Speaking in Tongues Continued

Ray Berrian
4,000 Posts Club
Member # 2542
posted December 10, 2005 07:17 PM

DHk,

You really need to get in touch with Biblical truth. Even Wycliffe Bible Commentary or some other commentary is needed so you keep somewhere near a balanced Biblical interpretation.

You said, 'There is no other form of tongues, unless you are speaking of a form of tongues spoken of in 1Cor.12:1-3, which Paul attributes to Satan. Biblical tongues were always, always, in a foreign language. There is only one Biblical gift of speaking in tongues (foreign languages)--one and only one gift.'

 

D28guy
1,000 Posts Club
Member # 4890
posted December 10, 2005 07:59 PM

DHK,

Regarding this passage of scripture...

quote:"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal.

And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing."

I said...

quote:"Are you actually saying that it is not possible for us to...

1) Have the gift of prophecy.

2) Understand mysteries.

3) Possess knowledge.

4) Have faith.

5) Give things up to help the poor

6) Be killed as a martyr by being burned to death.

You are actually saying that none of that is possible. This is amazing. Christians are certainly capable of participating in all those things. And since christians are clearly capable of participating in all of those things, what you are *actually* saying is that christians CAN participate in each of the things mentioned in this passage...having faith, possessing knowledge, understanding mysteries, giving things up to help the poor, and being martyred by being burned to death...EXCEPT ONE.

Speaking with the tongues of a heavenly language."

And you now say...

quote:"Paul didn't say "understand mysteries," as you suggested. He said "understand ALL mystries. If he could do that (which he can't), he would be God. If it were in the actual realm of possiblility it would be Paul's claim to deity--heresy."

quote:"This is what it really says:
"understand all mysteries, and all knowledge."
But you have deliberately left out that word all, because it is impossible for Paul to have all knowledge; to be omniscient--to be God. Paul is not making a claim to deity--you are making that claim for him, which is heresy."

This is so very sad.

There is absolutly nothing in Gods scriptures that would indicate that when the passages say "having all knowledge" or "understand all mysteries" that it means...

"if I were just like Almighty God, and completly omniscient".

There are multitudes of other times where the word "all" is used in this precise manner, and it never means anything of the sort.

"I have become all things to all people"

Do you say that Paul is saying here that he literally is all things? He is a mule? A doorstop? A pitcher of water? He personally is qualified for every trade known on earth at that time? He literally can perform every function needed for any task on earth?

Of course not. Its lunacy.

"Let him who is taught the word share in all good things with him who teaches"

That is to be taken literally? I must give every posession I own to every person who teaches me something?

That as well would be lunacy.

"Indeed, I have all and abound"

He lterally means that he personally possesses every known object that can be owned on planet earth?

Ridiculous.


"Because of the word that the woman testified, 'he told me all that I ever did'."

Jesus literally recited to her every single act of any kind that she had performed from the the day she was born up to that point?

Nonsense

And its nonsense to say that because the scriptures say "all knowledge" or "all wisdom" in the passages in question that they mean "If I am omniscient, and am in fact Almighty God".

Its clear as a bell that he is simply saying that no matter how much knowledge or how much wisdom I might have, if I have not love it means nothing.

It is perfectly possible and acceptable to have lots and lots of knowledge, or wisdom, as the scripture says...just like the same passage of scripture says it is possible to speak in the tongues of angels.(A heavenly language, spoken by means of the gift of the Holy Spirit)

I could go on and on and on of course with scripture after scripture after scripture for hours upon hours where "all" does nor mean literally all.

quote:"Check any good commentary."

I thought you said in earlier posts it is the scriptures you turn to, and not the word of men?

My point is that their are commentaries and study bibles that support your view, and just as many commentaries and study bibles that suppoort what I am sharing.

So lets just stick with the word of God, shall we?

God bless.

Mike

Posts: 1005 | From: Berea, Ky.

 

D28guy
1,000 Posts Club
Member # 4890

posted December 10, 2005 08:48 PM

Oh...wait a minute.

I think I know what you mean.

quote:"Check any good commentary."

Can I assume that a "good" commentary is one that promotes what you like, and any that supports what I'm sharing is not a "good" commentary?

Mike

posts: 1005 | From: Berea, Ky.

 

music4Him
Avatar Image
1,000 Posts Club
Member # 7893

posted December 11, 2005 03:42 PM

quote:Originally posted by D28guy:
Oh...wait a minute.

I think I know what you mean.

quote:"Check any good commentary."

Can I assume that a "good" commentary is one that promotes what you like, and any that supports what I'm sharing is not a "good" commentary?

Mike

[Laugh] [Laugh] [Laugh]
Caught on right quick there Mike. [Wave]
Acually I have noticed its ok to post Baptist sites. But I seen when Iraneus(sp?) or other men are quoted or any other site that has info on tongues that may put a positive outlook. It won't be allowed. Thats just the rules.

Mat 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

Posts: 1751 | From: Living on beautiful Lake Whitney, Texas

 

D28guy
1,000 Posts Club
Member # 4890

posted December 11, 2005 04:45 PM

DHK,

Regarding my assertion of a "heavenly language", that some might speak here on earth by gifting of the Holy Spirit, you have indicated that there is no "heavenly language", for you said...

quote:"Ask the Apostle John. You can find him in the Book of Revelation. He apparently understood what the angel made clear to him as the angel showed him different things in heaven. Obviously the angel spoke a language he could understand."

So...are you saying they speak Hebrew in heaven? Aramaic?

Where does that leave people like me who speak English? And what about the Chinese, Japanese, Hungarians and Russians?

Will we all have to go to a class somewhere where we can learn to speak Hebrew so we can praise God is a language He understands?

Or is it more likely that God simply gave John the ability to understand the language of heaven...for the purpose of communicating to us what he saw in the scripture he wrote...since otherwise the whole point of being there would be lost?

Just wondering.

God bless,

Mike
Posts: 1005 | From: Berea, Ky.

 

D28guy
1,000 Posts Club
Member # 4890

posted December 11, 2005 04:53 PM

music4Him,

quote: [Laugh] [Laugh] [Laugh] Caught on right quick there Mike. [Wave]

Thanks. [Big Grin] I'm not the brightest bulb on the planet, but give me time and thinks will eventually sink in. [Wink]

quote:"Acually I have noticed its ok to post Baptist sites. But I seen when Iraneus(sp?) or other men are quoted or any other site that has info on tongues that may put a positive outlook. It won't be allowed. Thats just the rules."

Hmmmm. I didnt know that. I've seen links from...I believe...7th Day Adventists sites deleted, but are you saying if links to pentecostal or charismatic type sites are posted they will be removed?

Even from the "All Christians" boards?

Mike

Posts: 1005 | From: Berea, Ky.

 

I am quite in touch with Biblical truth. I have been presenting Biblical truth throughout these threads that has gone unrefuted. It is man's opinion's like the above just stated that has no Biblical basis whatsover that I disdain. I don't need a psycological analysis. If you can't show me from the Bible that my position is wrong then better not say anything at all; otherwise it appears that you are simply making personal attacks which is against BB rules.

That is correnct. The only Biblical gift of tongues was to speak in a foreign language unknown to the speaker, thus had to be interpreted, but known to others in the audience of the church--thus the necessity for tongues being spoken.

Your interpretive quote is not quite correct, is it? Think of it. "No man by the indwelling Spirit will call Jesus accursed." Peter did. In fact I can get almost any Christian to read the words: "Jesus is accursed," (as a mental exercise), just in the same way that I can an unsaved person such as a Muslim to repeat the words "Jesus is Lord," Obviously that is not what the verse means. I have written just now "Jesus is accursed" Does that mean that I am unsaved, not a child of God, demon-possessed, etc. etc. No! It only proves that it is a mental exercise that anyonce can do. That is not what Paul was talking about. He was not talking of mental exercises, even by those who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit such ss I.

He didn't have to use the word Satan. Context is everything.

1 Corinthians 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

He is contrasting two different kinds of spirits--the Holy Spirit to another spirit (demonic). Only a demonic spirit would cause someone to say in another language that Jesus is accursed. That is what was happening. Paul warns that when that happens it is not by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit praises God; not curses God. We have witnessed things like that in todays society, where people who do understand foreign languages have understood others speaking in a foreign language unknown to the speaker, and unknowingly praisning Satan. This is what Paul was speaking about.

Yes, the miracle is called the gift of tongues. The speaking in a foreign language unknown to the one speaking it, was the miracle. That was always the miracle in every case. That is why it is called the gift of tongues (foreign languages). That is the only gift (in reference to speaking in tongues) that there is. All others are countefeits, which Satan loves to do.

Perahps some of what is contained in those chapters is. But not the first three first verses of chapter 12. Paul is adressing a specific problem that arose out of the pagan roots of the Greek culture that the Corinthian believers had been enslaved in--speaking in tonuges under the influence of demons.

This is your opinion (and personal attack) unsubstantiated by Scripture.

Again--more personal attacks; and no Scripture; just mere opinion. I have little regard for opinion that is based on nothing but man's imagination. I have given you Scripture. You have nothing to back up your opinions.

More opinion and personal attacks. The cessation of sign gifts has nothing to do with the quality of water in Canada. If that is the conclusion that you are drawing then we know how far from Scripture you have strayed. Again you have supplied no Scripture.
DHK

 

I don't mind when people disagree. But at least give a Scriptural reason for your disagreement. You have been most cordial in your discussions with me, Tam, and have endevoured to do just that, which I appreciate.
But when someone comes along and tells me that my position is wrong because my water is contaminated or because maybe I need to so see a psychologist, or any other such thing, I have no time for such "gibberish." If one can not at least try to answer with the Scriptures then don't say anything at all. That is where I am coming from.
DHK

 

</font>[/QUOTE]
"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels..."
This says nothing about the abilitiy of anyone being able to speak in the tongues of angels. Your thelogy is much like the Catholics in this way. You are reading into Scriptures that which is not there. Paul did not say he could speak in tongues of angels nor did he say it was even possible. A quick survey among Junior and High School studnts denonstrated that the plain sense of this passage was entirely hypothetical, and that Paul was saying IF these thigs were even possible (which they are not) they would all be unprofitable without love.
There is no heavenly language. You have still failed to produce Scripture to prove that there is.

Are you that eager to deny the Word of God. Are yoo that willing to allegorize also the gospel of Christ who died for all the world.

Are you sure about that? Are is it just wishful thinking--takinsg Scipture out of context to fit an unbiblical pre-conceived theology.

The verse is true. All means all. But pleas check the context and quote it in its entirety before taking the verse out of its context and trying to make it mean something that it doesn't. That is the mark of a cult.

The context:
1 Corinthians 9:19-22 For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
{b]I made myself a sevant to all that I might gain the more.[/b]
He was speaking of culture. The "all things" refers to culture, and all the things that pertain to culture. I am a missionary. When I go to another nation, I not only adapt to the culture of that nation, I adopt it. I am all things to the people of that nation. I take on the identity of those people, that I might win them. That is what Paul meant. And thus ALL means ALL. Take things in their context.

What did Paul say? "To the Jew, became I a Jew."
"To them that are without the law, as those that are without the law."

And why shouldn't one share ALL that he knows in the Word with those that he teaches. It is called discipleship. That is what Paul did. He said to the Ephesians: "I have not shunned to declare unto you "the whole counsel of God. Was he lying? All means all.

Context is key. Quote the context and you find out that all means all. You have this terrible habit of pulling Scripture of pulling Scriptures out of context. Let's see what it means:

Philippians 4:11-13 Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content. I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound: every where and in all things I am instructed both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need. I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.

The context: Whether Paul was in need or whether he abounded in plenty, he was content in whatever circumstance God put him in. Everywhere and in ALL things He was instructed both to be full and to be hungry, and he was content in whatever situation he was in. ALL means all.

...and in none of those cases is the word "all" to be taken as you want to take the word "all" in the 1st passage[/quote]
Note that the inspired Word of God records lies like the devil's lie ("Thou shalt not surely die"), and statements of others though they maybe exagerations, like this one. Inspiration simply means that that which was said was accurately recorded as it was said. The word of the adulterous woman was obviously an exagerration. She was not theologically correct. She was a woman testifying of Christ's work of grace in her heart the best way that she knew how. Even Rahab the harlot told a lie to keep the safety of the spies. That Scripture is inspired too. That doesn't mean that the Scripture teaches us to lie. Thus you can't build your doctrine on the words of an adulterous woman.

Because you don't build a doctrine on the silence of Scripture.

He doeasnt say "ALL the tongues of ALL mean, as if I were God Himself"

He doesnt say "have ALL the gift of prophecy that is possible, as if I were God Himself"</font>[/QUOTE]
Paul may have used the gift of tongues and the gift of prophecy, but not the gift of tongues of angels. You cannot prove that through Scripture. You have no Scripture to demonstrate it to be true. These are hypothetical statements. A simple study of grammar shows that very easily.

Nothing about being God Almighty there. Simply being a martyr.[/qb]</font>[/QUOTE]This is your assumption. You are reading into Scripture things that are not there. That is a possible interpretation. Even if it is right, it is still hypothetical. It doesn't say Paul ever did that. It is conditional and hypothetical. Paul says IF he were to do that, without love, it would profit him nothing. Every one of these statements are hypotheticals. Study the grammar.

He never makes any claim that these things are possible. To make the claim to "have all knowledge" is a claim to deity. Only God is omnicisient. It is totally ridiculous to claim that this is even possible for man to do. Paul was stating a hypothetical case. Even if it was possible, to have such knowledge, without love it would be useless. But it is impossible for any man to have all knowledge. It is a purely hypothetical statement just as all the others are.

I didn't have to look in any commentary, nor did I to come to those conclusions. The Scripture speaks for itself. No man can have "all knowledge." That is plain to see. It is a hypothetical statement that even a grade eight student can understand. You can have all the knowledge you can possibly have; without love it is useless. Even omniscience sithout love is useless. That is what Paul said. But he wasn't claiming omniscience for himslef; you are claiming it for him and that is heresy.

You are doing what the Catholics are doing--reading into Scriptures doctrines that are not there. You are trying to prove the doctrine of heavenly languages and of tongues the same way that they prove infant baptism--by reading into the Scriptures things that are not there.

I'm not trying to put you down in the least, brother. I'll proudly stand shoulder to shoulder with you in any number of situations...as you know I have in other threads here at this fine forum site(such as the Catholic ones)...and if some heathen or pagan wants to go toe to toe with you they will have me to deal with as well. I'll "have your back" as the kids say.

No you haven't. You haven't offered any Scripture within its proper context. You have pulled ove vere here and there out of context. But you have presented no theology of modern tongues for today. There is no Biblical case for it. No one has been able to do that.
DHK