Featured Babbling against Speaking in Tongues

The vast majority of the Charasmatic Movement is tied up into health and wealth, being little gods, as second act of grace, as modern day Apostles/Prophets.How can the Holy Spirit be behind a Movement that is majority of the time involved in teaching heresy into the church? IF He was directly involved in it, He would have gooten catholics out of Rome, not sucked into staying as another winfg of their church!

 

Maybe you should take your nasty attitude and do just that.

 

Oh, great. you're quoting from a notorious anti-Fundamentalist (and therefore anti-John R. Rice) site (not an "article," a website).

He never claimed to be a scholar, and I never claimed him to be one. However, he was a theologian, and he certainly had a huge influence not only among Baptists but among conservative evangelicals.

But you have missed and left completely my whole point in quoting from him. The point was that the Charismatic version of tongues is completely unnecessary to be used of God. John R. Rice saw over 200,000 come to Christ without tongues. He mentions or could mention many others who have had like blessing from the Holy Spirit without tongues: Bob Jones Sr. (Methodist, by the way), D. L. Moody (Congregationalist, over a million saved), Sam Jones (Methodist), the Wesley brothers (oh, hey, Methodists), R. A. Torrey, Billy Sunday (1 million saved), and many others.

As anyone can see, there have been some awesome Methodist evangelists, greatly used of God without tongues. And you yourself have admitted on this thread that you haven't spoken in tongues in decades. Have you had any spiritual blessing, any souls saved, during that time? If so (I hope it is so), you can't credit tongues for that.

Oh, great. Still no sourcing, and therefore no context. I don't know if you are the one not sourcing or "Stuff Fundies Like" website is. Either way, it's unethical. But once again, you are completely missing my point. So there is no point in interacting with you here.

Ah, the classic "guilt by association" logical fallacy. I mention John R. Rice, a highly respected revivalist and author among independent and Southern Baptists, and you bring up the wacky Westside Baptist Church. You diminish your argument by the fallacy.

Yeah, um, prove to me that he "has no clue" about the gift of prophecy. And true scholarship goes to the original source. So give me actual quotes, with context, proving your point, instead of out of context single sentences from a junky website like "Stuff Fundies Like."

Have you ever read a book by Rice? Do you have any? How about one of the three Ph.D. dissertations, or the several master's theses about him? Or maybe one of the five biographies of different lengths? Until you show actual knowledge not cribbed from a junky website, why should I pay any attention to your thoughts about him? They are irrelevant.

 

Okay, さよなら!

 

For crying out loud, learn to use the quote feature of this software. it's not that hard.

No I don't. You're quoting from an atheist, anti-Christian, anti-Christ website. The guy is against everything you and I stand for. Tell me why he would not make up quotes from Rice, or take them out of context even if they were from an original source.

And you really should quit your unethical practice of posting quotes with no source other than some Internet website which in turn does not source the quotes.

At last, you finally deal with my point. So men like Finney and Moody, not to mention all the other men I mentioned who were pre-Azusa Street, were used of God in an incredible way without tongues. So what does tongues provide us in the service of Christ? Absolutely nothing

You "pointed out" but did not prove. All you have done is taken a very minority view about Eph. 6:18, and not proven it at all.

This is actually what I said, which you are trying to answer. But your failure to learn the quote feature on this software makes your posts hard to follow.

First of all, highlight what you want to quote. Secondly, look at the icons at the top: B, I, U, etc. Click on the little plus sign. Then click on the Quote icon. You have successfully used the feature. See, not so hard.

This makes it even worse. You taught logic, yet you used the "guilt by association" fallacy against me, hinting that my position is akin to the notorious, non-Baptistic Westside Baptist Church. And your appeal to anecdote is hardly scholarly.

No offense, but I'm literally laughing out loud. You quote John R. Rice from an atheist's website, assuming that you then know his position. That may be the most unscholarly thing I've ever read here on the BB. Then you claim scholarship is on your side because of your doctoral thesis. If you do start another thread about this, please use original sources--the actual writing of Rice rather than a hugely suspect source, an anti-Christian website (not an "article," as you said) run by an atheist. True scholarship goes to original sources.

 

One of the reasons I stopped engaging his posts.

 

With a Ph.D. from Harvard, he should be able to handle this.

 

That PHD I think leads to the second reason why I stopped responding to his post, he drones on and on and on as if his many words means he has said something meaningful.

 

Is Deadworm's position on Eph. 2:18 the scholarly one? Nope, it's an extreme minority view. Here are some leading, recent, scholarly commentaries:

"The phrase 'in the Spirit' (en pneumati) is usually taken to mean in comunion with the Spirit or 'in the power of the Spirit' (NEB). Barclay (p. 126) has: 'Let the Spirit be the atmosphere in which you pray'" (A. Skevington Wood in Ephesians in The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Vol. 11, p. 89).

"And their prayers are to be 'in or by the Spirit', that is, inspired and guided by the same Holy Spirit through whom they have confident access to the Father (2:18)." (Peter T. O'Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians in The Pillar NT Commentary, 1999, p. 484-485).

"Thus, prayer is directed to God in the power of the Holy Spirit" (Harold W. Hoehner, Ephesians, 2002, p. 857).

I challenge Deadworm to find a single scholarly commentary which takes his view.

 

But it's from Harvard!!!! Doesn't that make it automatically relevant?

But then since it's from Harvard that kind of cements his theological positions as being non-conservative, shall we kindly say.

 

Harvard, PH-D or whatever I find his posts rather sophomoric.

 

The majority of modern day Chasamatic theology comes from the ilk of the word of faith/health and wealth/modsern day revelations thru modern Apostles and prophets. there are still some solid Christians within their ranks, such as I found while in the AOG, but has been overrun by the abeerant/heretical teachings of those listed here!

 

Quite using th eterm "scholar" as what you and those you hang out among use it, as there are indeed goodand conservative scholar who hold fully to the inspiration of the scriptures and thembeing historically accurate. When you jettison the belief of anauthoratative Bible, full inspired, all of ones theology becomes dubious and suspect!

 

MOST "scholars" who are good and valid would see that Acts was an historical Book that gave to us the transisition period between Ond and new Covenants, and so not normative for all time forward!

 

Very interesting to me that Paul , the ole I speak in more tongues than any of you, NEVER told us to seek that to have power to witness and live for jesus, but to be filled continually with the Holy Spirit!

 

You deny the scriptures as being authoritative and trustworthy, so why do you believ in tongues, if vannoteven trust the scriptures?