Go Back   Christian Guitar Forum > Deeper Issues > Theology
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Arcade Mark Forums Read

Closed Thread
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Unread 02-26-2005, 04:47 PM   #136
Banned
 
Lightknight's Avatar
 

Joined: Aug 2003
Location: Florida, yeah it's hot
Posts: 20,357
Send a message via AIM to Lightknight
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq
If Joel was inaugurated at Pentacost, and the young men will see visions and the old will dream dreams preceding to the coming terrible day of the Lord, does that not present a problem to your position. (A post or amil could I believe say this was past per peter's statement that this was fulfilled in their midst, but even so, it does not appear to fully fulfill the prophecies in Joel)
I'd have to say, if this is the new earth, it sucks...

But on a serious note. I don't see why even a postmil could argue that point. I mean, the days have not yet ended yet. Are we not still in the end times? All that peter would be talking about is the place where God poured out the gifts.

Act 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: (a reference to Joel 2:28)

Do the postmil/amil people believe that we are no longer in the last days? Has Christ already returned? I say surely not. But we should all take what Peter says as that. Because it is just the point at which the Spirit was poured out.

Lightknight is offline  
Sponsored Links
Unread 02-28-2005, 12:30 PM   #137
exo
A Provocative Title
 
exo's Avatar
 

Joined: Sep 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 3,521
Send a message via AIM to exo
Sorry I didn't get to this this weekend....

Quote:
I've been posting it over and over and over again. Here, I'll post one in a good size context and I'll emphasize the three main parts of tongues listed for you.

1Cr 14:13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue pray that he may interpret.
1Cr 14:14 For if I pray in an [unknown] tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
1Cr 14:15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.
1Cr 14:16 Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?

It is clearly refering to tongues here. As you should plainly be able to see.
I see the singing part (and did before you posted). But I still do not understand the blessing. Paul is on the same subject here (speaking in tongues in public vs. praying in tongues). I don't see any distinction of types of tongues here.

Quote:
These aren't the gifts of knowledge and wisdom. These are the gifts of words of wisdom and words of knowledge. They are directly from God. Knowledge and wisdom that is in us is from us. We can learn something, teach someone else it. We can go through a situation, warn others of this. No, those are divine gifts, not what you are calling them. Don't get me wrong, knowledge and wisdom should both be prayed for, but they aren't the same thing as a word of knowledge nad a word of wisdom.
I disagree with your interpretation of this passage. Again, if we are receiving direct revelation from God, why are we not adding to the canon? I think we might end up talking past each other in this instance, though. So I don't think it's really worth arguing.

Quote:
well, I see what you mean. But God did tell people what was going to happen in their lives, what courses they should take. Heck, "Go dip in the nile seven times and your leperosy will be cured". How much more fortune-telling sounding can you get?
That was healing and not prophecy.

Quote:
I really don't see the difference. It's like you're calling the same thing two different names and saying that one name is good because of what it is and the other name is good because of what the same thing is. Unless your key difference is the lack of glorification to God. Which would be correct. There does always need to be glorification of God in it. But telling people God's plan for them, what needs to be done, that is no different from what Ms. Cleo claims to be able to do.
I can't believe my eyes here to be honest. We are to be holy, set-apart, different than those of this world. If my prophecies are as accurate and of the same 'type' as Ms. Cleo's, then they are meaningless parlor tricks. Prophecy should be specific, undoubtable, from God, and glorifying to him.
__________________
Brian

"Trust in the LORD forever, for the LORD, the LORD is the rock eternal." Isaiah 26:4

Jesus is my Guild Leader.
exo is offline  
Unread 02-28-2005, 12:41 PM   #138
exo
A Provocative Title
 
exo's Avatar
 

Joined: Sep 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 3,521
Send a message via AIM to exo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dice
Exo are you just remarking on certain people or are you making a judgment of all glossolia?
Only certain people. I am a non-cessationist.

Quote:
I personally don't even know what I do, but it is very compelx and changes at different times. Only one of my friends has heard me use it (because I have no sense of novelty for it, only reverence and purpose) but he said it sounded like russian mixed with some latin. I wouldn't know, but like I said it changes now and then and it's always complex, I'm not sure if I'm speaking real languages and I guess I won't until I am in a situation where I feel it right to use practice them publically.
I'm glad that you use discernment with your gift.

Quote:
I didn't start as most people, I wasn't exposed to it prior and didn't ask and pray for it or anything like that. According to my mom it just started when I was young, like 3 or 4, and she says I was a much better tempered child afterwards. My first memory of it (though I suppose it points to use of it before the memory) was in sunday school when they introduced the concept to us kids, and I was like "oh you mean this?", so I guess I have a different experience with it than most.
To me, this sounds Biblical and I see nothing wrong with it.

Quote:
I can't say I'm certain what it is, but I take it to be a gift, I'm sure God doesn't mind what my mouth is doing if my mind is focused on Him and I keep it to myself. In personal prayer I will switch between that and english, and the next day or so I find the stuff I was praying for are the specific concerns/message of my campus minister for the week. I know that doesn't prove anything (maybe I just have good discernment) but who knows?
Remember to pray that you might interpret what you say (in private prayer) so that your mind may be fruitful also. Paul instructs this in 1 Cor 14. You may also have a great witnessing tool in your hands to be used at some point in time.

It's also great to see that you treat your gift very seriously. Even when it comes to the less controversial gifts, I don't think we all take our gifts seriously enough (myself included).

Right now, I am mainly questioning the 'heavenly tongues' and the regularity with which this gift happens primarily in Charismatic/Pentecostal denominations. We are also debating the use of prophecy today (I am still undecided on this issue... I think that prophecy still exists, but I have questions as to its function in the church).
__________________
Brian

"Trust in the LORD forever, for the LORD, the LORD is the rock eternal." Isaiah 26:4

Jesus is my Guild Leader.
exo is offline  
Unread 02-28-2005, 01:33 PM   #139
exo
A Provocative Title
 
exo's Avatar
 

Joined: Sep 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 3,521
Send a message via AIM to exo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightknight
Well, a lot of the context was actually putting tongues without interpretation down. So it could be that tongues is the only one that isn't a "greater" gifting.
I think you're thinking of 1 Corinthians 14, not 12. Go back and read 12... there's no mention of which gifts are greater (unless Paul is referring to love which follows in 1 Corinthians 13... which might make sense).

Quote:
It is important. I agree. But God didn't always give those along with the command. Point and case, "sacrifice your son, Isaac".
2 Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about."

It is true that the real reason was not given to Abraham. But the call was unmistakably from God, specific, and did give an initial (spiritual) reason.

Quote:
Oh, we have authority, plenty of it. I believe that we can all pray for healing and such. That we can all cast out demons. It's just that we might not particularly have the gift of healing (lol, some people call exorcism a gift... I laugh at that. I call it simply exercising our authority in Christ). A person with the gift of healing might be told who and when to pray for someone. Whereas you and me, we would just pray for it when the need comes up to us. A person with the gift of healing will pretty much see a result 100% of the time that they are operating in that gift because it is doing God's will. You and I will not see such a result because us praying for a person's healing isn't necessarily part of God's will. Now, in reference to the 100% thing. This does not mean that they will never "not" see a result. They aren't always operating in the gift. If they just decide to walk up to someone and pray for them without any prodding of the holy spirit, then it is no different from when you and I pray for them.
But healing does not require that the person is correct 100% of the time. We have a Biblical mandate for 100% accuracy with prophets.

I also see that you agree that we have authority, but not to the extent of the apostles (which I agree with). So, what is the extent of our authority then?

Quote:
Now, in reference for desiring the best of the gifts, pray for healing. Note that when refering to the gift of healing, it actually says "Gifts" not gift. That might be something interesting to ponder.
That might be a typo. I don't see that in the translations I am looking at.

Quote:
and all that being said, we don't have the authority that you are refering to. We are not apostles and did not exist in the early area of the church. Don't you see what accepting "prophecy" into the canon has done? Mormons and Jehova witnesses. Both are built upon the foundation of false prophecy.
This is why we test prophecy. They have been tested and have proven to be false.

Quote:
No, not all. A lot of people may have written later about them. But they themselves did not. I agree that we should write prophesies now days down. But we should not canonize them. The Bible already contains the begining and the end. That book is closed and ready for use.
Who says? The OT was 'closed' for 400 years.

Them writing about themselves vs. people writing about them later is the same difference to me. Prophets and the things they said/did were canonized.

Quote:
It is just too dangerous for us to accept anything new. We could write the stuff down as something that isn't to be considered biblical. But not as scripture. What we have already works. Don't go fixing something that isn't broke.
As dangerous as what the apostles were writing about Jesus? This is why we test prophets. The OT 'worked'. Why did we need the NT?

Quote:
Again, what are you getting at? are you seriously pressing for the canon to be reopened to additon? Or is there a point that we're supposed to reach?
No. I am trying to draw out what the implications are to having a Prophet around today. I am trying to discern what the role of a prophet is in the church.

Quote:
Not really, do you seriously think that every prophecy that they did is listed in the Bible? NO! just the ones that would affect us all.
Strawman that I've addressed a couple of times already.

Quote:
Which I would agree with. But you should start using little words like, "Many, most, some, few" instead of indicating ALL.
I think I recall saying, "All the prophets that I've encountered." This surely doesn't mean all the prophets in a general sense. But I will try to pick my words more carefully.

Quote:
EVERY gift in our New Testament can be found in other religions' attempts to practice them. Why are you singling out tongues? Is healing not a real gift from God because other people try to practice it? i.e. shamans...
Real healing comes from God, real miracles come from God. He is set apart and he sets us apart. We see this numerous times throughout the Old and New Testaments.

Quote:
LOL, there are of course false tongue talkers. Lol. Be very wary of them, you can tell them that they are falsely doing it and they'll just say that you're doing something ungodly in hindering them.

But as for heavenly languages, I would still venture that the words have fewer syllables than human ones. The point of language is to get an idea or concept across by using the fewest possible letters/symbols/words/motions.
Try telling that to the Chinese. Language is language. Did God not develop our language and languages? If he did, are our languages not a model of 'God's language'?

One thing to note here that I think argues against your point is this: As a language gets simpler, it takes FAR more sylables to communicate what's being said. Think of binary numbers vs. 10-base numbers. I could 'speak' in binary to you, but I could communicate more effectively and shortly by speaking in 10-base.

Quote:
I would thing that whatever tongue the angels speak in would be a perfect language. That's why I am curious as to whether or not it was the language we all spoke prior to the tower of babel. You know, why wouldn't we have had the same language as the angels then?
That would be curious.

Quote:
But there is a danger in people who repeat things over and over and people who speak in such a way that it is obvious that they are faking it. I would venture however, that some of those times you are actually seeing something known as stammering lips. They may be speaking in tongues but can't quite get the words out.

Isa 28:11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

Isa 33:19 Thou shalt not see a fierce people, a people of a deeper speech than thou canst perceive; of a stammering tongue, [that thou canst] not understand.
I haven't done much looking into stammering lips. It does seem to me to express the fear of the individual, though. Still, a language could be determined, because even in English, "I-I-I-I w-w-w-orship y-y-ou O G-g-god." is still discernable from "Shalalalalalalalalalal".

Quote:
Some people are quick to judge. But what they may not realise is that there is something that comes along with tongues that is not tongues. Understanding what stammering lips/tongues are could be very useful here. And could help you to understand better what may actually be going on in churches today. The verses above have probably widened your eyes in surprise a bit (it did me as the second reference was the first time I noticed it just now).
This is why I've told you in the past that if someone was claiming to be speaking in tongues, I was not attending their church, they were not a friend, and they practiced it properly, there would be no challenge from me.

Quote:
The ones in public have to earthen as there is not supposed to be interpretation there. To have interpretation would be no different from prophecy. And prophecy is not a sign for unbelievers. Note that by public I am refering to outside of the church setting. Speaking to unbelievers. Not to a group of believers in church.

good
OK. It looks like we are coming to some agreement on a couple of points.

Quote:
Just because other gifts say it doesn't mean that it isn't of God. The koran speaks so much about Jesus. More even than it does about Mahammud... (darn, how do you spell his name?). Yet in our religion we have Jesus too. Does that mean we should stop believing n Jesus?

Your arguement is in no ways a meaningful one. Just because other religions may mimick the things of ours doesn't mean that our practices are wrong. Do you see what I'm saying"?
Not really. Christians are holy, we are different. If our religion can just mimmick what others do or vice versa, of what meaning is it? I am reminded of how Jesus said that his miracles were a sign to those who didn't believe, how tongues are a sign for unbelievers, how God constantly in the OT reaffirmed that it was him doing the work.

Quote:
Great bro. It is excellent that you are doing so. That's all that it says. To seek/desire them. It isn't a continual process. I desire a car. I am not seeking one with singlemindedness and yet there is no point that I don't "desire" one. So it is proper that you are praying for them but not ALWAYS fighting for the gifts. You should try praying for specific gifts. That might help.
I am currently working through how to use and develop the gifts God has already given me (word of knowledge, word of wisdom, and faith (gift of faith here)).

Quote:
Good!!! You should test them. Don't fall prey to a false prophet or anyone who would abuse/use the gifts of God improperly. Even if they really have the gift, but are misusing it, it'd be as bad as Moses hitting the stone when he was told to speak. The Bible specifically tells us to test all spirits for EXACTLY that reason .

1Jo 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

It's awesome that you are naturally doing as the Bible tells us to do. So many people fall from not doing that.
I encourage you to keep on doing the same. I am glad that your church is a light.

Quote:
Well, it's important to know that these are two different letters. They could be speaking about the same thing. Emphasis on "could". But I doubt it as they are said in two different contexts. I am wary about saying the ones in ephesians is indeed tongues as that would help the arguement for tongues being a necessary sign of salvation. I absolutely abhor that belief as it says that everyone must speak in tongues when Paul clearly states that all do not (1 cor 12:30). Of course the greek being the same doesn't really impact this issue. If you only have one specific word that applies to two concepts, then you're going to use it both times. But in a different context. We know that the context in Corinthians is specifcally speaking about tongues. But ephesians offers no such context. I would instead argue that what ephesians is actually refering to is being in the spirit throughout your day. You know, walking according to your spirit and not according to the flesh. But verse 19 kinda makes me question that concept as it's wording seems so close. It is an interesting question indeed.
So, in that sense I have prayed in the Spirit.

Quote:
The Holy Spirit does indeed do that for us. But the gift of the spirit is also us praying for that. Again, back to the example of God not healing someone that we don't pray for them to be healed. It has a different outcome because we ACTUALLY pray for it.

As for it being God's will, it had better be, it is a gift directly from Him. It is the spirit speaking through us. It would be really... interesting, for it not to be something of God.

As for speaking in a tongue that you know, this does happen. Not always, but it does. But why bicker about the form of the gift God gives you if you understand it through interpretation anyways?

1Cr 14:9 So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.
I understand that by necessity, tongues are in alignment with God's will. But I'm still not sure as to how they are more in alignment with someone else praying in English especially considering that the Holy Spirit intercedes for us (and is therefore perfectly interceding for us) with things that we don't know what to pray about with words that cannot be uttered.

Quote:
Singing in tongues doesn't need to be interpreted. It isn't being spoken to us. Speaking in tongues is. As for being on some "higher plane", they are getting to use their gifts so I'd say that there should be a sense of elation in it. Should not the man who prays for someone that becomes healed rejoice?
Absolutely. I find though that people are looking for that emotional high rather than to be used properly by God. IOW, it's feeling good vs. glorifying God. However, that said, it is impossible to know the intentions of each individual, so, like I said above, if it's all being done properly, I don't have a problem with it all.

Quote:
No, because it isn't saying that it is wrong to pray in tongues without interpretation. It is just saying that it is better for our own understanding that we have that interpretation. The prayer still completes what it is supposed to. We just gain an understanding of what it was completing.
I still disagree here, but I don't really want to belabor this point. Your original statement was false. Paul does indeed discourage the private use of tongues without interpretation.

At any rate, even in private prayer, we should be praying for interpretation so that our mind is fruitful (and I think the same goes for singing in the spirit as well since he correlates the two).

Quote:
Alright man. You're an awesome brother in Christ and I am delighted to be able to have this conversation with you. Though now I am going to go learn some blacksmithing techniques so I won't be back till later today.
Thanks, bro. I do enjoy these conversations as well and look forward to meeting you one day (on earth or in heaven).

I just started a Druid. The pagan that I am....
__________________
Brian

"Trust in the LORD forever, for the LORD, the LORD is the rock eternal." Isaiah 26:4

Jesus is my Guild Leader.
exo is offline  
Unread 02-28-2005, 06:35 PM   #140
Banned
 
Lightknight's Avatar
 

Joined: Aug 2003
Location: Florida, yeah it's hot
Posts: 20,357
Send a message via AIM to Lightknight
Quote:
Originally Posted by exo
I see the singing part (and did before you posted). But I still do not understand the blessing. Paul is on the same subject here (speaking in tongues in public vs. praying in tongues). I don't see any distinction of types of tongues here.
I am under the impression that blessing in the spirit is praising God using tongues. Not singing (that's a different thing). Still though, even if I am wrong as to what blessing in tongues is, it is still listed as you can plainly see.

Quote:
I disagree with your interpretation of this passage. Again, if we are receiving direct revelation from God, why are we not adding to the canon? I think we might end up talking past each other in this instance, though. So I don't think it's really worth arguing.
No, as long as we aren't holding what is said as scripture (applying to all) then it is not held as canon. If God tells you to go on a fast, as He has many prophets in the past, it is not adding to scripture. It is God continuing to act with His children. You make it sound as if you don't think a Father should speak with His children anymore because that would be adding to the Bible. This is of course not true. We are under the new testament now. All of the ramifications of this new testament have been described thoroughly in the NT and no scripture should change the parameters of those things listed in the Bible. I really don't see what direction your trying to lead this in.

Remember that everything God says and does isn't necessarily put in scripture. The Bible does not mention EVERY interaction of God with His children. Heck, it even says that Jesus did many more things than that which is listed in the gospels. Why do you keep insisting that God giving us revelation nowadays should be put into the Bible? What makes the things that happen and aren't mentioned biblically any different from the things in the NT times that happened but weren't mentioned?

Quote:
That was healing and not prophecy.
No, he didn't heal him. He told him what God said for him to do in order to be healed. It was strictly the gift of prophecy and God took care of the rest.

Quote:
I can't believe my eyes here to be honest. We are to be holy, set-apart, different than those of this world. If my prophecies are as accurate and of the same 'type' as Ms. Cleo's, then they are meaningless parlor tricks. Prophecy should be specific, undoubtable, from God, and glorifying to him.
Ms. Cleo's parlor tricks are a cheap imitation of prophecy, exo. But regardless of the worthlessness of what she does, it is still made in the image of what prophecy is and has always been. You are making the mistake of assuming that the prophecy I'm speaking of is an imitation of Cleo's mess. But no, it's the other way around. Just because the world tries to imitate the powerful things of God doesn't mean that those powerful things of God which are now imitated (thusly look alike) by abominations does not mean that those powerful things of God should be put to an end. Nor does it lessen the power of the things of God. I don't get what you are driving at. Is healing someone of their injury not of God? So many other religions "practice" attempting to do it. So by your arguement healing isn't "godly". Prophecies have not always been undoubtedly from God. Heck, the Children of Israel thought many prophets were just insane. They didn't know for certain that what they spoke was of God. You are inserting how you feel about prophecy into the label of what it "has to be". But the Bible has already specified this. There's no reason to put our biases into that description.
Lightknight is offline  
Unread 02-28-2005, 07:45 PM   #141
Banned
 
Lightknight's Avatar
 

Joined: Aug 2003
Location: Florida, yeah it's hot
Posts: 20,357
Send a message via AIM to Lightknight
Quote:
Originally Posted by exo
I think you're thinking of 1 Corinthians 14, not 12. Go back and read 12... there's no mention of which gifts are greater (unless Paul is referring to love which follows in 1 Corinthians 13... which might make sense).
Ah, I see what you mean. Good point. It seems to just be refering to all of those gifts. Instead of all but tongues.

Quote:
2 Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about."

It is true that the real reason was not given to Abraham. But the call was unmistakably from God, specific, and did give an initial (spiritual) reason.
Still, it clashes something awful with your arguement.

Quote:
But healing does not require that the person is correct 100% of the time. We have a Biblical mandate for 100% accuracy with prophets.
Cite

Quote:
I also see that you agree that we have authority, but not to the extent of the apostles (which I agree with). So, what is the extent of our authority then?
We have less authority than the apostles because they were with Jesus and were directly taught what we all should know. Everything we have recieved is only second hand information on those events. They had first hand accounts. Whatever authority we have, it isn't enough to rival theirs or even match theirs. In the area of scholarship I mean. Spiritual authority as Christians could be equal to the apostles depending on faith. They were Christians just as you and I are.

Quote:
That might be a typo. I don't see that in the translations I am looking at.
It's actually not in the translation that I'm refering to. I'm refering to the greek. plural.

Quote:
This is why we test prophecy. They have been tested and have proven to be false.
But some believe. If we accepted every prophecy that we thought was true nowadays as scripture then we'd have millions of schisms.

Quote:
Who says? The OT was 'closed' for 400 years.

Them writing about themselves vs. people writing about them later is the same difference to me. Prophets and the things they said/did were canonized.
Were all prophets mentioned?

Quote:
As dangerous as what the apostles were writing about Jesus? This is why we test prophets. The OT 'worked'. Why did we need the NT?
different covenants.

Quote:
No. I am trying to draw out what the implications are to having a Prophet around today. I am trying to discern what the role of a prophet is in the church.
Not to create doctrine. I've already specified the roles. What more is needed?

Quote:
Strawman that I've addressed a couple of times already.
Not really, the point that the Bible isn't just a cesspool for which EVERY interaction between God and man is listed carries a lot of weight in this arguement. If the Bible included everything, then you would have an arguement.

Quote:
I think I recall saying, "All the prophets that I've encountered." This surely doesn't mean all the prophets in a general sense. But I will try to pick my words more carefully.
Ah, kk.

Quote:
Real healing comes from God, real miracles come from God. He is set apart and he sets us apart. We see this numerous times throughout the Old and New Testaments.
Alright? So where are you disagreeing with me then? Just because a "real" gift is similar to that of another religion does'nt make it incorrect.

Quote:
Try telling that to the Chinese. Language is language. Did God not develop our language and languages? If he did, are our languages not a model of 'God's language'?

One thing to note here that I think argues against your point is this: As a language gets simpler, it takes FAR more sylables to communicate what's being said. Think of binary numbers vs. 10-base numbers. I could 'speak' in binary to you, but I could communicate more effectively and shortly by speaking in 10-base.
Just because binary has fewer characters doesn't make it simpler. It is much longer than "10-based" numbers. Correct? The point is to become as definative as possible in the easiest way. Antidisestablishmentarianism may be used to describe people who are against tearing stuff down, but saying that someone is against tearing old buildings down is more specific. What if all of that could be converted into a phrase like, "la". Wouldn't that make it a more efficient language?

Quote:
That would be curious.
It almost seems logical. But there's really no backing for it other than "logic" and that isn't acceptable by my standards as evidence here.

Quote:
I haven't done much looking into stammering lips. It does seem to me to express the fear of the individual, though. Still, a language could be determined, because even in English, "I-I-I-I w-w-w-orship y-y-ou O G-g-god." is still discernable from "Shalalalalalalalalalal".
Fear? Where do you get that from? The Hebrew seems to almost indicate a mocking nature of it. Most interesting indeed.

Again, I am not disagreeing that "shalalalalalalal" isn't a language. But I am disagreeing that it can't be from God. Such an assertion would be a dangerous one to make.

Quote:
This is why I've told you in the past that if someone was claiming to be speaking in tongues, I was not attending their church, they were not a friend, and they practiced it properly, there would be no challenge from me.
Um... what is this responding to in the quote of me?

Quote:
OK. It looks like we are coming to some agreement on a couple of points.
again, good. This is how debates should be. Sure there will be areas that generally will remain disagreed on. But hopefully some things will be smoothed out.

Quote:
Not really. Christians are holy, we are different. If our religion can just mimmick what others do or vice versa, of what meaning is it? I am reminded of how Jesus said that his miracles were a sign to those who didn't believe, how tongues are a sign for unbelievers, how God constantly in the OT reaffirmed that it was him doing the work.
The staff turning into a snake was mimmickable by the pharoh's socerers. Does this mean that the staff turning into a snake (moses' staff I mean) was not of God? But rather a parlor trick because it was exactly like the pharoh's socerers were able to do?

Quote:
I am currently working through how to use and develop the gifts God has already given me (word of knowledge, word of wisdom, and faith (gift of faith here)).
Awesome!

Quote:
I encourage you to keep on doing the same. I am glad that your church is a light.
Well, we are trying to be one.

Quote:
So, in that sense I have prayed in the Spirit.
Well, yes. but not in tongues .

Quote:
I understand that by necessity, tongues are in alignment with God's will. But I'm still not sure as to how they are more in alignment with someone else praying in English especially considering that the Holy Spirit intercedes for us (and is therefore perfectly interceding for us) with things that we don't know what to pray about with words that cannot be uttered.
Well, prayer in English could be anything. Someone praying for a cheap prostitute is still prayer. But not in God's will. Again, there are times that God doesn't move on something UNTIL we pray. Healing is always a prime example of that.

Quote:
Absolutely. I find though that people are looking for that emotional high rather than to be used properly by God. IOW, it's feeling good vs. glorifying God. However, that said, it is impossible to know the intentions of each individual, so, like I said above, if it's all being done properly, I don't have a problem with it all.
Quote:
I still disagree here, but I don't really want to belabor this point. Your original statement was false. Paul does indeed discourage the private use of tongues without interpretation.

At any rate, even in private prayer, we should be praying for interpretation so that our mind is fruitful (and I think the same goes for singing in the spirit as well since he correlates the two).
I think that your emphasis is misplaced. Paul doesn't speak out against praying in tongues without interpretation. But rather he encourages us to pray for interpretation. Thusly my premis is completely valid as my emphasis is the same as Paul's. Yours is the one that is off as you change the emphasis from one point to another and transfer that into your arguement.

Quote:
Thanks, bro. I do enjoy these conversations as well and look forward to meeting you one day (on earth or in heaven).

I just started a Druid. The pagan that I am....
Druid?
Lightknight is offline  
Unread 03-02-2005, 01:02 PM   #142
exo
A Provocative Title
 
exo's Avatar
 

Joined: Sep 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 3,521
Send a message via AIM to exo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightknight
I am under the impression that blessing in the spirit is praising God using tongues. Not singing (that's a different thing). Still though, even if I am wrong as to what blessing in tongues is, it is still listed as you can plainly see.
But he's using them in the context of a person not being able to understand him (and that this is not good). So, to me, I see it as addressing public tongues still.

Quote:
No, as long as we aren't holding what is said as scripture (applying to all) then it is not held as canon. If God tells you to go on a fast, as He has many prophets in the past, it is not adding to scripture. It is God continuing to act with His children. You make it sound as if you don't think a Father should speak with His children anymore because that would be adding to the Bible. This is of course not true. We are under the new testament now. All of the ramifications of this new testament have been described thoroughly in the NT and no scripture should change the parameters of those things listed in the Bible. I really don't see what direction your trying to lead this in.

Remember that everything God says and does isn't necessarily put in scripture. The Bible does not mention EVERY interaction of God with His children. Heck, it even says that Jesus did many more things than that which is listed in the gospels. Why do you keep insisting that God giving us revelation nowadays should be put into the Bible? What makes the things that happen and aren't mentioned biblically any different from the things in the NT times that happened but weren't mentioned?
Like I've said before, it's not that we have to put everything that a prophet says into canon, I am saying, "Isn't it possible?" You have strawmanned me a couple of times like this... there's really no need to.

If it's not possible (which is what you are claiming), then prophets nowadays must be fundamentally different in their operation than they were in the OT and NT.

Quote:
No, he didn't heal him. He told him what God said for him to do in order to be healed. It was strictly the gift of prophecy and God took care of the rest.
I am really not seeing how this is prophetic. Can you give me the Scripture reference? I'm having a hard time finding it.

Quote:
Ms. Cleo's parlor tricks are a cheap imitation of prophecy, exo. But regardless of the worthlessness of what she does, it is still made in the image of what prophecy is and has always been. You are making the mistake of assuming that the prophecy I'm speaking of is an imitation of Cleo's mess. But no, it's the other way around.
Indeed. True prophecy is the real deal. I just do not see it happening at all today even though many claim themselves to be prophets.

Quote:
Just because the world tries to imitate the powerful things of God doesn't mean that those powerful things of God which are now imitated (thusly look alike) by abominations does not mean that those powerful things of God should be put to an end. Nor does it lessen the power of the things of God. I don't get what you are driving at. Is healing someone of their injury not of God? So many other religions "practice" attempting to do it. So by your arguement healing isn't "godly". Prophecies have not always been undoubtedly from God. Heck, the Children of Israel thought many prophets were just insane. They didn't know for certain that what they spoke was of God. You are inserting how you feel about prophecy into the label of what it "has to be". But the Bible has already specified this. There's no reason to put our biases into that description.
Yes, but true prophecy and true healing come from God. And we can test these things to know that they are indeed from God.
__________________
Brian

"Trust in the LORD forever, for the LORD, the LORD is the rock eternal." Isaiah 26:4

Jesus is my Guild Leader.
exo is offline  
Unread 03-02-2005, 01:36 PM   #143
exo
A Provocative Title
 
exo's Avatar
 

Joined: Sep 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 3,521
Send a message via AIM to exo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightknight
Ah, I see what you mean. Good point. It seems to just be refering to all of those gifts. Instead of all but tongues.
So, then which gifts should we pursue? Why are not the gifts of (the word of) wisdom and knowledge pursued as fervently as tongues?

Quote:
Still, it clashes something awful with your arguement.
How does it clash with my arguement? When God speaks, we know it is Him, His direction is very specific, and we know the spiritual reasoning behind it (or at a minimum the result of it).

Quote:
Cite
BillSPrestonEsq already gave the Scripture for that. It is also common sense: If a prophet is not right 100% of the time, we can never trust what they say, because that specific time could be the time they are wrong. They could get it right 10 times in a row, and then wrong 10 times in a row. There would be no reason to ever trust what they say.

Quote:
We have less authority than the apostles because they were with Jesus and were directly taught what we all should know. Everything we have recieved is only second hand information on those events. They had first hand accounts. Whatever authority we have, it isn't enough to rival theirs or even match theirs. In the area of scholarship I mean. Spiritual authority as Christians could be equal to the apostles depending on faith. They were Christians just as you and I are.
I think we are referring to spiritual authority here, don't you think?

Quote:
It's actually not in the translation that I'm refering to. I'm refering to the greek. plural.
Can you point me to the verse please? I am having trouble finding it.

Quote:
But some believe. If we accepted every prophecy that we thought was true nowadays as scripture then we'd have millions of schisms.
Strawman.

Quote:
Were all prophets mentioned?
Strawman.

Quote:
different covenants.
And we are still in that covenant. Who is to say there won't be a new one? The Jews, while they expected a Messiah, certainly didn't expect a new covenant.

And you did address my point. You stated that it is dangerous to add to Scripture at this point (which I agree with, btw), but to have prophets around today that are like those in the Old and New Testaments would possibly merit additions to the canon. Again, this is why we test them.

Quote:
Not to create doctrine. I've already specified the roles. What more is needed?
Biblical support.

Quote:
Not really, the point that the Bible isn't just a cesspool for which EVERY interaction between God and man is listed carries a lot of weight in this arguement. If the Bible included everything, then you would have an arguement.
I still have an argument if prophets fulfill the same role that they did in the Old and New Testaments.

Ah, kk.

Quote:
Alright? So where are you disagreeing with me then? Just because a "real" gift is similar to that of another religion does'nt make it incorrect.
Right, it doesn't make it incorrect. But when you see the gift being practiced in the exact same manner as other religions, you can call that supposed gift into question.

Quote:
Just because binary has fewer characters doesn't make it simpler. It is much longer than "10-based" numbers. Correct? The point is to become as definative as possible in the easiest way. Antidisestablishmentarianism may be used to describe people who are against tearing stuff down, but saying that someone is against tearing old buildings down is more specific. What if all of that could be converted into a phrase like, "la". Wouldn't that make it a more efficient language?
Yes that is more efficient, but it is also less meaningful. If 'la' = antidisestablishmentarianism, then what does, "Sha la la la la la la ba lala la la" mean?

Let me restate what I said earlier: If a language has only a small amount of syllables, it takes FAR more syllables to communicate what's being said (this is actually seen in a language like Japanese vs. English). If your definition of 'efficiency' = fewer syllables, then it ends up being vastly inefficient because of the amount of syllables you have to use to express something.

To me efficient = Saying something of meaning in the fewest amount of syllables possible. You CANNOT do this with only a few syllables. It is impossible.

Quote:
It almost seems logical. But there's really no backing for it other than "logic" and that isn't acceptable by my standards as evidence here.
How do we test things then? Surely we can test some things through the use of the Word, but does our common sense not lend us some facilities for this? That is not to say that we should rely solely on our common sense, nor does it imply that in every situation common sense will always be present (i.e. turn the other cheek). But in a situation like this where someone is claiming to do something that is not verifiable and solely comes from that person's integrity of their word, I think common sense can apply.

Quote:
Fear? Where do you get that from? The Hebrew seems to almost indicate a mocking nature of it. Most interesting indeed.

Again, I am not disagreeing that "shalalalalalalal" isn't a language. But I am disagreeing that it can't be from God. Such an assertion would be a dangerous one to make.
Of course, it could be from God. Anything could be from God (and this is important) if I claim it to be.

Quote:
Um... what is this responding to in the quote of me?
Just a general comment in response to what I quoted.

Quote:
again, good. This is how debates should be. Sure there will be areas that generally will remain disagreed on. But hopefully some things will be smoothed out.

The staff turning into a snake was mimmickable by the pharoh's socerers. Does this mean that the staff turning into a snake (moses' staff I mean) was not of God? But rather a parlor trick because it was exactly like the pharoh's socerers were able to do?
But it wasn't the same. And the snake ate the other snakes.

Quote:
Well, prayer in English could be anything. Someone praying for a cheap prostitute is still prayer. But not in God's will. Again, there are times that God doesn't move on something UNTIL we pray. Healing is always a prime example of that.
Which is why I think that Paul calls us to seek interpretation even in private prayer. Who knows what the heck we are praying especially in the case that we are not praying in tongues at all (please don't misconstrue this to mean that I think we might be praying for prostitutes in tongues... I'm not.)? What I mean to say is that the interpretation confirms that it is from God and our mind is fruitful (we know what God's will is for sure!).

Quote:
I think that your emphasis is misplaced. Paul doesn't speak out against praying in tongues without interpretation. But rather he encourages us to pray for interpretation. Thusly my premis is completely valid as my emphasis is the same as Paul's. Yours is the one that is off as you change the emphasis from one point to another and transfer that into your arguement.
Your emphasis is that we are never discouraged from praying in tongues without interpretation. Yet Paul says to always seek an interpretation when praying in tongues.

If I say you should always ask your mother and I permission to go to the movies, I am both encouraging my child to ask me and discouraging them from not asking.

Quote:
Druid?
Yes, my bear form will pwn j00.
__________________
Brian

"Trust in the LORD forever, for the LORD, the LORD is the rock eternal." Isaiah 26:4

Jesus is my Guild Leader.
exo is offline  
Unread 06-16-2005, 06:21 PM   #144
Banned
 
Not Yet's Avatar
 

Joined: Apr 2005
Location: Central Fl. Polk & H'boro Co.
Posts: 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq
I am of a different opinion than I have seen presented here.

Non-cessaionist who is skeptical. I always when I hear of a phenomenon which claims to be of the Spirit think it must be measured against the word of God and must be done in order. In the old Testament, God did not give prophecy or miralces to 1% of his people. We see one or two in a generation, amidst millions. Hence, i would wager that these thins could exist, but would be very rare, and MUST be subjected to close scrutiny via the Word of God.

John said we had to test the Spirits whether they are of God because many false prophets would arise. hence, I think we need to focus when these things do seem to occur on testing their origins.
I would have to agree whole heartedly with this statement, and add that, to the discerning spirit it is evident that 99 % of the Televangelists are no more than false prophets. Why else would they attract the followings they do, for the natural man cannot comprehend Gods truth. Something is wrong.

NYP
Not Yet is offline  
Unread 06-19-2005, 09:58 AM   #145
Banned
 
Lightknight's Avatar
 

Joined: Aug 2003
Location: Florida, yeah it's hot
Posts: 20,357
Send a message via AIM to Lightknight
Ah, I see, Someone ressurected an old thread. I was confused as to why.
Lightknight is offline  
Unread 06-20-2005, 07:39 AM   #146
Registered User
 

Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 457
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverNitrate
Why is it surprising? When I look around... who has these gifts? Only the Pentecostals. If these gifts are still around today I'm almost certain that people in other denominations would have them as well. Since no other denomination receives these gifts, I'm forced to believe that these gifts do not truely exist anymore.
SilverNitrate

1. What you are saying doesn't make a lick of sense. If the gifts weren't given any more, then Pentecostals would not have them, either. If the Pentecostals have them, then the gifts have not ceased.

2. People in various denominations do have gifts. That was what happened in the Charismatic movement.

3. If you would study church history, you would find out that a lot of this gifts showed up from time to time throughout history before the Pentecostal movement started. You might try _The Spirit and The Church_ by Burgess. i checked out his Antiquity volume, volume I. it contains a lot of quotes from patristic writers and other writers of the time period.
Link H is offline  
Unread 06-20-2005, 09:25 AM   #147
you're all or not
 
sk8rchik's Avatar
 

Joined: Apr 2005
Location: wherever you think i am
Posts: 311
Send a message via AIM to sk8rchik
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightknight

Act 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: (a reference to Joel 2:28)

Do the postmil/amil people believe that we are no longer in the last days? Has Christ already returned? I say surely not. But we should all take what Peter says as that. Because it is just the point at which the Spirit was poured out.
basically my thoughts. the gifts of the Spirit have not ceased. and many ppl who are not pentecostal still have them and work in them. neway, if you said that things like tongues and prophecying ceased then you'd also have to say that there are no real pastors, teachers and so forth, b/c those are also some of the gifts of the Spirit. i don't know why ppl find it hard to believe that tongues and prophecying still exist but they don't find it hard to believe that there are still pastors, teachers, encouragers, givers and such.
__________________
The greatest thing you'll ever learn
Is just to love
And be loved in return
sk8rchik is offline  
Unread 06-20-2005, 12:55 PM   #148
Banned
 
Lightknight's Avatar
 

Joined: Aug 2003
Location: Florida, yeah it's hot
Posts: 20,357
Send a message via AIM to Lightknight
Guys, this thread is very old. We already have a thread on cessationism and non-cessationism. Can someone close this thread or something?
Lightknight is offline  
Unread 06-20-2005, 01:03 PM   #149
It's not easy being green
 

Joined: Aug 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 5,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightknight
Guys, this thread is very old. We already have a thread on cessationism and non-cessationism. Can someone close this thread or something?
Yup.
__________________
Chris Harbison
http://chrisharbison.blogspot.com
ChrisHarbison is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:30 AM.


Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2