Results 1 - 14 of 14
|
|
|||||
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 | 10543 | ||
I have spent a long time one day with a pentecostal pastor who believed and practiced himself the speaking in tongues. But let me tell you what is the challenge I put before him and how he has answered to that. By the way, I am not a believer of the gift of tongues AS IT IS DONE IN CHARISMATIC OR PENTECOSTAL MOVEMENTS, but I believe in what Paul said in the Bible concerning that gift. Here is the challenge. According to them, THE sign of the baptism of the Holy Spirit is the ability to speak in tongues. First of all, being a bachelor in theology, I was able to deal with the exegesis of the text and, above all, the context. Now, I give you just 3 points of reference to understand that the foundation of their belief is not biblical as they think it is. 1. The word tongue in greek is "glossa" which mean "the organ we have in the mouth or a language (real human language) and not a chalaman-di-asirlsljdf dede. You know what I mean... 2. Look thoroughly in 1 Cor. 12.13. It says that all christians have been baptized in the Spirit. Therefore, all christians has received the baptism of the Holy Spirit according to the text. 3. Lastly, I just ask you to look down the same chapter and see the rethorical question Paul asked when he said: "do all speak with tongues?". The natural answer is "NO". Now the question is, is it biblical to say that speaking in tongue is THE initial sign that a person has been baptized by the Holy Spirit? Once again, the answer is "NO", since Paul said "NO". Yet, concerning the fact that we have been "ALL" baptized by the Holy Spirit is a big yes for all christians and Paul backed it up in his argument against the Corinthian church that was, in passing very in trouble in their understanding of the gifts of the Spirit and above all that one. I hope it gave you light to your question. |
||||||
2 | Holy Spirit baptism and tongues | Mark 9:24 | EdB | 10584 | ||
Richlou You said you offered a challenge and then never said how the Pastor answered it. I will attempt if you permit. Your point 1. The word tongue in greek is "glossa" which mean "the organ we have in the mouth or a language (real human language) and not a chalaman-di-asirlsljdf dede. You know what I mean... My response Yes I do know what you mean and your right but this does not rule out heavenly language does it? It just says it must be a language not gibberish. Your point 2. Look thoroughly in 1 Cor. 12.13. It says that all christians have been baptized in the Spirit. Therefore, all christians has received the baptism of the Holy Spirit according to the text. My response Again this is absolutely right and as I have said in the past when we get saved we get all of the Holy Spirit we are going to get. There is nothing more to get. Your point 3. Lastly, I just ask you to look down the same chapter and see the rethorical question Paul asked when he said: "do all speak with tongues?". The natural answer is "NO". Now the question is, is it biblical to say that speaking in tongue is THE initial sign that a person has been baptized by the Holy Spirit? Once again, the answer is "NO", since Paul said "NO". Yet, concerning the fact that we have been "ALL" baptized by the Holy Spirit is a big yes for all christians and Paul backed it up in his argument against the Corinthian church that was, in passing very in trouble in their understanding of the gifts of the Spirit and above all that one. My response Paul is talking about the gift of tongues not the prayer language that comes when you yield your will to the Holy Spirit. Not everyone gets the gift of tongues to speak out in church but all do get a prayer language should they so desire, seek after and yield to the Holy Spirit. Again this does not make you have more the Holy Spirit nor does it make you more saved. It simply is your will being yielded to the Holy Spirit. Through out the book of Acts we see people as they yield to Holy Spirit begin to speak in tongues, this occur time and time again. Paul talks about speaking in tongues of men and of angels. He talks about speaking in tongues more than the others. He even gave directions in Corinthians on how it is to be done. By the way the danger of a rhetorical question is it can go either way depending on which side of the question you stand. You say the natural answer is no, from where I stand the natural answer is yes. Just having a little fun :-) Again I appreciate your academia credentials understand men with Doctorates stand on either side of this discussion. Your points are well taken but they are not conclusive. Be blessed and be a blessing Ed |
||||||
3 | Holy Spirit baptism and tongues | Mark 9:24 | richilou | 10590 | ||
The only thing I would add to your comments is that when Paul is talking about the language of angels, you must keep in mind that the context is to teach the Corinthians to understand the "goal" of tongues and not the different aspects of what the Spirit can do. And if you read well the text, the goal of Paul is to put the Corinthians on the right track concerning the "GOAL" of tongues which is the edification of the body of Christ. So, I ask you 2 simple questions. 1. How can I edify a church when I pray alone in my room or wherever else? 2. Where do you find elswhere in the whole Bible the concept of "praying in tongue"? Paul taught on the speaking in tongue, and used the prayer in tongue as a point of contact to explain that the practice is not profitable to the "GOAL" of God for the church, because it would be only useful in private (like in a prayer life) and it is exactly why Paul admonished so hard the practice of private goal in neglecting the right goal that was the edification of the other christians. |
||||||
4 | Holy Spirit baptism and tongues | Mark 9:24 | EdB | 10632 | ||
Again you confuse the two forms of tongues the prayer language which Paul is not talking about here and the Gift of Tongues he is. The gift of tongues or open display of tongues is to edify the church and requires interpretation. The use of tongues in a prayer language is private and to be don't in our closet as it were. | ||||||
5 | Holy Spirit baptism and tongues | Mark 9:24 | richilou | 10686 | ||
I suggest to you once more to read the book of Dr. Thomas Edgar: "Satisfied by the Promise of the Spirit". You will find in it exactly a chapter dealing of what Paul meant by the "prayer in tongue". I can assure you that you will not be able after to think that there are two things concerning tongue: speaking and praying, as you seem to believe. May God lead you in all the truth according to the TEXT and not according to the EXPERIENCE of yours or others as it is often the case unfortunately. | ||||||
6 | Holy Spirit baptism and tongues | Mark 9:24 | EdB | 10693 | ||
Obviously I haven't read this book, I probably won't but I'm willing to listen. What do you expect me to read in this book that I haven’t read in all the others? You say your not a cessationist then what are you? How do you think tongues and other gifts are to operate today? | ||||||
7 | Holy Spirit baptism and tongues | Mark 9:24 | richilou | 10705 | ||
I am not cessationist when the text is well understood and applied. | ||||||
8 | Holy Spirit baptism and tongues | Mark 9:24 | EdB | 10713 | ||
Okay then what are you saying? | ||||||
9 | 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. | ||||||
10 | 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? |
||||||
11 | 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. | ||||||
12 | 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? | ||||||
13 | 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? | ||||||
14 | 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. |
||||||