where things get really interesting! Paul cited Isaiah 28:11 and 12 as his crowning argument against uninterpreted 'tongues' in worship. In Isaiah's context, the prophet pronounced a judgement against
Israel. And given that Israel had refused to take any heed what God had spoken in understandable language through Isaiah, God would approach them again by means of the foreign languages spoken by the conquering Assyrians! Also notice that when Isaiah had clashed with certain priests and prophets, they'd ridiculed his prophetic declarations by stating that they were simplistic nonsense lessons for small children (see 28:9-10 and 13). In Hebrew, these priests and prophets taunted Isaiah by mimicking baby talk: the words they used are almost a direct approximation of 'tongues', "tsaw latsaw, tsaw latsaw, qaw laqaw, qaw laqaw, ze'er sham, ze'er sham ". Isaiah dismissed his critics by likening them to reeling drunks, men who were overconfident in their own judgements (see 28:7). More importantly, however, God's judgement against them for rejecting Isaiah's simple and straightforward message was that the word of the Lord would come to them through the childish-like 'babble' of the Assyrian language! And since Israel wouldn't be able to understand this message, it assures their unbelief and becomes a sign of God's judgement. It's all rather simple really!

 

GWM: The assumptions made in this section are fine in an allegorical sense, but certainly not at the expense of the straight out statements that were made by Isaiah and the other prophets on the rest. Equally for me to assert that {Tongues = entry into the rest} as a matter of doctrine and to use this verse to support it needs to be firmly grounded in the reading of the Rest and the Sabbath of the Old Testament. What I mean by that is "This is the Rest" is not a sideline statement in terms of the promises made throughout the Old Testament. This statement relates to not only rest from ones enemies but also a greater cessation of works illustrated throughout the whole Bible. To attempt to address this portion of scripture without expounding on the "rest" is negligent at best. (You're looking at the bark and missing the forest)

 

Making assumptions are dangerous without supporting evidence.

For example: Firstly, the implication: - "are almost a direct approximation of 'tongues', "tsaw latsaw, tsaw latsaw, qaw laqaw, qaw laqaw, ze'er sham, ze'er sham "

This may sound like unintelligible babble to the English speaking people, but it is quite a leap to conclude from this passage that to fellow Hebrews, this was a "direct approximation of 'tongues'. At best you may say it was a mouth full. Perhaps this is why you decided to place the precursor "Almost"

 

 

SOTT1: When I wrote this post originally (on Saturday), I went into quite a bit of detail on the rather significant textual differences between Paul's quote of Isaiah 28:11 and 12, and how the passage appears in (a) the received Hebrew (or 'Masseteric') text, and how it appears in (b) the Old Greek translation that was used by the first Christians (known as the 'Septuagint'). Fascinating stuff for people like me, but then I thought that most of you who read this probably wouldn't get so worked up by it all, so I 'chopped' it out! Here's a bit of a summary though:

1. Paul's text inverts the order of "other tongues" and "stammering lips".
2. Paul's text substitutes "other lips" for "stammering lips", the result being that it's synonymous with "other tongues", and so correlates more closely to the Corinthian situation.
3. Paul's text uses the 1st person, "I will speak", rather than the "for they [the Assyrian invaders] will speak to this people" of the Septuagint.
4. Paul's text omits completely "to whom he said, 'This is rest, give rest to the weary, and this is repose'",
which doesn't apply to the Corinthian situation. The result is that the quotation is no longer a reference to past stubbornness, but to a future refusal to hear speech in 'foreign tongues'.

End of Part One

Gal 4:16 Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?
luke7_35 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #42
  • Rank:Noob
  • Score:260
  • Posts:10
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:04/03/2007 12:51 PM

Re:Tongues: The 'Rest' and Isaiah 28

Date Posted:20/03/2007 5:17 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : luke7_35

Reply to : SOTT1Reply to: God's Word MattersRighto,'GWM', you recently laid a challenge at my feet. Your claim was thatspeaking in 'tongues'equalled entering into the 'rest' of which Isaiah 28 briefly alludes, because Paul cited a portion of that chapter in 1 Corinthians 14 during his discussion on 'tongues'. In effect, your position appears to be that if a personhasn't'tongues', then such a onehasn'tentered into the biblical 'rest', or to put this another way, such a person can makeabsolutely no claim whatsoeverto being 'saved'. FWIW, I suspect that you believe your current position to be aworkaroundthat somehow defeats the Scriptural positions that I've previously posted on this subject. Well, I for one certainlydon'tbelieve this to be the case, and am confident that I can demonstrate as much, below.To those others who

Part Two

GWM: Correct; tongues or the miss-use of the "gift of tongues" is the subject at issue here. Certainly at issue here is not their (The Corinthians Church) place in God's rest. I fully agree with your statement: - "which doesn't apply to the Corinthian situation".

As I said earlier I have preached on this subject before. The chastisement here is most certainly the miss appropriation of tongues. Paul had no need to address the rest and refreshing because this is not relevant. The relevant issue was; I agree was spiritual immaturity, judgement and tongues as a sign to unbelievers not to believers.

Where I believe you have greatly erred, is similar to scholars from organisations like the Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons. All of whom have very differing views of this passage. These organisations have placed a great emphasis on academic leaning in theology in the development of their various differing doctrines.

 

I spent a year going down the same path studying both classical and Koine Greek. After a year I realised that spiritual truth was not a function of natural learning. (education is fine) but real understanding of the plan of God comes not through our academic efforts. It comes as the scripture indicates by inspiration of the Spirit. 2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

What I found is that all of these various Cults (Not Holy Spirit based) had twisted and perverted the text in order to cut away and so reduce the effectiveness or potency of the Gospel.

 

Take note of:  Phil 3:1 Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things to you, to me indeed is not grievous, but for you it is safe. Phil 3:2 Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision. Yes Ian, I am aware that this speaks of false circumcision. I equally think that it speaks to the Cutting down of the Gospel. (Kat-at-om-ay) a cutting down

Phil 3:3 For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.

 

They (the academics) chose head knowledge rather than being led of the spirit. God summed it up perfectly when he said: 1Co 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

1Co 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man, which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 1Co 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit, which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 1Co 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. Jesus knew what he was doing when he chose fishermen.

 

The critic says, "How do you know your interpretation is correct?"

Well; if it is right, God will receipt it.

 

Mark 16:20 And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen. Deut 29:3 The great temptations which thine eyes have seen, the signs, and those great miracles: Deut 29:4 Yet the LORD hath not given you a heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.

 

Paul in Corinthians states; that the Bible is a spiritual book and that it is spiritually discerned. 1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

 

They; (Natural men who study the word as a text without the Spirit) like you have a myopic view of each passage. What I mean by this is that to apply one and only one plausible interpretations of the text. This greatly limits God who in his wisdom has chosen the foolish things of this world to confound the wise.

As usual God refuses to be put in a box. 1Co 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. 1Co 2:16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Paul also wrote to the Ephesians

Eph 3:10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold (polupoikilos) wisdom of God, God's wisdom has many, many layers more than you or I could possibly fathom.

 

Yes Ian your explanation is textually correct, the natural man can always see the natural things but God's word is multi-layered. This verse can be understood better in conjunction with all the other relevant text that I have already posted, "here a little and there a little". Isaiah 28:10

End of Part Two

Gal 4:16 Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?
luke7_35 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #43
  • Rank:Noob
  • Score:260
  • Posts:10
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:04/03/2007 12:51 PM

Re:Tongues: The 'Rest' and Isaiah 28

Date Posted:20/03/2007 5:21 PMCopy HTML

Part Three

For those that are unclear about where I am going in my thinking here is a summary: - Jesus as well as well as Paul warned us that there would come a time when we (the Church) would not endure sound doctrine. Many academics, like the academics of Jesus' time viewed soundness as a function of the letter and not the spirit. What I see with the nature of many (not all) the arguments expressed here is the breaking down of the Greek or Hebrew. The emphasizing of ONE part at the expense of another. The end result being that the potency of the message is lost.

For example John 3:8 speaks of and apparent "sound" associated with the born again experience. I have said already that this can be interpreted as a "Vocal" sound. A focus on this verse and rules of Greek grammar tell us that this is to be applied "spiritually". I believe Jesus is here demonstrating exactly my point. God's word is living and breathing not of the letter. The Literal version puts it this way. John 3:8 The Spirit breathes where He desires, and you hear His voice; but you do not know from where He comes, and where He goes; so is everyone having been generated from the Spirit.

           

To say that the born again experience gives us an inner assurance of infilling (still small voice) is perfectly true. I am asserting that Nicodemus (himself an academic) was being told of natural things to emphasize spiritual things. (when the wind blows you can hear the wind blowing.) Jesus further explains: John 3:10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? Note: Nicodemus was being warned of making the same mistake as the Pharisees, (forest for the trees) John 3:11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness. John 3:12 If I have told you earthly (natural) things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly (spiritual) things? I agree that the voice is "the voice of the spirit" but as the manifold wisdom of God tells us. 1Co 14:14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. 1Co 14:15  What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

 

I have noticed that SOTT1 would emphasize one portion of this text and one only so as to "spiritualize" it turning it into some pie in the sky, uncertain feeling of inner warmth. This approach is the same as the Pharisees of Jesus time and is born of the natural pride of exclaiming knowledge above ones peers about the plan and purpose of God. Seeking to nail the subject down and glorying in ones own intellect. This is a sure sign of the flesh not the spirit. You should avoid painting yourself into a corner being dogmatic. Preaching Jesus and him crucified, is the advice God gives us. 1Co 2:1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with Excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. 1Co 2:2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. 1Co 2:4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing (persuading) words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: 1Co 2:5 That your faith should not stand in the (education) wisdom of men, but in the power of God. God chooses you; you do not choose God.

This up in the air, uncertain, unconfirmed version of the born again experience is not the born again experience that I had. It is certainly not the testimony of the Apostles: 1John 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; We are warned about powerless preachers. 2Ti 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 2Ti 3:6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses (or websites), and lead captive silly (ignorant) women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,

2Ti 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.1Co 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to announce the gospel, not in wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ be made of no effect. And again Mark 7:13 making the Word of God of no effect by your tradition which you delivered. And many such like things you do. To the spectator passing over this post (If you don't believe me, spend and hour or two reading SOTT1's posts on this site, compelling stuff. This process is much more the Exegesis that which he so liberally exclaims is the error of all who oppose HIS view. This is not intended as an attack on SOTT1 but rather to emphasis the spiritual climate that the Bible said we would find ourselves in these last days. I really enjoy his insights; they are however no different to the heathen's intellectual observations. Mat 11:15 He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

 End of Part Three

Gal 4:16 Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?
luke7_35 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #44
  • Rank:Noob
  • Score:260
  • Posts:10
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:04/03/2007 12:51 PM

Re:Tongues: The 'Rest' and Isaiah 28

Date Posted:20/03/2007 5:43 PMCopy HTML

Part Four

SOTT1: 5. Developing on from this, Paul's text has oud houtos ('not even then') instead of ouk ('not'). This substitution 'bridges the gap' created by the previous omission of the "this is rest..." text, and demonstrates that Paul excised it intentionally! 'GWM' take note: Paul didn't want anyone to infer as you have!  

GWM:   What I am inferring is this: - Isaiah 28 Spoke not only of the Judgement of God via the Assyrian conquest of ffice:smarttags" />Israel but also of the greater topic of rest from their enemies. Paul spoke of that rest in detail in Hebrews as follows Heb 3:10 wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, they do always err in their heart; and they have not known my ways. Heb 3:11 So I swore in my wrath, they shall not enter into my rest.) This was a warning to the rebellious Israelites about to enter the promise land under Joshua.

 Heb 4:1 Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. I want the reader to focus on the warning here, especially the end. "Any of you should seem to come short of it". This is a dire warning to us NOT to settle for anything less than the FULL measure of God's gift. The apostles were the benchmark. We are time and time again exhorted not to settle for any other gospel.

 

Rather than explain away the substance of the message best to get back to the origin of the Church and in doing so finding Rest for our souls. Jer 6:16 Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein. Jer 6:17  Also I set watchmen over you, saying, Hearken to the sound of the trumpet. But they said, We will not hearken. Ask yourselves this question. Am I really harkening to the sound of the Trumpet? Don't say to yourselves "We will not hearken" Incidentally we are warned in 1Co 14:8 For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? The word "sound" here is the same word used in John 3:8. "Phone" in the Greek

           

Compare what you just read to: 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. The old testament was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. Don't ignore the Warning. Are you willing to "hear"

 

Conclusion: - What I was inferring was that there is a physical historical application of the text as well as spiritual. The determination of which is the former or latter is a function of the Holy Spirit, not our education or lack thereof. Jesus selected fishermen for a reason. As far as Paul's intentional omission of the rest part of the Corinthians 14 reference to Isaiah 28, this was because they were being chastised for all speaking in tongues together. They were not being told they didn't enter the rest. The Rest after all is not of works lest any man should boast.

 

The Authority of God is not given via a theology degree or any other man made learning process. My Authority begins and ends with the Spirit. After all it is not of the letter but the spirit. 2Co 3:3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart. That said read the remainder of Hebrews 4: Heb 4:2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

Heb 4:3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, (Mar 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.

 

Heb 4:4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works. Heb 4:5 And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest. Heb 4:6 Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief: Heb 4:7 Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, Today, after so long a time; as it is said, Today if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts. Heb 4:8 For if Joshua had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.

           

Heb 4:9  There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. Heb 4:10  For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. Heb 4:11 Let us labor therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief. Eph 2:9  Not of works, lest any man should boast.

In summary: {Ceasing from works = Holy Spirit Baptism = Salvation = Born again  = Rest} all these terms are inter-changeable and all are attested to by the outward sign, (tongues).


SOTT1: 6. Paul's text uses the compound verb eisakouein, which implies both hearing and heeding, instead of akouein, which only implies hearing.
7. Paul's text has the future tense, "they will not hear and respond", instead of the infinitive, and so omits the idea that they will not want to hear. The future tense lays out the consequences if they persist in not responding. Consequently, the 'judgement' theme is altered (in Paul's version they're not blamed for their refusal to believe when they hear 'tongues'; they simply can't understand, come what may). This change makes perfect sense in the context, since Paul is urging the Corinthians to address outsiders in understandable speech. Moth take note: this makes a 'shipwreck' of your belief of the poly-lingual teaching context of 'tongues' as well. Sorry 'bout that!
8. Paul's text adds oud houtos, which means 'not even then' will they hear in respond. In Paul's context, this means that "other tongues" will be useless in causing them to hear and respond to the Lord.
9. Finally, Paul adds the phrase, "says the Lord" to add some 'punch' to the quotation!

End of Part Four

Gal 4:16 Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?
luke7_35 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #45
  • Rank:Noob
  • Score:260
  • Posts:10
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:04/03/2007 12:51 PM

Re:Tongues: The 'Rest' and Isaiah 28

Date Posted:20/03/2007 5:48 PMCopy HTML

Part Five

GWM: I agree with you here Ian. The whole chapter is obviously speaking of the spiritually immaturity. 1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

SOTT1: Interestingly enough, in spite of the outward differences between what Isaiah wrote and intended, and Paul's use of Isaiah; the two contexts actually match quite well! Those who see themselves as 'wise' and 'gifted' in their own eyes dismiss the plain message as being 'childish', when in reality it's the supposedly 'wise' who think and act like children.
The disdain of the Corinthian 'tongues-speakers' for plain speech strikes home: if they want something other than intelligible speech, they can have it. However, it'll actually serve as something of an 'uncomfortable' judgement, given that it'll place many of God's own people, those they ought to care for, in the position of being aliens and foreigners. In effect, Paul was both quoting and applying the passage, and this accounts for the similarities and differences. 

GWM: Here we go again trying to place the Word of God into an academically formed box. There are several applications of the intent of both Isaiah and Paul. Both of whom spoke not as (Natural men) but, as they were inspired so to do. 2Pe 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost

 

SOTT1: Paul applies the passage to the effect that 'tongues' has on unbelievers as well as on fellow Christians in the Corinthian context! To Paul, 'tongues' speaking in public worship can be inappropriate, because it places many of God's own people in the situation of feeling like foreigners in a foreign land; and second, contrary to some mistaken assumptions about 'spirituality' in Hellenism, 'tongues' won't bring the message of the gospel home to unbelievers!

 

GWM: I disagree with you there. Tongues has a purpose: - 1Co 14:22  Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe. (Tongues is a sign of the presence of the Holy Spirit, it is not Communication)

1Co 14:23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad? 1Co 14:24 But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all:

1Co 14:25 And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.

Prophecy has the effect of "bringing the message of the gospel home to unbelievers!"

 

I do agree with the influence of Hellenism. This is clearly a reference to the "damsel possessed with a spirit of divination" of Acts 16:16. I have read the other analysis by UNKOOLMAN on this topic and found it not without merit. Once again taking a narrow (natural) view of this text leaves you missing the more far reaching consequences of the message. I will try and be brief.

 

The word used for "divination" is a Greek word Python. The thing about Pythons is that they don't kill with their bite they kill by suffocating their prey. Interestingly when Python kills it does not break the bones of its victim. The spiritual interpretation of this text is as follows: As we go to prayer. We met are by opposition. (Serpents) in this case the opposition (Python) does not attack us with its bite. It attacks by coiling itself around us choking the Breath (the Spirit) out of us. What is left is the Bones (structure, Form) refer to: Ezekiel 37:4-10 the valley of dry bones.

Take Note: 2Ti 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. This is exactly what happened to the early church and continues to plague the orthodox religions today. The individual is also subject to being choked by failing to live in the Spirit. Mark 4:19 And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful.


SOTT1: 'GWM', I believe you've completely misunderstood what Paul was saying to the Corinthian 'glossolalics' through his quoting of Isaiah. As for your challenge to me as to when I entered into the biblical 'rest', well, the answer to that question is dead easy, and doesn't require anywhere near the detailed explanation that I provided above. It's simple: "Come to me, all who labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls." Jesus Christ, as quoted by Matthew (
11:28 and 29). I entered my 'rest' when I fell upon Christ's mercy

GWM: I ask you and all who have read this post one question. When do we take the "yoke" upon us? Could it be that it is as Luke wrote Act 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; The presence of the lord comes with the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.

The receiving of the Holy Spirit is crucial to entry into God's Rest. To say you have entered; without the yoke, the comforter, the conversion, the Holy Ghost and Fire all the same thing in scripture is to ignore the warning: Heb 4:1 Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.

 

Don't settle for anything other than what the Apostles did. Jud 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. Jud 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

End of Part Five

Gal 4:16 Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?
luke7_35 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #46
  • Rank:Noob
  • Score:260
  • Posts:10
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:04/03/2007 12:51 PM

Re:Tongues: The 'Rest' and Isaiah 28

Date Posted:20/03/2007 5:50 PMCopy HTML

Part Six

The Conclusion of the matter: God Rested and was refreshed on the Seventh day. God went on to institute a Sabbath Rest for the nation of ffice:smarttags" />Israel. This Rest was for all generations. Exo 31:16  Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. fficeffice" />

Exo 31:17  It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed. Even though Israel turned their back on God and he brought against them people of a strange language.

Deut 28:49  The LORD shall bring a nation against thee from far, from the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flieth; a nation whose tongue thou shalt not understand; God's loving kindness would not be utterly taken away from his people. God was going to provide a rest to his people and as Exodus 31:17 suggests it would be a sign. Isa 28:11  For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. Isa 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. In these last days we are warned that there are many false prophets around whose sole purpose is to stop you from receiving this Rest. My advice is that you get back to the "good old time gospel"

 

Jer 6:16 Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, ( The benchmark set by the Apostles) where is the good way, ( Gospel)and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein. Jer 6:17 Also I set watchmen over you, saying, Hearken to the sound of the trumpet. But they said, We will not hearken. Please, Please hearken to the trumpet (Warning)

 

SOTT1, please read what I've written and check the contexts against the relevant biblical passages. Once you've done so, please reflect on the outcomes, and then repent of your error.

God bless,

GWM, aka Luke 7:35

Gal 4:16 Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #47
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:Tongues: The 'Rest' and Isaiah 28

Date Posted:21/03/2007 5:54 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : luke7_35

GWM,

Glad to see you're back. So let's have a little 'looksie' at what you've written in 'defence' of your views:

Introduction: After reading your work I felt very blessed that we came to meet on this site. The standout point for me is the apparent focus on avoiding any implication in the text to tongues. Your aim seems to be that Paul refers to the Isaiah 28 for the single purpose of chastising the Corinthian congregation on their spiritual immaturity. This is true, the scripture is however much more complex than a simple academic analysis can provide by way of explanation.

Ahhh. So what you're suggesting is that I'm right, but also wrong at the same time? Okaaaayyyy....

My post "The Rest of God" was a compilation of scripture from Old and New Testaments and was designed to emphasise the Bible truth that as God rested from his works on the seventh day. God in his wisdom instituted a "Sabbath" in the Old Testament. This Sabbath was a shadow of the eventual "Rest" that would be instituted upon the promised outpouring of the Holy Spirit. This we know and agree.

Well, actually 'no', we don't agree. The fullfilment of the biblical Sabbath, properly speaking, will take place at the inauguration of the Kingdom of God in all its fullness.

Where I believe you make the fatal error is in the study of the text you are prone to extrapolate only from the surface. We are told in Proverbs 25:2 that it is the glory of God to conceal a thing and the honour of Kings is to search out the matter. As I said before, I began studying the Greek supposing that matriculas study would bring spiritual wisdom. I was wrong; I realised that this was the methodology employed by the Pharisees; similarly you show the same traits that were apparent in the Pharisees.

I only extrapolate from the surface of the biblical text? Are you serious? Further, do you honestly believe that God chose to have his Word recorded for posterity in human language, but then, in a rather cunning fashion, he 'secretly' wrote it in such a way that people wouldn't really 'get' it through 'normal' means? Hmmm. Next, as for your comment on why you chose to 'study' Greek (and you've not yet answered my question by telling me how much Greek you actually 'studied'), perhaps your passing it over had less to do with the reasons you've given, and more to do with the fact that it was harder than you thought it would be. Next, the word I think you meant to use above is 'meticulous', unless, of course, you're using some of that 'secret God meta-language' that only the chosen few have discerned Third, for the record, I've been using pretty much the same method of biblical interpretation that was employed by Christians including Paul, Luke and John in their exegeses of the OT text. So if my doing so somehow makes me a 'Pharisee', then I guess I'm in good company.

An illustration may help: Your approach is as a person who looks at a forest in order to get a sense of its majesty and focuses in closer and closer until all he sees is the bark of ONE tree. When you do this you are left in total darkness and literally miss the forest for the tree. This is exactly what the Jewish leaders did with respect to Jesus. This is exactly the revelation that convinced me that Godly wisdom come from God and not education

I'm afraid your illustration and it's application is wrong, big fella. I've identified not only the individual trees (plural), but having done so, can now sit back and enjoy the view of the entire forest. And whilst wisdom certainly does come from God through Jesus, knowledge, is acquired through more mundane means

Re: my analysis of Isaiah GWM: I totally agree with your analysis of this section of the text. The over-emphasis of tongues in the RCI, especially in the earlier years places them fairly and squarely in this category. I have been compelling all to distance themselves from this approach as it leads to similar problems evident in the Corinthians Church. In fact I have preached on this topic and the pitfalls of promoting tongues above measure. I would like to use some of this essay in preaching the importance of not making the same mistakes as the Church at Corinth and the RCI in the early years. With respect to the Revival Fellowship some I am aware still hold to this "immature" understanding of the application of tongues. Your essay will be helpful to me in my endeavours to remedy this. (Thankyou)

Why 'thank you' for agreeing with and confirming my exegeses What you've failed to note; however, is that you follow, support and seek to defend precisely the same unbalanced focus on 'tongues' as do the organisations that you chasten, above.

Re: my assessment that God required the Church at Corinth to mature in their thinking: GWM: I covered this ground about 15 years ago at the National Camp of Seventh Day Adventists. Where I debated with their theologians for two weeks. Similarly they had the tendency to make some clear statements of fact, followed by the dangerous implications. (See red font above.) They had several experienced scholars in both Geek and Hebrew. The major difference of course is that they would say that ALL modern day manifestations of the "gift of tongues" are from the Devil. The point I am making though is that we need to be very careful about making assumptions like "would result in their church degenerating into an immature and unthinking mess! Yes it is clear that they were out of order. The term unthinking mess is a loaded statement.

First, if you approached your 'debate' with the SDA's in the fashion that you have this one, then it's likely that the only person who would have left the encounter thinking they had the upper hand, would have been you. In short, your analogy between the SDA theologians and myself doesn't fit. Neither the generalities or the particulars of their beliefs versus my own match. Further, my 'implications' derive directly from my 'clear statements of fact'. Yours do not. If they did, then perhaps you would've been a little more active in addressing the points that I raised, rather than simply regurgitating your unsubstantiated opinions anew.

Re; my comments on Isaiah's opponents mimicking 'baby' talk GWM: The assumptions made in this section are fine in an allegorical sense, but certainly not at the expense of the straight out statements that were made by Isaiah and the other prophets on the rest. Equally for me to assert that {Tongues = entry into the rest} as a matter of doctrine and to use this verse to support it needs to be firmly grounded in the reading of the Rest and the Sabbath of the Old Testament. What I mean by that is "This is the Rest" is not a sideline statement in terms of the promises made throughout the Old Testament. This statement relates to not only rest from ones enemies but also a greater cessation of works illustrated throughout the whole Bible. To attempt to address this portion of scripture without expounding on the "rest" is negligent at best. (You're looking at the bark and missing the forest)

First, my assessment wasn't allegorical at all. It was based on what the Hebrew text of the passage actually says (would you care to now claim a measure of competence in Hebrew as well?). And, the issue isn't one of what Isaiah had to say about the 'rest' at all, and never has been. The issue is what Paul intended for his readers to understand through his partial quoting of Isaiah in the context as found at Corinth. And I will note, yet again, that you've completely shied away from addressing/rebutting any of my exegetical points. All you've done in your 'response', is to continue to promote your rather idiosyncratic opinions. But the really funny bit, so far as I'm concerned, is that you repeat, over and over, that I've considered the biblical text in too much detail!

And here ends my 'reflection' on Part One to your 'rebuttal'. I sincerely hope the standard improves in the subsequent parts

Blessings,

Ian
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #48
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:Tongues: The 'Rest' and Isaiah 28

Date Posted:21/03/2007 6:46 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : luke7_35

'GWM',

Let's have a look at Part Two (and hoping there's more of substance than was the case in Part One):

GWM: Correct; tongues or the miss-use of the "gift of tongues" is the subject at issue here. Certainly at issue here is not their (The Corinthians Church) place in God's rest. I fully agree with your statement: - "which doesn't apply to the Corinthian situation".

As I said earlier I have preached on this subject before. The chastisement here is most certainly the miss appropriation of tongues. Paul had no need to address the rest and refreshing because this is not relevant. The relevant issue was; I agree was spiritual immaturity, judgement and tongues as a sign to unbelievers not to believers.

Where I believe you have greatly erred, is similar to scholars from organisations like the Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons. All of whom have very differing views of this passage. These organisations have placed a great emphasis on academic leaning in theology in the development of their various differing doctrines.


Let's begin at the beginning, shall we? I've explained why Paul quoted selectively from Isaiah 28, and you would seemingly agree with the context for him doing so. However, you've overstepped the mark by suggesting that the context is much greater than Paul actually let on. And the only basis for this opinion, is your personal theology that 'tongues' equals 'rest'. In short, you've very clearly read into the text your own views. Next, you've seen fit to decry my objective and 'academic' methods, because they've clearly exposed the remarkable degree of subjectivity in your own approach. Further, the implication that develops from this, is that you believe I don't lean upon the Lord when I approach Scripture in my attempts to understand it properly. In effect, you've sought to judge not only my methods, but my spirituality as well. Well, that is somewhat a remarkable thing to to

I spent a year going down the same path studying both classical and Koine Greek. After a year I realised that spiritual truth was not a function of natural learning. (education is fine) but real understanding of the plan of God comes not through our academic efforts. It comes as the scripture indicates by inspiration of the Spirit. 2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Aha. So you had a whole yearof Greek study. I hope you'll forgive me when I offer that it hasn't shown. At all. Now here's what you've apparently failed to understand: my study of the biblical languages (and of the wider field of biblical studies more generally) wasn't an end in, and of, itself. I undertook such study to allow me to approach Scripture as originally written, as a hearer: to better enable me to hear the 'voice' of the authors directly. You; however, strike me as more of a speaker, and as one who can hear the 'voice' of the biblical authors only as as mediated through generations of English translators. In short, you've no real way of checking bias--in the translators, or in yourself. Further, it remains a fact for the Christian that spiritual 'truth', my friend, is to be found in Scripture. Also, Inspiration, my friend, is similarly so contained. Neither traits are functions inherent in and of Christians, whether individually, or collectively. Hence the vital need to be able to bridge the range of 'gaps' that sound and methodical exegesis seeks to do.

What I found is that all of these various Cults (Not Holy Spirit based) had twisted and perverted the text in order to cut away and so reduce the effectiveness or potency of the Gospel.

And what of the 'cults' which presume themselves to be 'Holy Spirit' based? Groups such as the RCI and RF who've completely twisted and perverted the gospel message? What of them? And further, what of the individual 'cultists', those who twist and pervert the text to make it conform to the image of their own beliefs? What of them?

Take note of: Phil 3:1 Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things to you, to me indeed is not grievous, but for you it is safe. Phil 3:2 Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision. Yes Ian, I am aware that this speaks of false circumcision. I equally think that it speaks to the Cutting down of the Gospel. (Kat-at-om-ay) a cutting down

Please, give the attempts at Greek a rest. And further, try submitting your interpretations to the test of Scripture, even if just once. And, of course, I'm surprised that one who had accused me of supposedly 'allegorical' interpretation, is so quick to press the method himself in an attempt to seek advantage.

They (the academics) chose head knowledge rather than being led of the spirit. God summed it up perfectly when he said: 1Co 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 1Co 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man, which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 1Co 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit, which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 1Co 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. Jesus knew what he was doing when he chose fishermen.

A couple of points. One, you were very quick off the mark in attempting to gain credibility for yourself via 'academia', if I recall correctly. Of course, that fell over equally as quickly. Two, you somehow believe there to be an automatic dichotomy between 'academic' Christians and 'spiritual' Christians. An untested thesis that I wouldn't might challenging you on one day. Three, God didn't choose just fishermen, 'GWM'. He also chose a few well trained and intelligent 'academics' too!

The critic says, "How do you know your interpretation is correct?" Well; if it is right, God will receipt it.

Right. So what we don't do is TEST such interpretations against Scripture? We don't look for objective verification? What we do is to rely, solely, on the truly subjective? Such might be right in your eyes, but I don't see such a method being reflective of the God whom Scripture presents.

Mark 16:20 And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen. Deut 29:3 The great temptations which thine eyes have seen, the signs, and those great miracles: Deut 29:4 Yet the LORD hath not given you a heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.

Anyone can 'proof-text', 'GWM'. Establishing one's opinions from what Scripture actually teaches; however, can often prove to be a little more difficult.

Paul in Corinthians states; that the Bible is a spiritual book and that it is spiritually discerned. 1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. They; (Natural men who study the word as a text without the Spirit) like you have a myopic view of each passage. What I mean by this is that to apply one and only one plausible interpretations of the text. This greatly limits God who in his wisdom has chosen the foolish things of this world to confound the wise.

So I'm included in the 'natural man' category, am I?

As usual God refuses to be put in a box. 1Co 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. 1Co 2:16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. Paul also wrote to the Ephesians Eph 3:10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold (polupoikilos) wisdom of God, God's wisdom has many, many layers more than you or I could possibly fathom.

And here's me thinking that I read "test all things", somewhere in Scripture

Yes Ian your explanation is textually correct, the natural man can always see the natural things but God's word is multi-layered. This verse can be understood better in conjunction with all the other relevant text that I have already posted, "here a little and there a little". Isaiah 28:10

Right. So you agree that what I said is confirmed by what Scripture clearly teaches. Good. However, in spite of this tacit admission, you're suggesting that we must look for 'deeper' or 'hidden' meanings that can only be discerned by the truly 'spiritual'? Didn't you make some rather grandiose claims previously, to studying Church history in considerable detail? Well, that being the case, what did you learn about Gnosticism in said studies? And further, what do you understand to be meant by the expression, "proof-texting"?

Brother, I'm still rather disappointed in your responses. This is getting rather tedious.

Blessings,

Ian
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #49
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:Tongues: The 'Rest' and Isaiah 28

Date Posted:21/03/2007 7:06 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : luke7_35

'GWM',

I'll start this response with a small prayer: "Lord grant me strength to make it through to Part Six!"

For those that are unclear about where I am going in my thinking here is a summary: - Jesus as well as well as Paul warned us that there would come a time when we (the Church) would not endure sound doctrine. Many academics, like the academics of Jesus' time viewed soundness as a function of the letter and not the spirit. What I see with the nature of many (not all) the arguments expressed here is the breaking down of the Greek or Hebrew. The emphasizing of ONE part at the expense of another. The end result being that the potency of the message is lost.

In short, meaning doesn't reside in the text. Oh, no! Meaning resides in the reader of the text! Hmmmmm....

For example John 3:8 speaks of and apparent "sound" associated with the born again experience. I have said already that this can be interpreted as a "Vocal" sound. A focus on this verse and rules of Greek grammar tell us that this is to be applied "spiritually". I believe Jesus is here demonstrating exactly my point. God's word is living and breathing not of the letter. The Literal version puts it this way. John 3:8 The Spirit breathes where He desires, and you hear His voice; but you do not know from where He comes, and where He goes; so is everyone having been generated from the Spirit.

My summary: Ian has clearly refuted my opinion of what John 3:8 actually says, and given that I lack the ability to challenge him on the basis of the Greek text, what I'll do is try and spiritualise the message in an attempt to shore up my very weak argument. And then I'll top it all off by accusing him of 'spiritualising'!

To say that the born again experience gives us an inner assurance of infilling (still small voice) is perfectly true. I am asserting that Nicodemus (himself an academic) was being told of natural things to emphasize spiritual things. (when the wind blows you can hear the wind blowing.) Jesus further explains: John 3:10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? Note: Nicodemus was being warned of making the same mistake as the Pharisees, (forest for the trees) John 3:11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness. John 3:12 If I have told you earthly (natural) things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly (spiritual) things? I agree that the voice is "the voice of the spirit" but as the manifold wisdom of God tells us. 1Co 14:14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. 1Co 14:15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

So now you're talking about the non-vocal, 'small, still voice'? Well, which is it? The VOCAL one that you claimed earlier (i.e. 'tongues')? Or the NON-VOCAL one that you're claiming is the case now (the 'inner assurance')? And what has 1 Corinthians 14 got to do with John 3? Where's the link (other than in your mind)?

I have noticed that SOTT1 would emphasize one portion of this text and one only so as to "spiritualize" it turning it into some pie in the sky, uncertain feeling of inner warmth. This approach is the same as the Pharisees of Jesus time and is born of the natural pride of exclaiming knowledge above ones peers about the plan and purpose of God. Seeking to nail the subject down and glorying in ones own intellect. This is a sure sign of the flesh not the spirit. You should avoid painting yourself into a corner being dogmatic. Preaching Jesus and him crucified, is the advice God gives us. 1Co 2:1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with Excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. 1Co 2:2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. 1Co 2:4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing (persuading) words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: 1Co 2:5 That your faith should not stand in the (education) wisdom of men, but in the power of God. God chooses you; you do not choose God.

Amazing. Ian the Pharisee, again!

This up in the air, uncertain, unconfirmed version of the born again experience is not the born again experience that I had. It is certainly not the testimony of the Apostles: 1John 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; We are warned about powerless preachers. 2Ti 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 2Ti 3:6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses (or websites), and lead captive silly (ignorant) women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, 2Ti 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.1Co 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to announce the gospel, not in wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ be made of no effect. And again Mark 7:13 making the Word of God of no effect by your tradition which you delivered. And many such like things you do. To the spectator passing over this post (If you don't believe me, spend and hour or two reading SOTT1's posts on this site, compelling stuff. This process is much more the Exegesis that which he so liberally exclaims is the error of all who oppose HIS view. This is not intended as an attack on SOTT1 but rather to emphasis the spiritual climate that the Bible said we would find ourselves in these last days. I really enjoy his insights; they are however no different to the heathen's intellectual observations. Mat 11:15 He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

So not only am I a Pharisee, I'm also: ignorant, a wolf, and a latter day deceiver! But in spite of these manifest failings on my part, 'GWM' admits that what I've mainatined is what the respective biblical passages actually state. Well, I guess that at least one thing is true of me: I ain't deluded!

Ian
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #50
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:Tongues: The 'Rest' and Isaiah 28

Date Posted:21/03/2007 7:31 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : luke7_35

'GWM',

Hoping that in this part, you'll spend less time attacking my spirituality, and just a little time attempting a rebuttal of my argument!

SOTT1: 5. Developing on from this, Paul's text has oud houtos ('not even then') instead of ouk ('not'). This substitution 'bridges the gap' created by the previous omission of the "this is rest..." text, and demonstrates that Paul excised it intentionally! 'GWM' take note: Paul didn't want anyone to infer as you have!

GWM: What I am inferring is this: - Isaiah 28 Spoke not only of the Judgement of God via the Assyrian conquest of Israel but also of the greater topic of rest from their enemies. Paul spoke of that rest in detail in Hebrews as follows Heb 3:10 wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, they do always err in their heart; and they have not known my ways. Heb 3:11 So I swore in my wrath, they shall not enter into my rest.) This was a warning to the rebellious Israelites about to enter the promise land under Joshua. Heb 4:1 Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. I want the reader to focus on the warning here, especially the end. "Any of you should seem to come short of it". This is a dire warning to us NOT to settle for anything less than the FULL measure of God's gift. The apostles were the benchmark. We are time and time again exhorted not to settle for any other gospel.

So in effect, you're admitting that Paul doesn't mention the 'rest' in his quotation of Isaiah in Corinthians? There you go, that's precisely my point! Next, Paul didn't write Hebrews. Challenge me on this, if you'd like. Third, if we're exhorted not to accept any other gospel than the one given us in Scripture, then why are you trying so hard to present and defend just such a one to us? Fourth, you still haven't come anywhere near close to demonstrating that the 'rest' of Isaiah 28 equals the 'tongues' of Corinthians! This is the 'cornerstone' of your gripe with me, so let's see some biblical evidence!

Rather than explain away the substance of the message best to get back to the origin of the Church and in doing so finding Rest for our souls. Jer 6:16 Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein. Jer 6:17 Also I set watchmen over you, saying, Hearken to the sound of the trumpet. But they said, We will not hearken. Ask yourselves this question. Am I really harkening to the sound of the Trumpet? Don't say to yourselves "We will not hearken" Incidentally we are warned in 1Co 14:8 For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? The word "sound" here is the same word used in John 3:8. "Phone" in the Greek

More proof-texting? And what's next? Are you going to develop the above theme to suggest that the 'tongues' that Paul discussed in Corinthians is the 'trumpet' of the Watchmen?

Compare what you just read to: 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. The old testament was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. Don't ignore the Warning. Are you willing to "hear"

'GWM', I explained in my very first post on this subject, how widely you've missed the mark with this nonsense of yours. Thus far you've even agreed that I explained precisely what the text and the context of the Isaianic passage meant in Paul's context! Now, you're just continuing to repeat the same old rubbish (i.e. unsubstantiated personal opinion) as if nothing has happened during the intervening period. Have I missed something?!

Conclusion: - What I was inferring was that there is a physical historical application of the text as well as spiritual. The determination of which is the former or latter is a function of the Holy Spirit, not our education or lack thereof. Jesus selected fishermen for a reason. As far as Paul's intentional omission of the rest part of the Corinthians 14 reference to Isaiah 28, this was because they were being chastised for all speaking in tongues together. They were not being told they didn't enter the rest. The Rest after all is not of works lest any man should boast.

In other words, as you've just said, Paul left the 'rest' bit out because it didn't apply to the Corinthian situation! You got all 'uppity' at the start, because I challenged you that the 'rest' of Isaiah doesn't equal the 'tongues' of Corinth. When do you intend to provide something other than you own personal opinion to defend this claim? Further, why don't you stop 'spiritualising' the meaning of the relevant passages, and start defending your interpretations from what's actually written?

The Authority of God is not given via a theology degree or any other man made learning process. My Authority begins and ends with the Spirit. After all it is not of the letter but the spirit. 2Co 3:3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart. That said read the remainder of Hebrews 4: Heb 4:2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

The Holy Spirit inspired the authors of the NT. Ergo, we should turn to the NT to 'TEST' the interpretations made by those who claim to be speaking in accordance with the will of the Spirit. Given that I've done so, and shown your views to be without any biblical basis or meit, why do you persist in making them? And do you believe yourself to be more spiritual than me? If so, based on what, exactly?

In summary: {Ceasing from works = Holy Spirit Baptism = Salvation = Born again = Rest} all these terms are inter-changeable and all are attested to by the outward sign, (tongues).

Well, 'no', they're not.

Still haven't seen any rebuttal of my explanations and statements, my friend. Will I be surprised in Part Five?

Blessings,

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