Tongues?

[SwordMaster]

David said...

Quote

Quote

Yes, indeed. There are whole denominations which believe and teach those false doctrines which cannot be supported in Scripture, I am well aware of them. There is no salvation by "grace alone" in Scripture, there is human free will, there is no salvation through faith alone (another false doctrine easily dispelled with Scripture). But this thread is about tongues, so...

 

And here we have it - anti-Christian teaching that salvation is, allegedly, not by grace alone, nor through faith alone - straight from the horse's mouth (or should that be wolf's mouth?).  This places you outside the pale of orthodox Christianity.

Which sect do you belong to?  Or are you a lone wolf?

 

 

 

Sorry guy. You demonstrate that you evidently do not know what the Scriptural doctrine of salvation is. And, after your laughable remarks, I noticed that you didn't give even one verse to support the unscriptural nonsense that you claimed. And, since you obviously don't understand what orthodox doctrines are, from your own mouth, you really don't have a leg to stand on. The only one who belongs to a sect here, obviously, is yourself. This is what Scripture teaches on salvation (for brevity's sake, I will not be quoting all of the multitudes of passages that support these, only three for each point will suffice - which, in your bias, you will ignore anyway...but for the benefit of other readers) - 

 

1. One must choose to believe in Christ:

John 3:15-16  that whoever believes in Him may have eternal life. "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.

 

John 6:40  For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in Him can have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."

 

John 20:31  but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you might have life in His name.

 

Because you obviously don't know anything about Greek, each time the word "believe" is found in these three passages (4 counts in all), it is in the Active voice. That means the person is doing the believing, the person is choosing to believe. That's just in case you try to pull the lame nonsense that God gives them faith in order to get saved. If the faith was coming from God, then the word would be in the  Passive voice.

 

2.  One must choose to repent from sinful behavior:

 

Luke 13:3  No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.

 

Acts 3:19  Repent therefore, and turn back, so that your sins may be blotted out,

 

2 Corinthians 7:10  For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death.

 

Again, the word in the Greek in the first two passages for repent are in the Active voice as verbs, in the third verse it is a noun.

 

3.  Believe that Jesus Christ is Yahweh God in the flesh:

 

John 8:24  Therefore, I said to you that you will die in your sins: because if you do not believe that I AM, you will die in your sins. 

 

Acts 20:28  Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which He obtained with His own blood.
 

 

John 20:28   Thomas answered Him, "My Lord and my God!"

 

 

4.  One must receive water baptism into Christ:

 

John 3:5  Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, if one is not born out of water and of the Spirit, he is not able to enter into the kingdom of God.”

 

Mark 16:16  Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

 

Acts 2:38  And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

 

Romans 6:3  Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?

 

Galatians 3:27  For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

 

Because this is such a hotly debated point among calvinists, I went the extra mile to give the Scriptures that tell you exactly how one enters Christ and comes to be "in Christ." Biased people will decry the Scriptures to suit their own false doctrines. Just as circumcision was the God-ordained ceremonial rite of entrance into the old covenant, so God's chosen ceremonial rite of entrance into the New Covenant (and therefore, Christ) is water baptism. Every salvific covenant has a ceremonial rite of entrance, but those who know nothing about covenants don't know that clearly articulated fact.

This is how Scripture teaches that one gets saved. Grace, yes...but you demonstrate that you don't understand Biblical grace. Grace is God's love in action towards us, and everything that God does is directly prompted by His love (grace), so grace is always a part of what God does. Faith...yes, because without believing in Him, God will not do anything for that person. We must believe in Him in order for Him to act on our behalf, just as Heb. 11:6 plainly and clearly states. 

But the claim that we are saved only by grace and faith alone, is straight up false doctrine right from calvin's perverted lips, which has followed calvinism down through the centuries.

 

Quote

 

I see - an apostate then.

You "humbled" yourself, so that you now believe that salvation is not by grace through faith.  I don't think so...

 

 

And that's your problem, apostate...you think instead of researching the Biblical facts, and your thinking only follows the bias in your head rather than the Scriptural facts.

 

Quote

As far as tongues are concerned, I believe that the gifts of the Holy Spirit continue; but, there are false tongues as well as the true; and, even if you speak with the tongues of men and angels, if you do not have the love of God in your heart, you are dead as a door-nail.

 

Finally...some common ground...

..

 

 

 

[David1701]

16 hours ago, SwordMaster said:

David said...

 

 

Sorry guy. You demonstrate that you evidently do not know what the Scriptural doctrine of salvation is. And, after your laughable remarks, I noticed that you didn't give even one verse to support the unscriptural nonsense that you claimed. And, since you obviously don't understand what orthodox doctrines are, from your own mouth, you really don't have a leg to stand on. The only one who belongs to a sect here, obviously, is yourself. This is what Scripture teaches on salvation (for brevity's sake, I will not be quoting all of the multitudes of passages that support these, only three for each point will suffice - which, in your bias, you will ignore anyway...but for the benefit of other readers) - 

 

1. One must choose to believe in Christ:

John 3:15-16  that whoever believes in Him may have eternal life. "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.

 

John 6:40  For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in Him can have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."

 

John 20:31  but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you might have life in His name.

 

Because you obviously don't know anything about Greek, each time the word "believe" is found in these three passages (4 counts in all), it is in the Active voice. That means the person is doing the believing, the person is choosing to believe. That's just in case you try to pull the lame nonsense that God gives them faith in order to get saved. If the faith was coming from God, then the word would be in the  Passive voice.

 

 

 

Not one of those scriptures says that faith comes by the choice of sinful man - not one.

Faith is a gift from God (Phil. 1:29, Eph. 2:8-10, 2 Pet. 1:1, etc.).  Once you have it, then you are the one who actively has faith - hence the active voice; but, you do not somehow conjure faith up yourself, by an act of your evil will, as an unregenerate, unsaved person, contrary to your God-hating, light-hating nature!

If a man collapses in the street, is rushed to hospital and a surgeon gives him a new heart, then it is now the patient's heart and it is his new heart that actively beats blood round his body.  Your position would be the same as claiming that the surgeon cannot have given him the new heart and he must have generated his own new heart.

Quote

 

2.  One must choose to repent from sinful behavior:

 

Luke 13:3  No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.

 

Acts 3:19  Repent therefore, and turn back, so that your sins may be blotted out,

 

2 Corinthians 7:10  For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death.

 

Again, the word in the Greek in the first two passages for repent are in the Active voice as verbs, in the third verse it is a noun.

 

You have made the same mistake again.  There is NOTHING here about repentance somehow being generated by hostile-to-God, unregenerate sinners, contrary to their nature.

Repentance is a gift from God (as we have seen that faith is), and he does not give it to every sinner.

2 Tim. 2:24-26 (WEB)

24 The Lord’s servant must not quarrel, but be gentle towards all, able to teach, patient,
25 in gentleness correcting those who oppose him: perhaps God may give them repentance leading to a full knowledge of the truth,
26 and they may recover themselves out of the devil’s snare, having been taken captive by him to his will. 

If God has given the person repentance, he repents.  It is as simple as that.

Quote

 

3.  Believe that Jesus Christ is Yahweh God in the flesh:

 

John 8:24  Therefore, I said to you that you will die in your sins: because if you do not believe that I AM, you will die in your sins. 

 

Acts 20:28  Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which He obtained with His own blood.
 

 

John 20:28   Thomas answered Him, "My Lord and my God!"

 

This is correct. 

If God gives you faith in Jesus Christ, then you will believe that he is God manifest in the flesh, as well as believing that he saved you, when he shed his blood and died on the cross, bearing all your sins and punishments, and that he rose from the dead.

 

Quote

 

4.  One must receive water baptism into Christ:

 

John 3:5  Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, if one is not born out of water and of the Spirit, he is not able to enter into the kingdom of God.”

 

Mark 16:16  Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

 

Acts 2:38  And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

 

Romans 6:3  Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?

 

Galatians 3:27  For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

 

Because this is such a hotly debated point among calvinists, I went the extra mile to give the Scriptures that tell you exactly how one enters Christ and comes to be "in Christ." Biased people will decry the Scriptures to suit their own false doctrines. Just as circumcision was the God-ordained ceremonial rite of entrance into the old covenant, so God's chosen ceremonial rite of entrance into the New Covenant (and therefore, Christ) is water baptism. Every salvific covenant has a ceremonial rite of entrance, but those who know nothing about covenants don't know that clearly articulated fact.

 

Water baptism is a command to be obeyed (and genuine Christians will obey it, if they can); but works do not save you (including water baptism).  In fact, you are only allowed to be water baptised (immersed), if you have already believed in Jesus Christ (Acts 8:37).

Water baptism is a symbol of what has already happened to a genuine Christian (died with Christ, buried with Christ and raised with Christ).  It is the outward equivalent of baptism in the Holy Spirit, which has happened when God has made you born again, giving you repentance and faith in Jesus Christ, putting you into the body of Christ.

1) Baptism in the Holy Spirit: baptised by Jesus, in the Holy Spirit, into the body of Christ.

2) Baptism in water: baptised by a pastor (usually), in water, into the outward expression of the body of Christ (the assembly).

Circumcision was symbolic of the cutting off of the sins of the flesh (fulfilled by Christ, on the cross) and included shedding of blood.  It was for males only and was about what must be done (the responsibilities of the Old Covenant, according to law).

Water baptism (immersion) is about what has already been done (the person has been washed clean from his sin, by the blood of Christ) and is a symbol of the fact that Jesus has saved the person, so that he can now appeal to God from a good conscience.

1 Pet. 3:21 (VW) There is also an antitype which now saves us; immersion (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Quote

 

But the claim that we are saved only by grace and faith alone, is straight up false doctrine right from calvin's perverted lips, which has followed calvinism down through the centuries.

 

 

 

That salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone, is believed by all orthodox Evangelicals.  It is believed by Arminians, Calvinists, Lutherans, etc.  You are outside of the Christian faith, if you do not believe this.

Edited November 28, 2020 by David1701

[FrankIeCip]

I have posted this before in another thread. Did Paul accept Jesus? Did Paul believe Jesus was the Christ? Did he believe He was God? Did Paul trust Him as His savior? Did Paul suddenly repent on his own? The answer to all of the above is absolutely 100% NO. He persecuted the brethren. JESUS INTERVENED IN HIS LIFE FIRST. We are all the same. We cannot come to God without Him first coming to us. All of the above is completely scriptural so I should have no need to post any. We are all “on our road to Damascus” until God intervenes in our lives. This is why we love Him. Because He FIRST loved us. 

Edited November 29, 2020 by FrankIeCip

[SwordMaster]

David said...

Quote

Not one of those scriptures says that faith comes by the choice of sinful man - not one.

 

It is evident that you don't have very good reading comprehension. When the word "believe" is in the Active voice, it means that YOU chose to believe. You are reasoning out of your carnal mind to protect your bias, not from the Spirit.

 

Quote

Faith is a gift from God (Phil. 1:29, Eph. 2:8-10, 2 Pet. 1:1, etc.). 

 

Sorry, but not one of those verses in the Greek say what you have been lied to and told that they mean...and it is telling that you do not utilize any principles of Biblical interpretation in your rebuttals. That is why you misinterpret every text that you quote:

 

Philippians 1:29  For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake,
 

I know the false calvinistic slant on this verse, and here it is: Paul says that God has granted (ordained) that we are not only to suffer for Christ's sake because of what He suffered for us, but that we must also choose to believe in Him in order to get saved. The FACT of that is found in the word for "believe" is in the Active voice (again)...directly implying in the Greek that YOU choose to believe in Him. If the text implied that God gives you faith to believe, then the word would be in the passive voice. Therefore, this verse does NOT say in its intended meaning that God gives people faith in order to believe and get saved. Next...

 

Ephesians 2:8-10  8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

 

First off, no one here has stated that anyone can be saved by the results of the works of the Mosaic law, and that is what Paul directly refers to here when he says "not a result of works." 

Secondly, I do not disagree with anything that this text states...grace is part of getting saved, as is faith...but again, nothing in this text says what you erringly claim. Nothing in the text states that God gives people faith in order to believe in Christ and get saved. Strike two...

 

2 Peter 1:1  Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:
 

Firstly, the word translated as "faith" in the text (pistis) is used OBJECTIVELY, NOT subjectively - that means it is more accurately translated as "the Faith" rather than "a faith" because when pistis is used in the objective, it takes on the meaning of the doctrines and articles of the Christian faith. Therefore, strike three...you're out again.

 

Quote

Once you have it, then you are the one who actively has faith - hence the active voice; but, you do not somehow conjure faith up yourself, by an act of your evil will, as an unregenerate, unsaved person, contrary to your God-hating, light-hating nature!

 

Quite laughable in the least!!! You...'sir'...do not dictate what the Greek grammar means, it tells you what it means. Therefore, you can keep believing that unbiblical nonsense if you want to, but you are only hurting yourself...particularly if you are teaching others that nonsense, and you will pay for the lives you help send into eternity without God when you stand before him, by teaching them false doctrine.

 

Quote

If a man collapses in the street, is rushed to hospital and a surgeon gives him a new heart, then it is now the patient's heart and it is his new heart that actively beats blood round his body.  Your position would be the same as claiming that the surgeon cannot have given him the new heart and he must have generated his own new heart.

 

No...but once again you revert to carnal reasoning completely void of the Spirit's illumination on the subject.

 

Quote

You have made the same mistake again.  There is NOTHING here about repentance somehow being generated by hostile-to-God, unregenerate sinners, contrary to their nature.

 

I see that you are still in the death-throes of calvinistic nonsense reasoning. No one is totally depraved according to Scripture, and you continually keep falling back upon that background of false doctrine in your rebuttals. Repentance is a choice of one's will, not something that God gives to a person. If it was, then God can not be righteous in commanding all people everywhere to repent if they don't have the ability to choose to repent (Acts 17:30).

Your beliefs are based upon false teachings, David, pure and simple. The are as bout as Scriptural as other so-called christian cults (JW's and Mormon theology). Sure, they are supposed to come from Scripture, but they are twisted out of their context and re-interpreted in an unbiblical fashion. You go on in your delusion to state:

 

Quote

 

Repentance is a gift from God (as we have seen that faith is), and he does not give it to every sinner.

2 Tim. 2:24-26 (WEB)  24 The Lord’s servant must not quarrel, but be gentle towards all, able to teach, patient, 25 in gentleness correcting those who oppose him: perhaps God may give them repentance leading to a full knowledge of the truth, 26 and they may recover themselves out of the devil’s snare, having been taken captive by him to his will. 

 

 

First of al, you demonstrated only that you read into texts what you want them to say, not what they actually state (in your comment about how you thought you demonstrated that God gives faith, in which you were completely and totally in the error zone of the ball park). 

Secondly, you really need to educate yourself in Greek, that way you can see more clearly what the text is actually saying. The word used here for "repentance" (metanoia), like all words, receive their meanings from the text and context, NOT just whichever definition YOU want to assign to it. Metanoia can mean several things depending upon how it is utilized in a sentence...from Zodhiates:

 

Quote

μετάνοια
metánoia; gen. metanoías, fem. noun from metanoéō (G3340), to repent. A change of mind, repentance (Heb_12:17).
Repentance, change of mind from evil to good or from good to better (Mat_3:8, Mat_3:11; Mat_9:13 [TR]; Mar_2:17; Luk_3:8; Luk_5:32; Luk_15:7; Act_5:31; Act_20:21; Act_26:20; Rom_2:4; Heb_6:6; Heb_12:17; 2Pe_3:9). In the NT, used with reference to noús (G3563), mind, as the faculty of moral reflection (Act_11:18; Act_20:21; 2Co_7:9-10; 2Ti_2:25; Heb_6:1).
It is combined with áphesis (G859), remission of sins (Luk_24:47 [cf. baptism of repentance Mat_3:11; Mar_1:4; Luk_3:3; Act_13:24; Act_19:4]) which identifies one as having repented.

 

In 2 Tim. 2:25 you are given the definition in the sentence itself (if your reading comprehension is not affected by your bias), Paul says, "repentance leading to a KNOWELDGE OF THE TRUTH," he does NOT say, a repentance from sin. What Paul is saying in the text, is that if one is witnessing to an unbeliever, God can touch the unbeliever's mind and cause him to change his mind concerning the truth the person is giving him in witnessing. Again, you can reject that factual assessment in favor of the false bias that you are harboring, but it really does you no good to be a bias defender instead of a truth seeker.

Quote

 

This is correct. 

If God gives you faith in Jesus Christ, then you will believe that he is God manifest in the flesh, as well as believing that he saved you, when he shed his blood and died on the cross, bearing all your sins and punishments, and that he rose from the dead.

 

 

Again, no where in Scripture do we find (legitimately) that God gives people faith in order to believe in Christ. That is false calvinistic doctrine.

Secondly, Christ saved no one when He died on the cross, that is more false calvinistic ranting. What He did do, was make salvation possible to all people, just as Scripture teaches...

 

Titus 2:11  Because the favor of God has been manifest in the world, making salvation possible for whosoever will come to Him.

 

Quote

Water baptism is a command to be obeyed (and genuine Christians will obey it, if they can); but works do not save you (including water baptism).  In fact, you are only allowed to be water baptised (immersed), if you have already believed in Jesus Christ (Acts 8:37).

 

More nonsense argued out of ignorance of the facts. First, let's look at your false claim...

First, I had to go way back to a corrupted version of the Bible to even find the verse, because it is widely recognized as having been added to the text after the fact (the KJV), which reads...

 

Acts 8:37  And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

 

First of all...this is a fake addition to the chapter - that's it's first write off...

Secondly, you are correct in what you stated...one must believe in Christ before he can legitimately receive water baptism into Christ. But your continuing mistake is in believing that a person gets saved the moment he believes, because that notion is completely foreign to the Biblical Scriptures. 

Now, let's address the false claim you made about "works." Firstly, whenever Paul addresses works he addresses two kinds, either "works of the law of Moses" or "obedience to the Law of Christ." And you have DEMONSTRATED that because of the false doctrines that you hold to, that YOU don't know the difference when they are addressed in Scripture.

No one...absolutely NO ONE...can get saved by walking in obedience to the law of Moses (works of the law), the primary reason for this is because the 10 Commandments, along with the old covenant that it originated from, have been completely fulfilled, abrogated, and replaced by that of the New Covenant. No one can get saved by works (obedience) of the law of Moses. No one...I hope I have made that abundantly clear, and on this point we both agree upon. 

the problem comes into the picture when you fail to recognize the difference between the two laws...because brother, you ARE under the law of Christ, or you do NOT have eternal life because you are not abiding in Christ unless you are walking in obedience to the Law of Christ. 

No one is saved, or has eternal life, until they believe in Him, repent, and enter into Christ through water baptism. That is what Scripture states emphatically. Why? Because both salvation and eternal life are ONLY found "in Christ." Do your homework...look up the phrase "in Christ" and "in Him" and see all that we have available in Christ, that you do not have if you are not in Him.

 

Quote

Water baptism is a symbol of what has already happened to a genuine Christian (died with Christ, buried with Christ and raised with Christ).  It is the outward equivalent of baptism in the Holy Spirit, which has happened when God has made you born again, giving you repentance and faith in Jesus Christ, putting you into the body of Christ.

 

Nope, more calvinistic nonsense false doctrine, that was never taught in the church until after calvinism became prominent in Europe. No where in Scripture can you find ONE single text that states what you just said above...not one. Yet we have multiple texts that clearly teach that unless you receive water baptism, you will not get saved (strictly speaking from Scripture).

 

 

Quote

1) Baptism in the Holy Spirit: baptised by Jesus, in the Holy Spirit, into the body of Christ.

 

More false doctrine that cannot be sustained by Scripture. The baptism in the Holy Spirit is NOT the same as the indwelling Spirit that the believer receives when he first becomes born again. that is false calvinistic doctrine that came about because calvinists were not receiving the baptism according to Acts, with the evidence of speaking in tongues, so they made up this nonsense because they were offended that people said calvinists didn't have the baptism...which they didn't.

There is a distinct difference between the baptism of the Spirit, marked by the evidence of speaking in tongues, and the indwelling Holy Spirit. Every born again Christian has the indwelling Spirit, but not every born again Christian has the baptism. 

 

Quote

2) Baptism in water: baptised by a pastor (usually), in water, into the outward expression of the body of Christ (the assembly).

 

Wrong again, and by this carnal reasoning of yours, the eunuch should have never received baptism...because there was no public to witness it.

 

 

Quote

Circumcision was symbolic of the cutting off of the sins of the flesh (fulfilled by Christ, on the cross) and included shedding of blood.  It was for males only and was about what must be done (the responsibilities of the Old Covenant, according to law).

 

Only partially correct...you don't read the OT much, do you? Circumcision was the ceremonial rite of entrance into the old covenant, the NT symbolism was NOT part of the original purpose. You are again reading into the text what is not there to satisfy your bias.

 

Quote

Water baptism (immersion) is about what has already been done (the person has been washed clean from his sin, by the blood of Christ) and is a symbol of the fact that Jesus has saved the person, so that he can now appeal to God from a good conscience.

 

Again, only a partial truth. Water baptism does not demonstrate anything that "was done," it is the initiation rite that causes what you erroneously claim it symbolizes. Nice try, but Scripture trumps your claims all the way up to the hilt.

 

Quote

1 Pet. 3:21 (VW) There is also an antitype which now saves us; immersion (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

 

Except for this is not a very accurate translation according to the Greek:

 

1 Pet. 3:21  Which is now also a type of deliverance for you through baptism, not the washing of the flesh, but of a right conscience of integrity in pledging yourself into God by covenant oath, because of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. 

 

“Pledging yourself” to God = eperotema (ἐπερώτημα), meaning an oath coming forth from a question, the answer to the question, bluntly, of “Do you take Yahweh as your God and Husband,” or rather, “Do you pledge your obedience to God.” It is a direct reference to what the ancient church called the “baptismal confession,” that the convert confessed Christ as well as obedience to God, so as to enter into the New Covenant which would then give the believer salvation. “Because of” the resurrection...comes from the preposition “dia” which can mean “because of” when the motive of an action is addressed.

Paul says basically the same thing in Romans 10:8-10, where the word translated as "confess" (ὁμολογέω) in the Active voice and followed by the Dative case, takes on the meaning of covenant promise, to enter into covenant accord with another.

That's strike...what...5? You are striking out your whole team...

 

Quote

That salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone, is believed by all orthodox Evangelicals.  It is believed by Arminians, Calvinists, Lutherans, etc.  You are outside of the Christian faith, if you do not believe this.

 

Actually, here you strike out a 6th time. Both the false belief that one is saved only by grace alone nonsense, and the Scriptural belief that one is saved only by entering into Christ, are both orthodox...only because for over 500 years the false doctrine of by grace alone has been the sole doctrine, until the Enlightenment that came in the mid 1800's that began in England. After that, the lies of calvinistic doctrines steadily came under scrutinizing light of greater understanding, and has been steadily declining everywhere but in calvinistic strongholds.

 

No serious scholar or theologian disclaims that fact today.

..

 

 

 

 

[SwordMaster]

Frank said...

Quote

I have posted this before in another thread. Did Paul accept Jesus? Did Paul believe Jesus was the Christ? Did he believe He was God? Did Paul trust Him as His savior? Did Paul suddenly repent on his own? The answer to all of the above is absolutely 100% NO. He persecuted the brethren. JESUS INTERVENED IN HIS LIFE FIRST. We are all the same. We cannot come to God without Him first coming to us. All of the above is completely scriptural so I should have no need to post any. We are all “on our road to Damascus” until God intervenes in our lives. This is why we love Him. Because He FIRST loved us.

 

While all of what you said above is true (for a minor point or two that you only assume to be true), there are still the Scriptural facts that God does NOT cause all things to happen that happen. God has not chosen in eternity past who will be saved and who will not be...that is completely up to a person's own will.

 

But this thread is on tongues, not the false doctrines of calvinism. So I won't derail it any longer.

..

 

 

[SwordMaster]

Drafido said...

Quote

Do you yourself speak in tongues?

 

I do not have the spiritual gift of tongues, so I have never had the Holy Spirit speak through me to a congregation in that way. I do have my prayer language and pray in the Spirit. Not always, but I do from time to time. I have noticed that it depends upon how fervent the praying gets...the more fervency, then I begin praying in the Spirit.  

 

Quote

I'm not personally against this, but I believe that the vast majority of people that do it are speaking pure gibberish. 

 

Having been raised in a pentecostal denomination, I have witnessed more than I care to concerning this. Many people come to think of speaking in tongues as a... for lack of a better word... social status in the church. If you don't speak in tongues, then you are not in the "in crowd" with God. Very stupid sentiment, but it does creep into the mind...satan is a master at that kind of stuff. 

Having said that, there are those in the church that do respect God's Word and do not "speak in tongues" (pray in the Spirit) out loud...like we are commanded not to do, and for good reason. What I am trying to say, is that there are those who are legitimate and those who are "playing church." Those who play church in this way do a lot of damage to genuine believers in this aspect.

 

Quote

I have personally experienced someone speaking tongues over me that sounded like about 8 different languages in the space of 10 minutes, and it wasn't the typical gibberish you usually hear or see, especially in the USA. 

 

I have experienced genuine earthly tongues while in the Marines stationed in Japan. In the missionary church I attended while there, we had a couple come to church one morning with friends they were visiting...their friends were American Air Force men and the visitors were Korean (who spoke both Korean and English). During the service, someone stood up and the Spirit spoke through them in tongues, and then another person stood up afterwards and gave the interpretation in English. After service, I overheard the Korean guests asking the person who interpreted where they learned Korean from. He replied that he didn't know Korean...evidently the tongue that the woman spoke by the Spirit was Korean, and the two visitors heard a Caucasian American interpret what the woman said in perfect Korean. They were not believers...until that day. 

And, on the other hand, I have heard people speak in tongues by the Spirit that, like you said above, sounded like pure gibberish to me...so I have no way of knowing if it was a valid earthly language from somewhere, or if it was - as Paul said - a language of angels. All I know, is that after the person spoke, another stood up under the Spirit and gave the interpretation. True tongues spoken by the Spirit through a person will always have an interpetation...that's how one can tell whether it is the Spirit giving a message or whether someone is getting too big for his breaches and trying to make himself to be something he isn't...I have also witnessed that!

One time after a lady stood up and gave a message in tongues, this guy (a relative new-comer), took it upon himself to stand up and then start speaking in a loud voice like he was giving the interpretation. He was "jerky," stuttering, dropping his words...everyone knew that he was being an idiot. Pastor stood up and told him to sit down so the real interpreter could speak...and when he sat down, another stood up and gave the interpretation, and it was nothing like what the first guy was trying to say. Needless to say, we never saw him come to church again...

 

 

Quote

My main bone of contention is with the fake tongues gibberish.  The NAR (New Apostolic Reformation) actually has a guy going around teaching people to vocalise complete gibberish and these poor dupes believe it is real.  Sometimes, a lot of Christians are gullible idiots.  Sorry to phrase it that way, but where is the discrimination here?

 

I have heard of the same idiocy...one time we had an evangelist come, and during the sermon he asked how many people had never spoken in tongues in the church. A number of our youth group raised their hands... Because of an ungodly attitude about him, after the service the youth pastor called all of the youth to the back youth room and told them to "repeat after me" and then he went off is gibberish. He had all the kids repeat him, then he told them never to embarrass him again by telling someone they had never spoken in tongues. When I found out, I told the pastor (for the good of the whole church), and the youth pastor was fired and pastor made me the youth leader until he could find someone who could do it full time (I was in law enforcement at the time and could not be a full time youth leader).

 

It is sad when we hear stories like this...but this is a fallen world.

 

Blessings

..

[SwordMaster]

"R" said...

Quote

So let's assume then that the mid 1800's began with the ascension of Queen Victoria, 1837, and being ordinarily cited as the 19th century, whereto the expression the 1800's corresponds in meaning, as you chose England as your place, then this Enlightenment you speak about - what Enlightenment? Perhaps you intended the expression 'the long 18th century.' If not then as I say, which Enlightenment in the mid 1800's that began in England?

 

Yes, I didn't give very many details, did I...I refer to the outpouring of the Spirit, beginning with Rev. Boddy and moving with greater wind in Smith Wigglesworth, and so on.

 

Quote

You were of course writing to a Scotsman and so I assume that you understand that anything the English do is scarcely to be thought of as enlightening! 

 

LOL! I suddenly had a flash of "Braveheart" run through my mind!

 

Blessings!

..

 

 

 

 

[SwordMaster]

"R" said...

Quote

Your own comment about the "Enlightenment" in the mid "1800's" also included a reference about "calvinist strongholds" which I assumed upon reading it at the time you posted your comment, as cited, was a somewhat subliminal reference to Scotland as you may perceive Scotland, or at least David and his Calvinist position.

 

Actually, it was not, and when you made the comment about a Scottsman I believed you were referring to yourself. 

 

Quote

None of which matters. I simply like to be evidential when I have a question to ask someone and they were formally in Law Enforcement and then set about to tell others that they are wholly wrong citing a myriad of sources and then missing that they have cited the wrong century to make such a claim as to an "Enlightenment" that overturned 500 years of Reformation.

 

I fail to see what law enforcement has to do with quoting facts. I was a liaison officer between the prison and courts, and as such, I had to do a lot of research on present and past case law. I have been a researcher all of my adult life, and know how to conduct responsible, unbiased research. I made a general statement, void of details...if you want details, then I can give them to you.

As for the comment about overturning 500 years of reformation doctrine, I made no such comment. The false doctrines of the Reformation are - unfortunately for thousands of people - not "overturned" as you say. They simply have been demonstrated through the enlightenment of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and Biblical Archeology, to be false to a great extent. As long as there are believers in those false doctrines, they can never be overturned in the real world, just as the false belief in 'ghosts' will continue to thrive because people believe in them.

 

Quote

So now that I see that you were speaking about the Pentecostal Revivals in specificity of Alexander Alfred Boddy  (1854  - 1930) then your reference to the mid 1800's should have been the mid 1900's - not that even knowing that would have enlightened me any further to your claim about "Enlightenment", but it does at least give me a way of grounding your claim in his birth, albeit not in his pentecostal experience that didn't occur until the beginning of the 20th century.

 

Actually, since I gave no details at the first, it began in 1890...so the late 1890's rather than mid-1800's. Like I said...I made a general statement void of actual facts. 

 

Quote

So, brother in what way did the pentecostal experience at the beginning of the 20th century produce an Enlightenment?

 

The Reformation was an enlightenment...God moving through Luther to bring to light greater truth than what the 'church' had during the dark ages. It gave the Church the knowledge to see the false doctrines of the RCC of their day, and so the Protestant movement began. I doubt you would disagree with that. In the same way, the enlightenment of God's next move in the Church, by the outpouring of the Spirit in spirit baptism (because, again, God waited until a man sought Him with his whole heart so that He could move in and through him, just like He did with Luther), and with that move of the Spirit came greater, more accurate understanding of Scripture. 

 

Quote

Like David has attested himself he is not a secessionist and just to be transparent, neither am I.

 

I understand. I also understand that calvin was a secessionist. His whole reasoning was that he never experienced in his own life any of the gifts of the spirit...nothing miraculous. And in his vanity of mind he thought that if he didn't have any of them, then they must have ceased.

I also understand that there are different sects of calvinism, some still believe in exactly what calvin taught, others believe slight variations. Some hold to TULIP and others hold to TLIP or LIP. Others, like the heretic Pink, held to ultra calvinism. 

When I say 'calvinism' I refer to all sects of the system. When I say 'calvinist' I only refer to the false doctrines of calvinism that people may hold to. For example, some in the Methodist and Assemblies of God hold to certain calvinist doctrines, yet they do not claim to be calvinists. 

Perhaps I need to change the way I address things...

 

Quote

Perhaps more to the point, neither do I babble and conflate it as tongues.

 

Conflate what as tongues? "Dabble" in tongues? In other words...what? To say that one does not "dabble" in tongues means to the ear that you do not pursue praying in the Spirit, which we are urged in Scripture to do unceasingly?  

 

Or...what exactly?

Blessings

..

 

 

 

 

 

[David1701]

54 minutes ago, rhomphaeam said:

And the reason why I asked you to specify which "Enlightenment" you were referring to, albeit somewhat vaguely, was because of your comment to @David1701 which is quoted above. And of course David is the Scotsman I made reference to when I said:

...in that same comment made on the 12/02/2020 at 2:51 PM as per the time stamp. 

Your own comment about the "Enlightenment" in the mid "1800's" also included a reference about "calvinist strongholds" which I assumed upon reading it at the time you posted your comment, as cited, was a somewhat subliminal reference to Scotland as you may perceive Scotland, or at least David and his Calvinist position. 

None of which matters. I simply like to be evidential when I have a question to ask someone and they were formally in Law Enforcement and then set about to tell others that they are wholly wrong and make such a claim as to an "Enlightenment" that overturned 500 years of Reformation. 

So now that I see that you were speaking about the Pentecostal Revivals in specificity of Alexander Alfred Boddy  (1854  - 1930) then your reference to the mid 1800's is based on his birth, not that even knowing that would have enlightened me any further to your claim about "Enlightenment", but it does at least give me a way of grounding your claim in his birth, albeit not in his pentecostal experience that didn't occur until the beginning of the 20th century.

So, brother in what way did the pentecostal experience at the beginning of the 20th century produce an Enlightenment?

Like David has attested himself he is not a secessionist and just to be transparent, neither am I. Perhaps more to the point, neither do I babble and conflate it as tongues. 

 

 

Thanks for that.

You are right that I'm not a secessionist (I'm also not a cessationist ).

I'm also interested in the Welsh Revival of the early 1900s and Pentecostal experiences from around that time (e.g. Azusa Street); however, some of their teaching and practices were completely "off the wall".  Pentecostalism (and even more so the Charismatic movement) tends to be all over the place doctrinally.

Edited December 4, 2020 by David1701

[SwordMaster]

David said...

Quote

Pentecostalism (and even more so the Charismatic movement) tend to be all over the place doctrinally.

 

Yes, some are really out of the ball park. I had my first minister's license through one until one year they chose to endorse the Brownsville Revival in Florida, particularly after a little girl was crushed to death by a woman supposedly "falling out" after one of the performers waved his jacket around him in a circle, and people in the front rows were supposedly slain in the Spirit. She fell backwards on top of the girl and killed her. The performers from the stage, said that it was her time...God wanted to take her, and what better place than in their revival.

 

I told them they had lost their spiritual sensitivity and I turned in my license. I could not be a part of an organization that was that blind.

Then you have snake dancers...yah, just because people believe in Christ doesn't mean that all of them have their marbles.

 

..