Results 1 - 6 of 6
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Holy Spirit baptism and tongues | Mark 9:24 | richilou | 10735 | ||
I think that we differ deeply in our hermeneutic principle guidelines of interpretation. I would like to know, first on what ground you are in that field. Be assured that I will respond to you. | ||||||
2 | Holy Spirit baptism and tongues | Mark 9:24 | EdB | 10743 | ||
Let's just say I understand the meaning of the word hermeneutics without looking it up. How does that effect this discussion? As far as differing you have lost me as to what you hold to, other than the fact you don't think Paul said he prayed in tongues of angels. Yet Paul says very clearly in 1 Cor. 14:2 For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries. Paul also clearly said, " 1 Cor. 14:39-40 Therefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak in tongues. [40] But all things must be done properly and in an orderly manner." What part of that don't you agree with or how does your hermeneutics effect this? |
||||||
3 | Holy Spirit baptism and tongues | Mark 9:24 | richilou | 10776 | ||
If you understand the meaning of the word hermeneutic, I think, however that you seem to fail to apply it in the interpretation of a passage. When Paul made an allusion to the praying the tongue of angels, he didn't mean that it was a "reality" in the eyes of God, as a THING TO PRACTICE. It is there that hermeneutics comes to our rescue. First, we must keep in mind the real purpose of Paul in that chapter and not forget the real problem the Corinthians had with the gifts of the Spirit, more than likely the one of tongues. Follow the reasoning of Paul (not mine) here. He began the chapter in the words he finished the last (LOVE). But he says immediately, that prophecy was "preferable" to the tongues, not according to him or to God, but because of the corinthian trouble. Right? Why can we say that? Because they missed the point of the gifts in general and he wanted to reestablish the foundational goal that the gifts of the Spirit were for the edification of the saints, right again? Now, follow the rest. He said this: "For he that speaketh in a tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God; for no man understandeth; but in the spirit he speaketh mysteries. Now, of what mysteries was he talking about? It is in the sense that it is incomprehensible to the common man or the common language of the church. But now, the trap that so many fall in is this. They think that in saying that, Paul was promoting a spiritual exercice called "praying in tongue" and that, just because they see the expression "speaketh not unto men, but unto God". But, why did he say that? What did he mean by that form of argumentation. My friend, hermeneutics help us to know that in the times of Paul, the rethorical form of language for purpose of argumentation was very much used and above all, by the rabbinical way of teaching (do not forget that Paul had been trained at the feet of Gamaliel). So it was normal for him to borrow the same way of language when he tried to make a point very clear. But, once again, what did he mean by "speaketh not unto men, but unto God"? Here is the answer. The Corinthians have the tendency to forget the goal of spiritual gifts and Paul is saying that if there is no edification at all, you don't have any right to pretend that you do the best thing according to God. But the main point is the following. Verse 2 is another way of saying this: "Dear Corinthians, when you speak in tongue the way you seem to do, you are in reality not speaking to men that would have the right to be edified, but it is AS THOUGH YOU WOULD SPEAK TO GOD, BECAUSE IN THE WAY YOU SPEAK, THERE WOULD BE ONLY HIM THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND ANYWAY, SINCE NOBODY IN THE CHURCH UNDERSTANDS WHAT YOU SAY BY YOUR WORDS". Do you get the point he tried to make? He wanted to show that a mysterious language is good when it is accessible to others by the way of interpretation, and nothing else. But, for them it was totally the contrary; nobody was able to understand because there were not always good interpreters in their midst. So the second verse is a way of saying: "Hey Corinthians, for the sake of God and for the sake of your brothers in Christ, be not foolish in saying things that only God could understand. Remember that God would like you to practice in such a way that everybody would be able to get the mysterious message. Mysterious until it is interpreted correctly. That is the key of the passage and the help hermeneutics can give. | ||||||
4 | Holy Spirit baptism and tongues | Mark 9:24 | EdB | 10813 | ||
Boy you got all of that out of that passage huh? Your hermeneutics sure were busy. Richilou your distorting, taking liberties, and putting meaning and words in people’s mouths at will. I would imagine with your hermeneutics you could get just about anybody to say just about anything you wanted them to say. I have read many white papers and dissertations on this subject and never seen the liberties taken you have managed here. If as I suspect you got this from Dr Thomas Edgar WHO IS A CESSATIONIST, you have to understand his was a foaming at the mouth reply to Dr Jack Deere’s book Surprised by the Spirit. It was written to recoup loses the movement incurred when Dr. Jack Deere a professor at such a prestige citadel “for cessation of the gifts” as Dallas Theological seminary suffered when Dr Deere jumped ship and wrote his book. Even the most ardent cessationist would find fault with this interpretation of that passage. I think it safe to say Benjamin Warfield that set the standard for Dallas Theological seminary’s teaching that Tongues were not for today would blush at such hermeneutics. John MacArthur who also is very much against tongues would not accept the interpretation of this passage you just presented. Would you expect me? | ||||||
5 | Holy Spirit baptism and tongues | Mark 9:24 | richilou | 10832 | ||
You are very inconsistent with your critic of mine. You said that you have never seen the approach I had and at the same time, you say that you suspect that it could be the one of Dr. Edgar. So, what I noticed at 100 percent sure, is that you have never read the book of Dr. Edgar. So, read and after you will speak more solidly. And for the rest, study the hermeneutics in the times of the apostles and you will find that it is not an idea taken in the air... I conclude with this remark: Do you think you have all read what has been written on a subject? | ||||||
6 | Holy Spirit baptism and tongues | Mark 9:24 | EdB | 10845 | ||
I can tell by your writing your upset and I apologize. Please do not take this to be an attack on you or your beliefs. We disagree and that is good iron sharpens iron. However what you wrote I have to respond to. I already said I never read the book. I was actually complementing you by saying that discourse had to come from Edgar and not you. From our previous discussions I thought you displayed more reason than that. I investigated the book after you mentioned it and I now understand the motive for it’s creation. It is something I care not to read. If it was a honest study on this subject I would have probably read it but since it is nothing more than a rebuttal to Dr, Jack Deere’s book it would serve no purpose. Incidentally I wasn’t real impressed with Deere’s book either. No I haven’t read everything on this subject, but I have read enough and understand the principals of hermeneutics (I’m starting to get into that word) enough to know the discourse you presented will not withstand pure textual scrutiny. You totally ignored Paul's statements in Chapter 12 and 13. In chapter 13 Paul again talks of tongues of angels. |
||||||