speaking in tounges

[Fez]

OK people it's starting to get a bit hot under the collar here. Lets all take a deep breath and, I suggest, reassess our motives.

[GoldenEagle]

Consider too the following that OneLight suggested to another member:

Step back and read a post or thread as if it is the first time you are reading it,

with no preconceived idea

about what you are about to read. If you put yourself in the place of another person, you will learn the skill of truly seeing what others see. The results can lead to taking the time to reword a post to better explain the thoughts you really want to portray, or understanding a post as it was meant to be understood. When viewing words, it is profitable to realize that nobody can read our minds and we cannot read others minds, so our statements must be clear enough to stand on their own.

At the same time, the reader needs to step back and examine what is posted without a knee-jerk reaction. Many posts have been seen as an attack when they are not, others may read into a post something that is not there, while some leave important information out, focusing only on one point when the whole explanation lies within the full post.

God bless,

GE

[GoldenEagle]

That is part of it Mike, but there is another factor, what we have been taught at our church. Some are part of a full gospel church, or have been part of one, and they believe in tongues and the operation of the gifts. Some are part of a church that not only doesn't believe in the gifts and tongues, but they are hostile towards them. You find a lot of Independent Baptist congregations like that. Once you are convinced in your mind one way or the other, it is hard to have your mind changed. You can have two completely differen't schools of thought, and both originate from the same Bible. It comes down to how you interpret it?

Question then... I'm curious. Is a church that doesn't believe in the speaking of tongues in church or in a personal prayer language... Are those churches not teaching the "full" Gospel of Jesus Christ?

God bless,

GE

[allofgrace]

If you don't know how to test the spirits then how on earth do you test the spirits in your own church?

It is my experience that deceptive spirits do not lead people to worship Jesus as the Son of God.

You made these two statements in your own posts which I then replied too. I made these statements to show you that deceptive spirits do many times lead people to worship Jesus as the Son of God. That is why they are called deceptive spirits. Here is what I said which was like Latin to you,

Deceptive spirits do not lead people to serve the Lord you say, what is a wolf in sheep clothing? Do Mormons teach that God was once a man and that they will one day become a God themselves and they do so under the name the church of latter day saints of Jesus Christ. Look back in church history and tongues was not mentioned as being valid in none of the early writings that are on record. Latin was spoken in services for several hundred years and edified no one who could not understand Latin. You discount scripture by modern technology and say that cannot be refuted by Paul or anyone else, that shows your evidence goes with what you believe, and you discount what others give from scripture as being wrong.

I mentioned that about Paul because what he said in scripture is to be used to determine if worship is done properly. I was responding to this comment you made above: The judgement of whether a modern church is carnal or not is up to the person administering that church, not Paul, nor you, or anyone else. If no one can discern proper worship, its not a worship service, but a gathering. Worship will always be done according to scripture.

What on earth are you talking about? Are you writing in tongues? Or in latin? Please take the time to make your points understandable and show how they relate to the post you are referring to.

Read it again and see if it now makes sense.

This is an argument that is often used against churches that practice praying in tongues, but I think it is important to consider the context that prevailed during the time that the Bible made this warning. At that time the problem of noisy, disorderly services would have been much worse. Anyone trying to lead a service or who received a message directed toward the congregation

would have to constantly raise his voice above the noisy din. Today we have microphones and other electronic devices that give us a means of enforcing order in a service that just wasn't possible back then.

Look, I don't "discount scripture" by any technology so don't twist my words. Every Christian has an obligation to correctly divide the word, which involves taking things in context.

The first paragraph is what I responded to and then you made this last statement, tell me how in context with scripture speaking about not speaking in tongues without an interpreter you read that it was because at the time it was noisy and disorderly at that time but now we have microphones and other electronic devices that give us a means of enforcing order in a service that wasn't possible back then. Now you let me know how your answer was in context. You are implying that Paul would not say today that there should be an interpreter by your comments. So actually it wasn't me taking it out of context.

For what its worth, angels always spoke in the language of the person to whom they were sent. There is not one verse that an angel ever appeared to a person that they spoke a language the person could not speak themselves.

[enoob57]

OK people it's starting to get a bit hot under the collar here. Lets all take a deep breath and, I suggest, reassess our motives.

Okee dokee Fez I'm on it

[GoldenEagle]

That is part of it Mike, but there is another factor, what we have been taught at our church. Some are part of a full gospel church, or have been part of one, and they believe in tongues and the operation of the gifts. Some are part of a church that not only doesn't believe in the gifts and tongues, but they are hostile towards them. You find a lot of Independent Baptist congregations like that. Once you are convinced in your mind one way or the other, it is hard to have your mind changed. You can have two completely differen't schools of thought, and both originate from the same Bible. It comes down to how you interpret it?

Question then... I'm curious. Is a church that doesn't believe in the speaking of tongues in church or in a personal prayer language... Are those churches not teaching the "full" Gospel of Jesus Christ?

God bless,

GE

Full gospel is a term we use to describe churches that teach the baptism in the Holy Ghost and that the gifts of the Spirit are still in operation. It is a term used to describe all churches that believe in the gifts of the Spirit being in operation today, and it can be anything from charasmatics to Pentecostals to any other church that believes that way.

Okay I think I understand how the term is used. But what about the question itself? It really wasn't addressed.

A. Is a church that doesn't believe/teach the baptism of the Holy Ghost (I assume speaking in tongues is the manifestation or what other way does one measure this?) not preaching the full Gospel as found in God's Word? Yes or No?

B. Also what if the same church doesn't emphasize teachings regarding certain gifts of the Holy Spirit such as healings and/or prophecy? Is this hypothetical church not preaching the Gospel as found in God's Word? Yes or No?

Again curious.

God bless,

GE

[GoldenEagle]

Golden Eagle:

Question then... I'm curious. Is a church that doesn't believe in the speaking of tongues in church or in a personal prayer language... Are those churches not teaching the "full" Gospel of Jesus Christ?

God bless,

From my understanding of what Butero wrote. They do so in ignorance. To say a gift is of the devil, but be of the Holy Spirit is Blasphemy of the Holy Ghost. The sin that will not be forgiven.

To say that a Church does not teach or believe in tongues, do not preach the full Gospel of Christ, then one must conclude that we know what that exactly is, and what is included in that. Paul said it's time to lay aside the Doctrines of the Anointing (Christ) of Laying hands on people, repentance, Eternal Judgement, Faith in God, and resurrection from the dead, and move into deeper things.

So the Gospel would include setting people free from Bondage, not only in this life, but eternal to come.

The good news of How Jesus of Nazareth came anointed with yoke destroying power from the Holy Spirit to preach the Word, set captives free, raise the dead, heal the sick, bind up the broken of Heart, Tell of eternal life in Him, Explain of the resurrection, with signs following.

When John in prison asked if this was the WORKS of Christ, or should we wait for another, Jesus said you go tell John.

The blind receive sight, The dead are raised, the lame walk, The lepers are clean, and the poor don't have to be poor no more.

In that would be all the power and working of the Holy Spirit by which we also speak in tongues and lay hands on the sick, that they may recover.

So the question is not "ARE" most churches are perching the full Gospel of the anointed one, and his anointing for us. The question is what Churches are even coming close.

Jesus Is Lord.

So once again my question is the following: If a church is not preaching that one must be baptized by the Holy Spirit (tongues as manifestation) and that the other gifts must be present are they not teaching the full Gospel of the Bible? Yes or No?

Isn't the purpose of gifts such as tongues for the benefit/equipping of the Church (Body of Christ)? Yes or No?

Curious.

God bless,

GE

[Citizenship]

I made these statements to show you that deceptive spirits do many times lead people to worship Jesus as the Son of God.

I am only saying what scripture says. If anyone believes that Jesus is the Son of God and has come in the flesh then there is no way that satan has led you to believe that. This is something I have demonstrated using scripture, not my own interpretation or opinion.

Does that mean that any and everything that a denomination or church teaches is of the Holy Spirit? No, of course not. Please keep things in perspective.

The first paragraph is what I responded to and then you made this last statement, tell me how in context with scripture speaking about not speaking in tongues without an interpreter you read that it was because at the time it was noisy and disorderly at that time but now we have microphones and other electronic devices that give us a means of enforcing order in a service that wasn't possible back then. Now you let me know how your answer was in context. You are implying that Paul would not say today that there should be an interpreter by your comments. So actually it wasn't me taking it out of context.

For what its worth, angels always spoke in the language of the person to whom they were sent. There is not one verse that an angel ever appeared to a person that they spoke a language the person could not speak themselves.

I have already addressed this. The context of 1 Corrinthians is Paul's instructions to a church that wasn't going beyond the basic elements of faith and needed to grow in knowledge. At that time they did not have the resources that we do today - not only in the form of microphones, but also in the form of resources to edifying themselves. I have attended churches where interpretation of tongues has been practiced and yet put very little focus on instruction. I have attended other churches where praying in tongues without interpretation is always practiced, followed by instruction or a sermon directed at edifying the mind.

I also find it surprising that the same people object to me saying that we have to take things in context and compare the time we live in with what was written during Paul's day, are the same people who are saying that tongues are not for today!

Now if you think that everything that Paul wrote to the Corrinthians apply today exactly as they were written then, then please tell me how your church obeys 1 Cor 11:5.

Edited December 30, 2012 by Citizenship

[Sevenseas]

I shouda kept up with this one. Never catch up now..........

[allofgrace]

The preaching of the Gospel of the good news of the Anointing, brings faith, brings signs, Confirms God's word with signs, has great power to change. Not Paul's gospel about the resurrection, eternal judgement, baptism by water.

There are not two gospels, nor can it be divided to stress one's point. Paul did not preach a gospel or a part of it to please men, Gal 1:10 For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ. The apostles performed miracles as signs to the authority which the Lord gave them. Acts 2:43 Then fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles.

Luke 9:1 Then He called His twelve disciples together and gave them power and authority over all demons, and to cure diseases. 2 He sent them to preach the kingdom of God and to heal the sick. v6 So they departed and went through the towns, preaching the gospel and healing everywhere. Just as Jesus did many miracles and John's gospel account calls them signs and John gives the reason for these signs: John 20:30 And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name. Those that chase miracles even Jesus said He knew their hearts and when He confronted them, they departed. John 6:26 Jesus answered them and said, “Most assuredly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw the signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. There are sicknesses healed by a miracle from the Lord, but none that perform miracles of healing at their will like are shown in these passages.

Edited December 31, 2012 by GoldenEagle
Edit to fix quotations