Featured Do you attend a "Full Gospel" Church?

Biblicist, I truelly enjoy reading your posts as they can be more humorous than the funnies in the newspaper! You are also very consistent. But let me start with your last statement first.

You say this after after having said

BTW I don't think that is what you meant as the passage actually says

Do you mean Paul wants the reader to assume the word No is placed after each question? As a response to your question a Pentecostal will say that not all Christians speak in tongues as not all Christian are baptized in the Holy Spirit. Again Let me quote your statement again

Too Funny.

You did say they asserted it. But to what authority do you appeal to; to suggest they are wrong about the passage.

Good because I didn't start my post to be antagonistic to you. If any one claims antagonism let Evangelist7 claim that of me since I dispute his position. But you started off swinging so to speak.

I am being honest. I haven't made an unprovable charge against you. And as for disputing it why as it isn't being disputed by Pentecostals. Not all Christians speak in tongues as tongues are evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. Thats what they will tell you.

Accordingly, not all Christians are Baptized in the Holy Spirit according to Pentecostals.

The UPC aren't the only Pentecostals. Both CoG and AoG don't believe tongues are required for salvation but that they are the initial evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit which empoweres the christian for ministry. Oneness Pentecostals which the UPC is a part of don't even believe in the Trinity.

Again there are difference among Pentecostals about this but it is held that Baptism in the Holy Spirit comes subsiquent to sanctification. At least with the International CoG.

Ok.

do you want an applause? I studied theology under CoG theologians at their University. I think I also have some insites into their perspective.

the context is that both oral instructions and scriptures provided Timothy with everything. Not scripture alone. So no its not foolishness. You've supplied a view that wasn't originally intended by Paul.

 

You know the same can be said about your posts. You have many ways of communicating sarcasism.

You were the first to boast of your Pentecostal experience and knowledge not I. I simply responded that you were not the only one with vast and deep experience in this matter. Did I sarcastically suggest you were looking for an applause? Your biting sarcism permeates your posts.

The Greek text itself has "no" in every clause - that is fact. The KJV translators chose to interpret it in rhetorical fashion so that it obviously called for "no" and I think that is probably the intent of Paul but his was much more obvious so that it could not be missed. Those who interpret the KJV translation often miss it or ignore it. I appeal to the passage itself as proof they are wrong - just read it - it is obvious what it says and it obviously contradicts the very heart of pentecostalism and their interpretation of the baptism in the spirit and speaking in tongues. I thought you were knowlegable of their system. This is a general truth that permeates the whole pentecostal/charismatic movement that every single solitary writer among them emphasizes. If you fail to miss that you certainly demonstrate a very superficial understanding.

The fact is that Pentecostalism denies spirituality apart from either baptism in the spirt and speaking in tongues while these text totally anhilates that unbiblical speculative theology.

I specfically limited that accusation to the UPC. Try reading what I said.

No, you are implying what the text neither suggests or says. Timothy was in DIRECT contact with the apostolic oral teaching and thus responsible for hearing audibly inspired teaching. You and I are not in direct AUDIBLE hearing of any inspired man of God. The only responsibility we have is the DIRECT contact we have with inspiration and that is the Word of God. It is to that view that verse 17 speaks in regard to those not in DIRECT AUDIBLE hearing of inspired men of God but in direct contact with the INSPIRED WORD of God. Paul says the inspired Word of God is provided for these reasons (v. 16) in order to produce this result (v. 17) in the man of God. The result is that they will be completely SUFFICIENT in the things of God in connection with the inspired Word and its purpose as its purpose makes this total SUFFICIENCY possible apart from direct contact with the AUDIBLE inspired authors.

However, you can't accept this and neither can charismania/pentecostalism.

 

It is true. I can be sarcastic and I have many ways of expressing it. However, I wasn't being sarcastic. I honestly do enjoy reading your posts though I do find some humor in how you respond to people at times. This happens to be one of them.

Maybe so. Its a fact and its a good base upon which to build as to why I disagree with certain aspects of their theology. My intent on showing this background wasn't to "boast" as much as to show some authority on the subject. However, this wasn't what I found to be funny in your response. You answer my exegete of 2 Tim 3:16 as "pure semantics" Yet this method of disputation with Evangelist7 is the very method you complained to me for my use. I found that incongruous. Which is the very base upon which humor is built. And with my sarcasm I try not be be so much biting as humorous. But in this case all I was doing was pointing out the incongruity of your accusation.

I understand your appeal and why you did it. But among most pentecostals its a irrelevant point as they are not arguing that every Christian does in fact speak in tongues. However, to add another point to one which you haven't touched but I will reveal about Pentecostals is that they differenciate between tongues that are for Ministry manifested in the Church and personal prayer in tongues. They will then say that Pauls is speaking specifically to the manifested church ministry in tongues but not your personal prayer life in tongues. They will then claim that vs. 10

Means there are differing types and uses to which Paul is referring to one kind in vs. 29.

Pentecostals don't deny spirituality apart from Baptism in the spirit only a limited one.

I'm not implying anything. I just show what the passage says which doesn't mean what you've implied. As the text never says Everything or Complete Sufficieny and Paul does indicate oral teaching with scripture use.

 

I took it that way too and that is precisely how I meant it when I responded with my past experience in this matter. However, you chose to view my response differently than I intended it or how I took yours. Your response was sarcasim when I could have just as easily chose to respond to your experience with sacrasim. However, I realized what you were saying and therefore I wrote to assure you that I am not talking out of an experiential vacuum.

Again, you misunderstood my point and what I said. I never sn.aid they believe every Christian speaks in tongues - where do you get the idea I said that???

When I addressed Pentecostalism in connection with this text I applied it to their idea of sanctification and they do believe every child of God should be sanctififed. They believe the baptism in the Spirit has to do with sanctification not salvation. They believe that the baptism in the Spirit is the key to becoming more spiritual. They believe that the "prayer tongue" is the ability to pray more SPIRITUALLY or to pray "in the Spirit."

I understand their responses but what I said is that they have no exegetical response. They have no scripture that provides an exegetical basis to distinguish between "prayer" tongue versus worship tongues or any other kind of tongues. The term "tongues" is contextually defined according to first usage in Acts 2:6-11 in the Pentecostal context. The plurality does not refer to different kinds of tongues in the sense of "prayer" versus "worhip" versus etc., but different KNOWN HUMAN LANGUAGES and the context makes that patently obvious and clear and it is the same plural term used as in 1 Cor. 12:29-30.

Secondly, note that 1 Cor. 12:28 introduces verses 29 or "in the church." Third, the same praying in tongues in 1 Cor. 14:16-19 is also in the "church" context. Notice also that 1 Cor. 12:1-11 is a further extension of a church context first introduced in 1 Cor. 11:3 that is continued right up to the last verse in 1 Cor. 11. There simply is no sound exegetical basis for their ABRITRARY distinction!

The scriptures declare you are either walking "AFTER the flesh" or AFTER the Spirit there is no MIDDLE ground. They teach the necessity of the baptism in the Spirit to walk or live "in the Spirit." The Scriptures teach you are either putting on the new man or you are walking after the old man - there is no middle ground. Just another ABRITRARY distinction to suit their psuedo theology without any exegetical basis.

 

Well then I offer up my apology for not taking you correctly.

 

I accept your apology and move on. Thank you.

 

Yes, that is true. A careful study of 1 Cor. 12:7-11 teaches that every child of God receives a spiritual gift but it is according to the will and design of the Spirit of God rather than our choice. 1 Cor. 12:12-30 teaches that each member is gifted differently in regard to his service in the body with some whose gifts make them more prominent than others but no Christian gets all the gifts.

I don't believe that he is commanding them to "seek after" the better gifts in 1 Cor. 12:31. The verb can be translated indicative as much as imperative as the suffix ending is the same and context must decide which is the case. I think he is rather rebuking them - "You are seeking after the better gifts but I will show you a more excellent way- the way of love - and love "seeketh not her own." It is the way of love that they are to seek to use their spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 14:1).

 

'Tis no wonder at all dat Yeshua left da Pentecostals ... because he obviously never was baptized in the Holy Spirit.

So, he's definitely in da right place now. Congrats to him.

No one who has received dis baptism talks the way he does.

If one doesn't have this baptism, he/she really is a second-class member in any Pentecostal/Charismatic assembly.
'Dis is why he gave up and left any and all of dese types of assemblies.

He may be born-again, but he hasn't been baptized with the Spirit.

Just to set da record straight about him.
.

 

Could you give an example of a word of knowledge you received?

What was it's purpose in your opinion?