Speaking in Tongues Continued

Funny, if you read all of Paul's statements about tongues, he is correcting the church from its abuse of such gifts and being a diplomat in the process. It is interesting that today's charismatics take the lowest gift on Paul's list and make it such a high level issue---including Baptism of the Spirit. I don't think Paul would be so negative about it, if it had something to do with something so important.

Read Paul's letters in context, don't pull out scripture here and there. Paul is saying that although he can speak different languages of men and even angels that it does no good. Tongues is foreign languages, period. It isn't the psycho-babble of today's charismatics. If the charismatics of today placed all of the restrictions on speaking in foreign languages that Paul brought forth in the Bible, it would certainly not be a gift used today.

 

Phillip,

 

Yep, disobaying God's clear command:

1Co 14:39 (KJV1611 Edition):
Wherefore brethren, couet to prophesie, and
forbid not to speake with tongues.

Forbiding to speak with tongues by
defining the Spiritual Gift away is
still a violation of this command.

Phillip: // Funny, if you read all of Paul's statements about tongues,
he is correcting the church from its abuse of such gifts
and being a diplomat in the process.//

Phillip: //Tongues is foreign languages, period. It isn't
the psycho-babble of today's charismatics.//

Your two statements are self-contradictory.
There would be absolutely no reason for Paul to be
"correcting the church from its abuse" if 'tongues' means
'foreign languages'. The only reason for "correcting
the church from its abuse" is because it was
exactly the same as (in Phillip's words): "psycho-babble of
today's charismatics".

 

Your theory: Tongues are for today because the Assembly of God churches speak in tongues. Your theology is based on experience and not the Word of God.
Philip, Hope of Glory, and myself have given you Scripture which you have been unable to refute. In fact you ignore it, and resort to experience. "It must be true becasue people do it." That is not a valid argument. Our standard is the Word of God, not people's experiences. People take drugs such s heroin, also. That doesn't make it right. Neither does the practice of speaking in tongues make it right.

I got saved after being 20 years in the Roman Catholic Church. I heard the gospel for the first time when it was presented to me by a student on the campus of a university. I was saved after hearing the gospel, realizing my sinfulness, and my need for a Saviour, I trusted Christ as my Saviour. I have never looked back since.
DHK

 

Not quite sure what you mean.

 

There are many things which believers do in private that would not edify the assembly. That does not make it unscriptural. What I do with my wife in private is not something which should even be mentioned past my wife and me.

I do not agree with your basic premise of tongues always being a known language. If one studies the history of Cornith there were ecstatic utterances. I do not believe for one second thay you can build an entire theoogy of cessation based on 1 Cor 14 alone. If one does that then he must do away with knowledge as well.

Like I wrote earlier I have not come across one grammar, lexicon or theological dictionary which states tongues has ceased and is only a foreign language. Ecstatic utterance have not ceased. They are still happening today. What Paul does is to put a control on it by stating if one speaks in a tongue then an interpreter must be present. When the interpretation is given then the body is edified because it understands the message.

Foreign languages do not need an interpreter today. Languages cna be figured out by those who understand language. W.F. Albright was one who had never seen some languages which he was able to translate. Those languages have a grammer today because of his work. He is not an interpreter for a tongues speaker.

If you leave out the gift of tongues which others listed in the Word of God do you also include or throw away. I am not willing to throw away what God has inspired in His word. What I am willing to do is if tongues does come into a church where I am speaking I will ask for an interpretation and if that does not happen the person will be asked to remain quiet or leave.

 

Let it be known that there are a lot of people today who have more than one of the gifts. Myself included. I have been slain in the spirit, (fallen under the power)and am sure that it was of God!!

Most of the gifts are in effect today whether anyone believes it or not.

Being slain in the spirit, or falling under the power happens a few times a month at our church.

It is in the bible. It is biblical. What more can I say.

Peace,

Tam

 

1 Cor. 13:1 "If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal."

If tongues is a foreign language can someone who believes that tell me what the tongues of angels is?

 

DHK,

You said, 'Benny Hinn is a heretic, possibly demon-possessed. he is not a Christian. His theology does not even come close to Christian theology.'

 

He doesn't believe Jesus is divine. He believes that Jesus gave up his divinity and gave it to those that believe on him. He believes that we are divine. It is the little god theory. It is not Jesus that is divine; it is we that are divine, Hinn says. "We are little gods running around on the earth," Benny Hinn said. That is heresy.
DHK

 

An expose was done on TV about Benny Hinn. It seems to me that from what I saw it was much the same as Robert Tilton.

 

Angelic (which is very close
to Anglo-ic (AKA: English) )

 

gb93433,

I fully agree with your post on page 15 at the top of the page.

I do not see the 'gifts and the interpretation' being ministered by God where He is not wanted in certain churches. Don't hold your breath.

Ray

 

gb93433,

I said, 'For gb93433, Tammy and I we cannot understand how you 'outsource' the Holy Spirit to other agents.'

You said, 'Not quite sure what you mean.'

 

FundamentalBaptistLibrary2000/WWW/qindex.htm
DHK

 

DHK,

You said, 'Hinn says. "We are little gods running around on the earth . . .'

If he said this, I think he probably meant that we are little Christs because His Spirit lives in our lives. Are we not called Christ--ians? Christ is our Lord and Savior and if we are not holy we will not get to Heaven.

 

Whether in the Old Testament, New Testament, or even in the Book of Revelation, no angel ever spoke in anything other than a language known to humans. Angels had the ability to speak the language to any person that God sent them to: whether it was to Manoah, Daniel, Lot, Jacob, Elizabeth, Zechariah, etc. They could speak perfectly, flawlessly, without any grammatical mistake, and very eloquently in whatever language God sent them to deliver his message. Their is no indication that they spoke anything else but a human language. If you can get something other than that out of Scripture I would like to see it.
DHK

 

Their theology is that we are divine. Christian means follower of Christ. We are not divine. To say that we are divine is heresy.
DHK

 

DHK,

There is a lot of error floating around the world. Hinn probably said things that should not have been said; he is a flamboyant personality.

I always had my messages outlined and stayed with my message so I did not say things that might not be true.

I believe if a person preaches each Sunday on one of the Five Points of Calvinism that he or she is a false teacher.

Everything is a matter of interpretation so apparently we should not be too quick to discount each others faith.

I believe in the Rapture of the church and not including sinners at this event in I Thessalonians 4:16. Do you believe that only the saints will be taken into Heaven at this event, with the Second Coming taking place far into the future?

Again, everything is a matter of interpretation. We should try to focus on the Christian doctrine that we all believe in--so we have some credibility before the world of sinners.

 

Angelic (which is very close
to Anglo-ic (AKA: English) ) </font>[/QUOTE]Can you show me in the Bible where Paul ever admitted to speaking in the tongues of angels?