Results 1 - 6 of 6
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Is tongues a matter of fact? | 1 Cor 14:5 | retxar | 55895 | ||
Aspilos, No mainline Pentecostal churches I know of would support the teaching that a born again believer must speak in tongues. All would consider that a false teaching as you do, and also as I do. If you a judging all Pentecostal churches according to the way the church you were raised up in taught you, that is simply not true, not fair, and is a false assumption. All Pentecostal churches I know of also teach that a believer is in-dwelt with the Holy Spirit when they are born again, as the WORD teaches. Most teach, as the WORD also teaches, that being filled with the Spirit is not the same as being in-dwelt with the Spirit (example: John 20:22-indwelt Acts 2:4-filled). Some teach that the “evidence” of being filled with the Spirit (not a salvation requirement tho) is speaking in tongues. They base this on scriptural example (as above) and experience (as Peter’s evaluation in Acts 10:47). Others believe, as I do, that speaking in tongues is a result of being filled with the Holy Spirit but not a requirement, because scriptural example and experience is not the same thing as scriptural command. I would recommend you read “The Beauty of the Spiritual Language” by Jack Hayford to get a handle on what is believed and taught about the spiritual gift of tongues in most Pentecostal churches today. God bless you my friend, retxar |
||||||
2 | Is tongues a matter of fact? | 1 Cor 14:5 | Aspilos | 55971 | ||
retxar, I don't recall pointing a finger at anyone in particular. The term Pentecostal may include a number of denominations. Don't be so offensive, I believe we are on the same side after all. I must tell you though, whether you know of it or not, there are, "mainline Pentecostal churches" that teach that speaking with tongues is a prerequisite to salvation. I have a close family member who attends such a church. They base their teaching on, "tongues being the evidence of the Holy Ghost" as well as, "scriptural examples and experiences." Again, tongues is not an, "evidence" mainly because it is not scriptural. And as you have already acknowledged, because it can be imitated. If someone is devious enough to pretend that they are speaking with tongues, does that mean they have received the Holy Ghost? I'm not accusing anyone, but we live in an evil day and it's not impossible. Don't avoid this question. It is important. Is the very sound of someone speaking in tongues, "evidence" that they have received the Holy Ghost? I think we both know the answer to that question. I Cor 14:21-22 explains clearly the purpose of speaking with tongues. That includes your example of Acts 10:47. 1 Corinthians 14 21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. 22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe. |
||||||
3 | Is tongues a matter of fact? | 1 Cor 14:5 | retxar | 55974 | ||
If you are to make such a broad accusation, you need to also point a finger! Otherwise, it sounds like you are accusing all Pentecostal churches of teaching that speaking with tongues is a prerequisite to salvation. Please name the "mainline" Pentecostal churches you are referring to, as I am a loss of who you may be talking about. In response to my previous interpretation of 1Co 14:21-22, you said, "I could not agree with you more on every thing that you have just said.” I said that scoff and ridicule of the Spiritual gift of tongues could bring judgement upon the unbelievers and the un-informed and that this possible judgement was the "sign" to unbelievers that Paul was talking about. I assume you have not changed on that position and we are still in agreement, but I don't quite see how that comes into play in Acts 10. Even tho no interpretation occurred, no scoff or ridicule occurred, because only those who believed and were informed were present. retxar |
||||||
4 | Is tongues a matter of fact? | 1 Cor 14:5 | Aspilos | 55995 | ||
Again, you are wrong my friend. You say in Acts 10:47, "only those who believed and were informed were present." Fact is, as I have already told you, it is obvious that they DID NOT BELIEVE that this Gospel was for the Gentiles. You see, they were, "astonished" for that very reason. So, through the Gentiles speaking with tongues, the Holy Spirit SIGNified to them that receiving the Holy Ghost was even for the likes of a Gentile, guiding them you might say, in the right direction and shining a light upon their understanding. 1 Cor. 14:22 Wherefore tongues are for a SIGN, not to them that believe, but TO THEM THAT BELIEVE NOT: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe. Again, tongues is not an, "evidence" mainly because it is not scriptural. And as you have already acknowledged, because it can be imitated. You seem to be avoiding my quesions, so I guess I'll just have to repeat them each time. If someone is devious enough to pretend that they are speaking with tongues, does that mean they have received the Holy Ghost? I'm not accusing anyone, but we live in an evil day and it's not impossible. Don't avoid this question. It is important. Is the very sound of someone speaking in tongues, "evidence" that they have received the Holy Ghost? I think we both know the answer to that question. I Cor 14:21-22 explains clearly the purpose of speaking with tongues. That includes your example of Acts 10:47. As for you accusing me of being an accuser, if I name a denomination for you, then an accuser I would be, no? I have no desire to personally attack anyone, but I do believe in attacking a lie. God Bless! Aspilos |
||||||
5 | Is tongues a matter of fact? | 1 Cor 14:5 | retxar | 56010 | ||
Greetings Aspilos, Not that your "question" really needs an answer (2Ti 2:23), but I guess everyone knows what is real is real and what is pretend is pretend. Please consider what I have already spoken to you concerning 1Co 14:21-22. If the "sign" Paul was speaking of serves as a "witness" to unbelievers, as you are saying, would he not be encouraging the church to speak in tongues to them, instead of warning of the hazards of doing so? READ VERSE 24. If you have the right interpretation, should Paul not have said that unbelievers are convinced by tongues instead of prophesy? How in the world is prophesy going to work on unbelievers if that is not the “sign” they need to believe? I believe I have stated my position well and don't really need to continue repeating myself. I’ll give you the last word here my friend, but unless you come up with something new to discuss concerning tongues, my tongue is about all talked out! "With other tongues and other lips I will speak to this people; And yet, for all that, they will not hear Me," says the Lord. retxar |
||||||
6 | Is tongues a matter of fact? | 1 Cor 14:5 | Aspilos | 56079 | ||
Hello retxar, If I didn't know any better I would think you were starting to take a liking to me. Without a doubt, we are just spinning our wheels now. Without scripture, you're not likely to convince me that speaking with tongues is an, "evidence" and it's obvious that you're not planning on changing your view either. You ended with a good verse, but you cut it short my friend. God Bless! Aspilos I Cor. 14 21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. 22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe. |
||||||