Tongues?

[enoob57]

2 minutes ago, Waggles said:

1John 2:26  These things have I written you concerning those deceiving you. 
27  And the anointing which YE received of him abideth in you, and ye have no need that one teach you; but as his anointing teacheth you concerning all things, and is true, and is no lie, and even as it taught you, abide in him. 

This has nothing to do with tongues

[Kelly2363]

50 minutes ago, Waggles said:

1John 2:26  These things have I written you concerning those deceiving you. 
27  And the anointing which YE received of him abideth in you, and ye have no need that one teach you; but as his anointing teacheth you concerning all things, and is true, and is no lie, and even as it taught you, abide in him. 

 

It is never beneficial, brother, to make assumptions about what brethren are saying - especially because any doctrine of truth must speak to both sides of a claim - and the claim in this instance is either a secessionist view grounded in the passing of the Apostle John -  or a view that the gift of tongues is evident in the churches today as you infer is the meaning of the passage by John. We may be correct to discern that some or even most brethren hold to a particular view and in that - to essentially cause division - at least to fail to give a proper balance. What I find is that brethren rarely read anything well - and so tend to react to what they see as an opposing view and miss that a balance is also given and a way of escape is always offered. When we refuse that offer we throw ourselves into a pit and thereafter, the Lord will have to send one of His servants to pull us out. That is by now the predominant effect on countless numbers of believers and so one would have to either tremble in fear of God and seek for His answer to this condition - or else endlessly stumble until the Lord shows His hand in power.

[Paul James]

On 2/3/2021 at 6:49 PM, enoob57 said:

I've heard all the rhetoric ... and it is certain we cannot agree on pretty much of everything... 
John 12:48
48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
KJV
I would say the Word is what we answer to in the last day...

I totally agree.  We stand on God's Word.  But not on false doctrines that are not found in God's Word.  If it ain't in the Bible, then it ain't true.

[enoob57]

51 minutes ago, Paul James said:

I totally agree.  We stand on God's Word.  But not on false doctrines that are not found in God's Word.  If it ain't in the Bible, then it ain't true.

So when you utilize a non-communicable practice and have no recourse to examine the Scriptures to the what of it... you see no problem in this?

[Paul James]

On 9/11/2021 at 11:04 PM, enoob57 said:

So when you utilize a non-communicable practice and have no recourse to examine the Scriptures to the what of it... you see no problem in this?

No problem at all, because Paul has given pretty clear guidelines about how and when to pray in tongues.  It is all there clearly written.  It is just that there is a prejudice against the modern use of tongues because of the widespread public misuse of it in ultra-Charismatic conferences presided over by Bethel, Hillsong, the false prosperity and "faith" healing  preachers.

Jesus said that when we pray we should not do it on street corners (in public) as a display before men.  That is what we are seeing in Youtube videos of meetings where here is widespread speaking in tongues with the overt display of spiritual worship.  People will say, "What wonderful people they are who love God so much!"  Jesus said that is all the reward they will get.

Paul says that there is a gift of tongues in which a person prays to God, mysteries in the Spirit.  The problem is, that 2000 years later,  we can't ask the original early church Christians how they went about using the gift, and we don't have a "user manual" to guide us these days.   All anyone can do is to seek the Lord and find out from Him whether the gift is appropriate for them, and then find out from the Lord how He wants them to receive and exercise it.

What a person does in their private prayer time is of no business of anyone else.   The fact is that the person who prays in tongues cannot prove beyond doubt that he is speaking a real language that God understands and appreciates.  Conversely, someone prejudiced against praying in tongues cannot prove conclusively that he doesn't.

Therefore, if I pray in tongues privately to the Lord,  no one can tell me that I am not communicating with Him, because they don't know, and secondly, they have no business commenting on my private prayer life, in the same way that no one would have any business commenting on my private sex life with my wife.  In either case, it would be highly inappropriate and intrusive commenting on things private and personal to myself.

So, if you choose not to believe that New Testament tongues is not for Christians today, that is your privilege and you are free to teach that until hell freezes over, as long as you are not offended by those who choose to debate with you about it.

[Kelly2363]

32 minutes ago, Paul James said:

No problem at all, because Paul has given pretty clear guidelines about how and when to pray in tongues.  It is all there clearly written.  It is just that there is a prejudice against the modern use of tongues because of the widespread public misuse of it in ultra-Charismatic conferences presided over by Bethel, Hillsong, the false prosperity and "faith" healing  preachers.

 

Albeit that I have highlighted the above for comment - I am tempted to say that your overall comment was a wise one.

As to the above.

Isn't that element a likely misdirection in some sense? Paul gave directions that the gift of tongues was to remain a private matter where no interpretation was given. Whereas, insofar as I can discern @enoob57 is citing a secessionist position. In that meaning then your post to him would remove any need to raise a doctrinal concern - yet would not answer the underpinning reason why the baptism of the Holy Spirit as a distinct empowerment of the believer also is refused by the same secessionist position. In fact I would be surprised if mentioning Bethel in your claim as you have done would not simply reinforce concerns about the gift of tongues altogether.

[Paul James]

11 hours ago, Kelly2363 said:

 

Albeit that I have highlighted the above for comment - I am tempted to say that your overall comment was a wise one.

As to the above.

Isn't that element a likely misdirection in some sense? Paul gave directions that the gift of tongues was to remain a private matter where no interpretation was given. Whereas, insofar as I can discern @enoob57 is citing a secessionist position. In that meaning then your post to him would remove any need to raise a doctrinal concern - yet would not answer the underpinning reason why the baptism of the Holy Spirit as a distinct empowerment of the believer also is refused by the same secessionist position. In fact I would be surprised if mentioning Bethel in your claim as you have done would not simply reinforce concerns about the gift of tongues altogether.

The trouble is that the false manifestation of tongues has developed from the lunatic fringe of 40 years ago to the mainstream today.  This has muddied the waters so much that many don't know what to believe about it and so keep clear of it, and consider that the chances of receiving a counterfeit outweighs the value to seeking God for the real gift.

[Kelly2363]

1 hour ago, Paul James said:

The trouble is that the false manifestation of tongues has developed from the lunatic fringe of 40 years ago to the mainstream today.  This has muddied the waters so much that many don't know what to believe about it and so keep clear of it, and consider that the chances of receiving a counterfeit outweighs the value to seeking God for the real gift.

 

I don't have any experience of hearing or knowing anything about the gift of tongues from before 1984 so I can't really judge the point you are making if judging means establishing some different effect to the one we have now and the outcome we have now. The last 40 years has been almost nothing but a falling away from every sound doctrine and a ruthless promotion of the means to rebellious independence in every place I have been in. In fact things are utterly appalling because we now dress up our total selfishness as a claim to being caring. And the spiritual mantle of church governance was misused far too often.

The people that I have a burden for are those 20 years and under. Chiefly because I believe that they are going to be the most stunned when the Lord comes in power and they realise that the lunatic fringe they admire because they are the seeming alive ones - will prove to have been the corrupt selfish ones after all. It may be how that move of God is handled that will prove to be the most important work of our lives. And that is very definitely going to be in the dominion of the present older generation to govern properly until the Lord' return. 

What I have mostly stood again in my entire walk as a leading of the Holy Spirit has been dealing with that harsh response that even in 1984 was visible and at that time included some brethren who hold to a secessionist position. But not always because I witnessed an increasing number of 'watchman' literally biting the flocks who came out of denominations that were not essentially against the baptism and gifts of the Holy Spirit. There are still a few like that but there are by now more who are deluded by the excessive effect of a false spirit who are visual witches in their manner. 

How do you define the bench mark of 40 years, may I ask?

Addendum

Just wanted to add that I completely agree with your point. I think that's the best and most lucid explanation I have ever heard. I will be sharing that with some young friends of mine who are preparing for the the Lord to move in our time and that point you made is wisdom. 

Edited September 13, 2021 by Kelly2363
Addendum

[Paul James]

On 12/10/2020 at 4:25 AM, Guest kingdombrat said:

None of what I posted claimed [that] we all should Speak in Tongues.   

Are all pastors, are all teachers, are all church elders, treasurers, property convenors, door greeters, evangelists?  Do all have the ministry gifts of healing, miracles, interpretation of tongues, prophecy, discerning of Spirits, Word of Knowledge and Wisdom?  If one is going to single out just one ministry gift that not everyone has, why not include them all?  One not having a particular ministry doesn't mean that the ministry gift doesn't exist in today's churches.  (this is not directed at you by the way.  It is just for everyone's information).

If someone is going to use the logic that because not all have the gift of tongues, no one has the gift, which the anti-tongues scribblers maintain, then they need to say that because not all are pastors, then the pastoral ministry no longer exists in the church, which is pretty ridiculous.  The anti-tongues contingent are great at taking random verses out of context to prove their point, but really, all they achieve is to make themselves look ridiculous and incompetent at basic exegesis and hermeneutics.

[Paul James]

On 9/13/2021 at 10:35 PM, Kelly2363 said:

 

I don't have any experience of hearing or knowing anything about the gift of tongues from before 1984 so I can't really judge the point you are making if judging means establishing some different effect to the one we have now and the outcome we have now. The last 40 years has been almost nothing but a falling away from every sound doctrine and a ruthless promotion of the means to rebellious independence in every place I have been in. In fact things are utterly appalling because we now dress up our total selfishness as a claim to being caring. And the spiritual mantle of church governance was misused far too often.

The people that I have a burden for are those 20 years and under. Chiefly because I believe that they are going to be the most stunned when the Lord comes in power and they realise that the lunatic fringe they admire because they are the seeming alive ones - will prove to have been the corrupt selfish ones after all. It may be how that move of God is handled that will prove to be the most important work of our lives. And that is very definitely going to be in the dominion of the present older generation to govern properly until the Lord' return. 

What I have mostly stood again in my entire walk as a leading of the Holy Spirit has been dealing with that harsh response that even in 1984 was visible and at that time included some brethren who hold to a secessionist position. But not always because I witnessed an increasing number of 'watchman' literally biting the flocks who came out of denominations that were not essentially against the baptism and gifts of the Holy Spirit. There are still a few like that but there are by now more who are deluded by the excessive effect of a false spirit who are visual witches in their manner. 

How do you define the bench mark of 40 years, may I ask?

Addendum

Just wanted to add that I completely agree with your point. I think that's the best and most lucid explanation I have ever heard. I will be sharing that with some young friends of mine who are preparing for the the Lord to move in our time and that point you made is wisdom. 

When I received Christ as Saviour in an AOG church in 1966, all I saw was a group of 400 people enjoying church, singing hymns with all their hearts, hearing preachers preach as if they were passionate and meant every word, and seeing numbers of people receiving Christ each Sunday night.   Kenneth Copeland, Benny Hinn, Hillsong and Bethel were still over the horizon.  I saw none of the compulsive, uncontrolled manifestations that have appeared in the last 40 years.  I left the movement in the late 1970s, but kept in touch with friends in the movement.  The Charismatic movement of the last 40 years is nothing like what I signed on for in 1966.  What was viewed as the lunatic fringe in the 1960s and 1970s, evolved into the mainstream from the 1980s on.

In the Pentecostal movement before the mid 1980s, the power of the Holy Spirit was in the region of healing and casting out of demons.  We were told that just because one had a contrary mother-in-law it didn't mean that she was possessed with a demon!  But from the 1980s onward, theories came out that every mental health issue was a demon, and that people were starting to see a demon under every bush.

When the Prosperity and guaranteed healing movements, fronted by Kenneth Copeland and Benny Hinn, appeared, the emphasis changed into God giving people a better life in this world.  Then we had Bethel with its "you are gods" doctrine, and gold dust from the ceiling, hypnotic suggestion with people falling backwards, shaking, jerking, and other uncontrolled behaviour.   To be honest, if I was introduced to a church like that when I was first invited to a church, I would have run a mile!  Even in the church I was invited to, I decided that if I heard one American voice, I would be out of there pronto!  Instead, the guy who conducted the choruses at the beginning of the service had a broad Scottish accent, and that made me decide that this might be a good church after all, and not some church like the Mormon.

I found that most of the Pentecostals I fellowshipped were solid, down to earth people.  The pastor who trained me in the ministry of the Spirit was a retired dairy farmer.  He was a man of prayer and of the Word, and he trained me the same way.  He would not have had a bar of stuff like Bethel or Hillsong, and he would have viewed Kenneth Copeland as a total heretic.  He had no time for the Oneness dribblers, and he told me that if I even fellowshipped with them, I could leave his church!  People in other Pentecostals didn't like him because of his strictness, but he got results, and during his ministry to the indigenous Maori people, there were some notable healings under his ministry.  In fact, he told the Lord that he didn't want to go and preach unless the Lord went with him to heal the sick, and God honoured him.  Whenever someone started some unusual manifestations during any services or conferences he conducted, he would stop them, and if they couldn't stop, he would cast a demon out of them, and that stopped their crazy manifestation in its tracks!

This coincided with my study of English Puritan writing - William Bridge, William Gurnall, Joseph Alleine, as well as John Calvin.  They were known for their absolute strictness in terms of true conversion to Christ and holiness of living.  My pastor's defining document outside of the Bible was Bishop Ryle's "Holiness".   He believed that without holiness, the person had no qualifications for ministry in the Holy Spirit.

So, I am what John MacArthur terms a "Reformed Charismatic".  I hold to the Westminster Confession of Faith, coupled with the continuation of the spiritual gifts in the churches.  I believe that the real power of God is in the preaching of the true Gospel of Christ - that He died on the cross for us and rose again to give us the promise that one day we will rise again the same way.  I believe that the signs and wonders, ie: healing and casting out of demons, always accompany the preaching of the Gospel to the unsaved, and not for the self-indulgence of professing Christians.  Therefore most of what modern "faith" healers in their large conferences say is the power of God is fake healings that don't happen, falling down backward under the "power" which is really from hypnotic suggestion (and we know where that comes from and it is not the Holy Spirit), and the deception that the shaking, jerking, rolling around the floor, uncontrolled babbling in tongues and hysterical laughter along with gold dust (glitter from the ventilation system) are the power of the Holy Spirit when these things are nothing of the sort!