Gombs:




I don't need back up... I've always left a discussion with you when you go haywire and start throwing tantrums.

So now, "son" is demeaning? Noted Bro!

Am mighty surprised you started dropping the word 'son' halfway when the going got rough.

Am still waiting for the DIFFERENCE between the gift of tongues exercised by the called and uncalled

Gombs,

there is a difference between the gift of tongues that accompanies the baptism in the Holy Spirit, which every believer can receive, and the gift of tongues that is a ministry gift.

What difference?
Verses please!

Winsomex,
This is straight from MacArthur, the same source you quoted.

a. The Gift of Prophecy

"...whether there be prophecies, they shall be done away..."

The plural word "prophecies" is making reference to the result of the gift of prophecy--many prophecies. Basically, this gift was the ability to proclaim God's truth publicly. The Greek word for prophecy comes from the two Greek words pro (meaning "before" and phemi (meaning "to speak". So it literally means "to speak before." Its primary use is "to speak before an audience" (forthtelling), not "to speak before" in terms of time (foretelling). The gift of prophecy, then, was to speak before people, proclaiming the Word of God. The purpose of this gift is indicated in 1 Corinthians 14:3, where Paul says, "But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort." Someone with this gift speaks to build others up, to encourage them to good behavior, and to comfort them in their trouble. That is the gift of prophecy.

Do you agree with him?
If you do, tell me the difference between prophesying and teaching and also on what basis 'forth telling is primary and not foretelling.

The reason I ask is because Paul who would not suffer women to teach men had no qualms with women prophesying in public. This tells me prophecy is not primarily or even secondarily teaching else Paul contradicted himself.

Am currently researching on the 'prophecy is more of forthtelling than foretelling' cliche which is quite popular. I want to understand its historicity. Just like so many strands of WoF go back to Keynon, am certain there was a man who said this and it was accepted as the truth.

PS
Am not challenging your beliefs so don't get defensive

vooks:

Winsomex,
This is straight from MacArthur, the same source you quoted.

Do I suppose you or Gombs have no objection to the previous post I made quoting MacArthur?

vooks:

Do you agree with him?
If you do, tell me the difference between prophesying and teaching and also on what basis 'forth telling is primary and not foretelling.

I agree with him.

I believe in the same quote he made it clear that prophesying was primarily speaking forth in the days Paul used the term. However its use in that scripture will certainly including foretelling. Revelation having ceased (Jude 3, Rev 22:18-19), anyone prophesying today is only forth telling. Any foreteller is a false prophet.

The distinction BTW prophesying then and teaching is basically the difference BTW Preaching and Teaching.

vooks:

The reason I ask is because Paul who would not suffer women to teach men had no qualms with women prophesying in public. This tells me prophecy is not primarily or even secondarily teaching else Paul contradicted himself.

I'm not sure I know of any scripture Paul stated that women could prophesy publicly. What I can remember is him instructing women not to speak in public, talk less prophesy. Pls refer to the scripture you have in mind

vooks:

Am currently researching on the 'prophecy is more of forthtelling than foretelling' cliche which is quite popular. I want to understand its historicity. Just like so many strands of WoF go back to Keynon, am certain there was a man who said this and it was accepted as the truth.

I look fwd to your findings

vooks:
PS
Am not challenging your beliefs so don't get defensive

No trouble. Peace.

vooks:
Gombs,



What difference?
Verses please!

I've already explained this... Quit holding on to straws.


So, if one can't yet interpret his tongues, they shouldn't even bother speaking it?

You lot were asking where asking if Paul wrote about speaking in tongues in private prayers... A yes of course.

He however spoke about speaking in tongues to the public, as there is no need for it, if one can't interpret it.

I wonder why you keep getting jittery at what I write, only to misunderstand them, to suit your stance. Remember, we're sharing beliefs, I'm not in the view of forcing you to believe, so should you.

WinsomeX:



Do I suppose you or Gombs have no objection to the previous post I made quoting MacArthur?

I can't speak for Gombs but I deem it waste of good education,splitting hairs and intellectual dishonesty.
1. Nobody for a second denies that the gifts are temporary
2. The Greek, that tongues will 'auto-cease' while prophesy and knowledge will be 'terminated' is another disingenuous attempt to explain away HISTORICAL instances of miracles and prophecies long after the tongues. The idea is tongues 'auto-cease' well before the 'completion of canon'. You won't meet a more dishonest man than MacArthur. He for instance won't mention Iraneus because he recorded spiritual gifts long after John the revelator. He also quotes Augustine early statement on spiritual gifts and ignores a later statement where he acknowledged existence of the gifts.

I agree with him.

Ok

I believe in the same quote he made it clear that prophesying was primarily speaking forth in the days Paul used the term. However its use in that scripture will certainly including foretelling. Revelation having ceased (Jude 3, Rev 22:18-19), anyone prophesying today is only forth telling. Any foreteller is a false prophet.

Here you are making up more rules. This time,
1. pre-Revelation prophecies had elements of foretelling but post-Revelation had none.
2. NT Canon did away with the need for foretelling

Now that you hint at probable existence of prophets today (forth but NEVER foretelling), when Paul says prophecy will fail, how do you know which aspect of prophecy (forth/fore) he was talking about?

The distinction BTW prophesying then and teaching is basically the difference BTW Preaching and Teaching.

Which is what?

I'm not sure I know of any scripture Paul stated that women could prophesy publicly. What I can remember is him instructing women not to speak in public, talk less prophesy. Pls refer to the scripture you have in mind

1 Cor 11:5 (ESV)
but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven

I look fwd to your findings



No trouble. Peace.

Same

Gombs:


I've already explained this... Quit holding on to straws.

No you haven't

there is a difference between the gift of tongues that accompanies the baptism in the Holy Spirit, which every believer can receive, and the gift of tongues that is a ministry gift.[

Gombs, what DIFFERENCE exists between these two?
How does operation of the SAME gift differ from the called to the uncalled?

So, if one can't yet interpret his tongues, they shouldn't even bother speaking it?

They should NEVER exercise the gift in public. How often do you disregard this?

You lot were asking where asking if Paul wrote about speaking in tongues in private prayers... A yes of course.

Definitely not me. As I said, uninterpteted tongues have no place in public worship seeing they only benefit the speaker but they are still potent in that they edify. Do you pray in uninterpteted tongues in public?

He however spoke about speaking in tongues to the public, as there is no need for it, if one can't interpret it.

Prayer too. How does one say AMEN to your giving if thanks if they can't hear? Paul is clear, no uninterpteted UNINTELLIGIBLE of any sort is to be had in public
1 Cor 14:16 (ESV)
Otherwise, if you give thanks with your spirit, how can anyone in the position of an outsider say “Amen” to your thanksgiving when he does not know what you are saying?

I wonder why you keep getting jittery at what I write, only to misunderstand them, to suit your stance. Remember, we're sharing beliefs, I'm not in the view of forcing you to believe, so should you.

That's what am wondering too. Why are you getting worked up? Substantiate your beliefs with scriptures. Back your posts with scriptures and drop empty cliches and we will be buddies. Or zip it. Nothing irritates me more than regurgitating traditions of men with stunning eloquence.

I don't know if this is cliché but vooks has said all I wanted to say

I've decided to take the back seat and learn through discussions such as this particularly when I see one or two brothers doing justice to it like vooks is currently doing.

I had sympathy for cessationism before but I've had to backtrack because I honestly can't conclude based on 1Cor 13:8.

The obvious abuse by the pentecostal movement which has elevated such gifts to status symbols doesn't help matters but despite that, i always have to tell myself that "God can't be put in a box by cessationsists or by Pentecostals"

If a brother insists he speaks in tongues, I say congrats to him. Our quarell starts when he starts insisting that another child of God can't get to enjoy God fully until he starts speaking in tongues and of course I can't understand the 'need' to turn places of worship into a madhouse despite this caution from apostle Paul

1 Corinthians 14:19, 23 KJV
Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue. [23] If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?

God bless us plenty

vooks:
?
1 Cor 11:5 (ESV)
but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven

OK. I see your point.

Philippians 4:2 I beseech Euodias, and beseech Syntyche, that they be of the same mind in the Lord. 4:3 And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life.

In the above scripture we see some women "laboring" in the gospel with Paul. Shall we conclude that this laboring excludes preaching?

Remember also that I said that that prophesying in bible time will include revelation. Philip's daughters prophesied. Let's say 1 Cor 11:5 is not sufficient ground to refute prophesying as preaching. Let's see the result of your findings.

WinsomeX:


OK. I see your point.

Philippians 4:2 I beseech Euodias, and beseech Syntyche, that they be of the same mind in the Lord. 4:3 And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life.

In the above scripture we see some women "laboring" in the gospel with Paul. Shall we conclude that this laboring excludes preaching?

Remember also that I said that that prophesying in bible time will include revelation. Philip's daughters prophesied. Let's say 1 Cor 11:5 is not sufficient ground to refute prophesying as preaching. Let's see the result of your findings.

I think you have it in reverse.
Women labored with Paul right but he would not suffer them to teach men and they were to keep silent and learn from men. Yet they could prophesy and your definition of prophesying is 'forth-telling' and foretelling. The one example we have of prophecy is foretelling. So either women prophets in NT were only allowed to prophesy very far away from men if prophecy is 'forth telling' or prophecy is not 'forth telling' as commonly and without scriptural basis held.

When one looks at OT women prophets, they had a public ministry and they did prophesy over men. Examples include Miriam and Huldah (2 King 22:14-20). One has to really wonder how different an NT prophetess is from an OT prophetess. I insist they are not

Another point. Prophecy seems spontaneous from 1 Cor 14. A prophet just receives a word in public worship, so much that Paul had to remind them that the prophet spirit was still subject to the prophet and the spontaneity was no excuse for chaos. They were to 'hold it' and prophesy in turns as others checked the prophecy out.

Now,
1. If women were banned from forth telling (teaching) men, then the Holy Spirit would NEVER move among women to prophesy in public with men present lest they start forth telling (teaching) men which they were not supposed to.

2.The other possibility is women prophecy was of a different class from men prophecy. May be men forth told while women foretold. Since foretelling is not teaching, they could exercise it in presence of men so Paul was not contradicting himself.

#1 and #2 are really self-imposed conundrum. They are rooted on assumption that OT prophets are different from NT prophers and also the redefinition of prophecy to 'more forth telling( teaching) than fore telling'.

I suspect a suspect motive for redefining prophecy to have more forth-telling than foretelling. It is far much easier to forth tell than foretell.

Winsomex, Candour, Gombs sharing on the resurrection of Jesus is really forth telling and so he is prophesying. It is very easy to teach scriptures with little room for error and claim the Lord led you, illuminated verses bla de bla.....MacArthur is a great prophet so to speak. He has written books. In fact, to be a prophet all one has to do is to study scriptures diligently. Apollos was a man mighty in scriptures so he was a prophet.... John Calvin too!

Foretelling is a nightmare. Accuracy is IT or you lose your head. But you can't know the future except the Lord revealed it. That's why few want anything to do with this 'component' of prophecy. Their gift can easily be called out as a sham when you miss out on either occurrence or timing. TB Joshua has some smart video editors to tie loose ends.

Prophecy is PRIMARILY foretelling and not forth telling

vooks,

Prophecy

Written by Gösta W. Ahlström

Last Updated 10-15-2014

Prophecy, in religion , a divinely inspired revelation or interpretation. Although prophecy is perhaps most commonly associated with Judaism and Christianity, it is found throughout the religions of the world, both ancient and modern.

In its narrower sense, the term prophet ( Greek prophētēs, “forthteller”) refers to an inspired person who believes that he has been sent by his god with a message to tell. He is, in that sense, the mouthpiece of his god . In a broader sense, the word can refer to anybody who utters the will of a deity, often ascertained through visions, dreams, or the casting of lots; the will of the deity also may be spoken in a liturgical setting. The prophet, thus, is often associated with the priest , the shaman (a religious figure in tribal societies who functions as a healer, diviner, and possessor of psychic powers), the diviner (foreteller), and the mystic .

www.global.britannica.com/topic/prophecy

Read the remaining article and note the bold. Brittinicca says in a narrow sense prophecy is forthtelling, in other words primarily prophecy is forthtelling. In a broader sense it includes foretelling.

WinsomeX:
vooks,

Prophecy

Written by Gösta W. Ahlström

Last Updated 10-15-2014

Prophecy, in religion , a divinely inspired revelation or interpretation. Although prophecy is perhaps most commonly associated with Judaism and Christianity, it is found throughout the religions of the world, both ancient and modern.

In its narrower sense, the term prophet ( Greek prophētēs, “forthteller”) refers to an inspired person who believes that he has been sent by his god with a message to tell. He is, in that sense, the mouthpiece of his god . In a broader sense, the word can refer to anybody who utters the will of a deity, often ascertained through visions, dreams, or the casting of lots; the will of the deity also may be spoken in a liturgical setting. The prophet, thus, is often associated with the priest , the shaman (a religious figure in tribal societies who functions as a healer, diviner, and possessor of psychic powers), the diviner (foreteller), and the mystic .

www.global.britannica.com/topic/prophecy

Read the remaining article and note the bold. Brittinicca says in a narrow sense prophecy is forthtelling, in other words primarily prophecy is forthtelling. In a broader sense it includes foretelling.

If the narrow sense of prophecy is forth telling, that means forth telling is a minor component of prophecy and not the other way round

Either way, women filled this office very much as men.

That we had Teachers,Knowledge and Wisdom tells me this gift did something else apart from any of these three yet the three encompass the general idea of forth-telling. Can you see why I insist forth telling was not the highlight of this gift in NT?

OTHER FLAWS IN PENTECOSTALISM

Ditching the Charismatic movement was no light decision on my part. It was leaving the known for the unknown. There is a certain security Pentecostalism offers its adherents. There is the early morning barrage of tongues that gives one the sense that you are immune to all attacks of Satan. There is that Word of Knowledge/Wisdom that comes in meetings that could single you out for a breakthrough. You have your charismatic pastor who offers you a covering. Not to mention your monthly insurance of tithing that is meant to secure your finances and shield your family from illness. Therefore, stepping out of all these into the uncertain life of simple faith based on simple prayers anchored on the simple words of truth written in scriptures was an arduous task for me but I had to do it. I have found out that when Paul instructs that the just will live by faith, this is what he meant.

The following are other albatrosses in the Pentecostal religion.

1. Prosperity

While I have mentioned this before, it is worth expounding on. Pentecostalism leads ultimately to the Prosperity Message. The gospel of prosperity teaches that Jesus Christ died to make men healthy and wealthy. Historically, many orthodox pentecostal churches rejected this gospel of prosperity. Today virtually all pentecostal churches subscribe to the notion that Jesus wishes to make Christians healthy and wealthy. They have reached this inevitable conclusion because pentecostal stems from a similar foundation. When glossolalia was discovered in 1900/1906, the focus of the church shifted from spiritual vitality to healing of diseases, miracles, signs and wonders, and tongues for personal edification. The pentecostal churches had redefined the purpose of the NT Charismatic gifts. Rather than being used to point men to Jesus and the gospel message, so as to bring human beings to faith in Christ and a knowledge of God, the gifts were perverted and made to satisfy people's needs. So rather than Kingdom benefit, the gifts were used for self benefits. A self benefit motive leads ultimately to a gospel of health and wealth, the prosperity message. Those who propagated this message were the Word of Faith harbingers: E. W. Kenyon, Kenneth Hagin, Kenneth Copland, Benson Idahosa, David Oyedepo, etc.

While many have refused to appreciate the argument of the Cessationists, there point is worth making here. The Cessationists teach that Apostolic signs and wonders have ceased with the first century. They teach that these miracles were given at that time to authenticate a message. When the message of the gospel was sealed in scriptures and given to the church, there was no longer any need for miracles, revelations, tongues and their interpretation. The Cessationists is however accused of teaching a false gospel but fortunately the fruit of the two movements lend credence to the veracity of their doctrine. On one hand, while Pentecostals claim propriety of spiritual gifts, their movement has led ultimately to a false gospel: PROSPERITY. Even many Pentecostals, while adhering to the some minute aspect of the prosperity message, condemn the Prosperity Gospel as a false gospel. On the other hand, Cessationism has led to a biblio-centric Christian movement. Since John Calvin, who resuscitated the Cessationist concept, to the Protestant movement, up till the Fundamentalists movement and even the new Reformed movement of our time, every time people subscribed to a Cessationist point of view, they subscribed ultimately to a bible centered Christianity.

Following the testimony of the book "CHURCHES THAT ABUSE" by Ronald Enrouthe, I discovered that 90% of churches that abuse people spiritually were Pentecostal. Even, vooks, a leading Pentecostal apologist on this forum, agrees that not one group that subscribed to Cessationism was mentioned in that book.

My humble submission here is that while many Pentecostals remain true Christians, a lot more falsehood and even demonic activities occurs in their churches than others that do not espouse their doctrines. This is a result of an over subscription to subjective experiences that emanate from a belief in a supernatural aspect of Christianity that the bible teaches had since ceased (1 Corinthians 13:8; Jude 3; Galatians 1:8-9; Hebrew 1:1-2; Revelations 22:18-19).

2. Another Spirit

I approach this subject with reverence and thus quote this scripture to introduce my thoughts:

2 Corinthians 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

The Prosperity Gospel, which is Another Gospel, comes with Another Spirit.

Now, many have asked me what I think speaking with tongues really is since I have had the experience before. Speaking in tongues comes between two extremes: on one hand it is vain babble, better regarded as gibberish. It can be learnt but in most cases, it is given by the influence of a spirit which I'm convinced is NOT the Holy Spirit. The other extreme of tongues is when this spirit fully possesses its subjects and purported supernatural experiences are encountered. These experiences include: visions, trances, hearing voices, and in some cases healing and miracles. I say this with all reverence and every sense of responsibility. Most healing cases recorded in pentecostal circles result from this phenomenon. Others result from true healing that is the blessing of God in his merciful providence. This spirit has been seen in the ministry of famous Shamans (Case in point: T. B. Joshua), miracles in many New Age cults, etc.

The simple proof that this spirit is not the Holy Spirit is in the fruit it bears. Jesus said in Matthew 7:

Matthew 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

And I'm convinced in my heart that this passage is with direct prophetic reference to the Charismatic move in the end times that will spew up much miracles but along with it come an equal amount of working of iniquity. For reasons best known to them, and because of a false hope in their own anointing, the Charismatic movement exhume more iniquity than miracles. The book Strange Fire by John MacArthur catalogue some of the atrocities by leading Charismatics right from its inception. Another book "CHURCHES THAT ABUSE" is a compendium of study on abusive churches, many of which are Charismatics. It is the fruit of the Charismatic movement, not the tongues that they so earnestly espouse, that proves the fundamental flaws in the Charismatic/Pentecostal churches

Conclusion

Despite my stringent criticism of Pentecostalism, we must thank God for that movement and how much it has done in the field of evangelism. After years backslidden, I was restored to the Christian faith through the witness of a Pentecostal brother. For this, at the least, I would forever be grateful. This is my final submission: because God is very much involved with Pentecostals and their devotion to the Christian faith, it is his desire they they get worship right. And this is the reason for this thread. May I reiterate that I'm convinced that there are many truly converted individuals in the Pentecostal movement and its God's desire that they properly channel their zeal, along with appropriate knowledge, for greater effectiveness for him.

Pentecostalism simply filled a void in Christendom. After the Reformation, the Great Awakening, the times of Spurgeon, the Welsh Revival, etc, Christendom simply lapsed into dead orthodoxy. It was all truth and no power of the Holy Spirit. Many ministers recognized this problem and pointed the church to it. D. M. Lloyd Jones particularly taught this in his days. Eventually when the need for true Spirit power was filled, it was filled with Strange Fire. Those who were quickly caught up in the Pentecostal flaw were those tired of the churches dead orthodoxy and who craved a new power. What they didn't realize was that the enemy had counterfeits in abundance at the side. And because many of them were devoid of sound doctrine, they fell to the Charismatic Chaos. The few that were not misled were those who were soundly grounded in sound doctrine and has the power of the Spirit in their lives.

The true power of the Holy Spirit does the following:

1. It brings repentance and faith in sinners.
2. It births holiness in the saints.
3. It encourages witness and evangelism.
4. It edifies the church and comfort her.
5. It reminds the church of its security in Christ.
6. It is jealous for the truth and defends the orthodoxy of scriptures
7. It lifts Jesus up and clearly shows him to be God.
8. It puts an earnestness in us for God's kingdom.
9. It empowers the saints to endure pain and suffering as we witness for Jesus.
10. The true power of the Holy Spirit NEVER exalts the Holy Spirit. It exalts Jesus.

While the Holy Spirit can heal and grant wealth, these are not his priorities. May we find the true priorities of God's Spirit and pursue them.

These are my kind analysis ify what I think the flaws are in Pentecostalism. And I commend them to my readers to prayerfully study, with the hope it engenders careful study and search on your part towards greater edification and godliness.

WinsomeX:
OTHER FLAWS IN PENTECOSTALISM

Ditching the Charismatic movement was no light decision on my part. It was leaving the known for the unknown. There is a certain security Pentecostalism offers its adherents. There is the early morning barrage of tongues that gives one the sense that you are immune to all attacks of Satan. There is that Word of Knowledge/Wisdom that comes in meetings that could single you out for a breakthrough. You have your charismatic pastor who offers you a covering. Not to mention your monthly insurance of tithing that is meant to secure your finances and shield your family from illness. Therefore, stepping out of all these into the uncertain life of simple faith based on simple prayers anchored on the simple words of truth written in scriptures was an arduous task for me but I had to do it. I have found out that when Paul instructs that the just will live by faith, this is what he meant.

The following are other albatrosses in the Pentecostal religion.

1. Prosperity

While I have mentioned this before, it is worth expounding on. Pentecostalism leads ultimately to the Prosperity Message. The gospel of prosperity teaches that Jesus Christ died to make men healthy and wealthy. Historically, many orthodox pentecostal churches rejected this gospel of prosperity. Today virtually all pentecostal churches subscribe to the notion that Jesus wishes to make Christians healthy and wealthy. They have reached this inevitable conclusion because pentecostal stems from a similar foundation. When glossolalia was discovered in 1900/1906, the focus of the church shifted from spiritual vitality to healing of diseases, miracles, signs and wonders, and tongues for personal edification. The pentecostal churches had redefined the purpose of the NT Charismatic gifts. Rather than being used to point men to Jesus and the gospel message, so as to bring human beings to faith in Christ and a knowledge of God, the gifts were perverted and made to satisfy people's needs. So rather than Kingdom benefit, the gifts were used for self benefits. A self benefit motive leads ultimately to a gospel of health and wealth, the prosperity message. Those who propagated this message were the Word of Faith harbingers: E. W. Kenyon, Kenneth Hagin, Kenneth Copland, Benson Idahosa, David Oyedepo, etc.

While many have refused to appreciate the argument of the Cessationists, there point is worth making here. The Cessationists teach that Apostolic signs and wonders have ceased with the first century. They teach that these miracles were given at that time to authenticate a message. When the message of the gospel was sealed in scriptures and given to the church, there was no longer any need for miracles, revelations, tongues and their interpretation. The Cessationists is however accused of teaching a false gospel but fortunately the fruit of the two movements lend credence to the veracity of their doctrine. On one hand, while Pentecostals claim propriety of spiritual gifts, their movement has led ultimately to a false gospel: PROSPERITY. Even many Pentecostals, while adhering to the some minute aspect of the prosperity message, condemn the Prosperity Gospel as a false gospel. On the other hand, Cessationism has led to a biblio-centric Christian movement. Since John Calvin, who resuscitated the Cessationist concept, to the Protestant movement, up till the Fundamentalists movement and even the new Reformed movement of our time, every time people subscribed to a Cessationist point of view, they subscribed ultimately to a bible centered Christianity.

Following the testimony of the book "CHURCHES THAT ABUSE" by Ronald Enrouthe, I discovered that 90% of churches that abuse people spiritually were Pentecostal. Even, vooks, a leading Pentecostal apologist on this forum, agrees that not one group that subscribed to Cessationism was mentioned in that book.

My humble submission here is that while many Pentecostals remain true Christians, a lot more falsehood and even demonic activities occurs in their churches than others that do not espouse their doctrines. This is a result of an over subscription to subjective experiences that emanate from a belief in a supernatural aspect of Christianity that the bible teaches had since ceased (1 Corinthians 13:8; Jude 3; Galatians 1:8-9; Hebrew 1:1-2; Revelations 22:18-19).

My broda,
Am on the side of truth. I believe in Jesus yet I have yet to meet Him, I believe in scriptures though am yet to live them out. That is Pentecostalism.

That there is ZERO support or even hint of cessationism from the scriptures but there is abundance of extrabiblical 'reasons' for cessationism is all that constantly remind me that Cessationism is a watered down skepticism. You deny the Word of God based on your experience and then demand that your inexperience be vindicated by the scriptures.

The wonder of Reformation has been reduced to idolatry where doctrines and theories of men are worshipped. Israel was once delivered by the brazen serpent. They later worshipped it. One can only thank God that despite Cessationists angry vitriol, they are a fringe group.

vooks:
Women labored with Paul right
but he would not suffer them to teach men
and they were to keep silent and learn from men

SMH. Paul belittling women?
Nah, not the case and/or never was the case.
Cant believe reading vooks too, propagating this twisted & distorted version of what Paul wrote, meant and addressed
Must think of Paul as a misogynist or someone plagued with a dislike of women

Extra! Extra!! Read all about it here!!!
https://www.nairaland.com/2563021/yes-bible-supports-women-preachers#37502822

MuttleyLaff:
SMH. Paul belittling women?
Nah, not the case and/or never was the case.
Cant believe reading vooks too, propagating this twisted & distorted version of what Paul wrote, meant and addressed
Must think of Paul as a misogynist or someone plagued with a dislike of women

Extra! Extra!! Read all about it here!!!
https://www.nairaland.com/2563021/yes-bible-supports-women-preachers#37502822

I can guess what that thread is saying; women got ecstatic, rowdy, disrupted public worship......and Paul was against this.

Paul is writing 2000 years before you and to a different culture than yours. Get those mixed up and you will be bending and twisting his words to your perdition. If there is any consolation, you won't be the first. You are not alone. Now let me prove me by checking out your thread

vooks:
I can guess what that thread is saying

and I can guess whatever your presumptions were, they all be wrong

vooks:
women got ecstatic, rowdy, disrupted public worship......and Paul was against this

Totally off the mark, nah nothing remotely of the sort

vooks:
Paul is writing 2000 years before you and to a different culture than yours.

You got the 2000 years ago and different culture than ours bit right.

2000 years ago was a fiercely male dominated misogynistic man's world.

vooks:
Get those mixed up and you will be bending and twisting his words to your perdition

We all have flaws, whether male or female, as confirmed in 1 Peter 3:7
so all I'll say to this ''bending and twisting his words to your perdition'' remark is getting understanding of the message in that Paul letter, is a precursor to getting widsom

Wisdom is of utmost importance,
therefore get wisdom,
and with all your effort work to acquire understanding
- Proverbs 4:7

In the same way, you husbands must give honor to your wives.
Treat your wife with understanding as you live together.
She may be weaker than you are, but she is your equal partner in God's gift of new life.
Treat her as you should so your prayers will not be hindered
- 1 Peter 3:7

vooks:
If there is any consolation, you won't be the first. You are not alone.

Of course, am not alone
Jesus is the first, who upset the applecart of male dominated, mistrust of women, undermining women, relegating women, misogynistic man's world

vooks:
Now let me prove me by checking out your thread

FYI, I dont personalise threads,
I dont call threads ''my thread'' in to make it ​obvious that it ​belongs to me or comes from me
I research for threads, I comment on threads and thats exactly what I did on that thread

Muttleylaff, I subscribe to d women should not be leaders/teachers doctrine BC I think scriptures are quite clear about it and many troubles in Christian ministry is much associated with women.

For example in 1 Corinthians 14, Paul says women shouldn't teach in church. There is a sense in it that the whole Charismatic Confusion in Corinth was associated with women prophets, teachers and tonguers.

Remember also that it was a woman who first spoke in tongues or gibberish in 1900. A woman started the whole Chaos!

Someone gave a wisdom somewhere: he said that he has learnt from experience that regardless of the argument, Paul always turns out right. And I suspect he's right in this too.

WinsomeX:


Young man, you're welcome. First I would like to advice you to let down that air of pride or superiority reeling in this post of yours. We are all learning here and the number one rule for learning is humility. Do not extinguish whatever else you may want to say with that feeling of pride bc it will defeat your purpose here as the Spirit who inspires us does not do so with pride.

Also let your words be seasoned with grace. "Nonsense" is not a fitting term for saints in describing the works of another.

I have done a total breakdown of tongues.
read my first post.

MuttleyLaff:
and I can guess whatever your presumptions were, they all be wrong

Totally off the mark, nah nothing remotely of the sort

You got the 2000 years ago and different culture than ours bit right.

2000 years ago was a fiercely male dominated misogynistic man's world.

We all have flaws, whether male or female, as confirmed in 1 Peter 3:7
so all I'll say to this ''bending and twisting his words to your perdition'' remark is getting understanding of the message in that Paul letter, is a precursor to getting widsom

Wisdom is of utmost importance,
therefore get wisdom,
and with all your effort work to acquire understanding
- Proverbs 4:7

In the same way, you husbands must give honor to your wives.
Treat your wife with understanding as you live together.
She may be weaker than you are, but she is your equal partner in God's gift of new life.
Treat her as you should so your prayers will not be hindered
- 1 Peter 3:7

Of course, am not alone
Jesus is the first, who upset the applecart of male dominated, mistrust of women, undermining women, relegating women, misogynistic man's world

FYI, I dont personalise threads,
I dont call threads ''my thread'' in to make it ​obvious that it ​belongs to me or comes from me
I research for threads, I comment on threads and thats exactly what I did on that thread

I have responded to all your arguments on that thread. You may want to correct me if you find any fault with my presentation but am certain you won't.

Women are equals but still Paul won't suffer them to teach.

WinsomeX:
Muttleylaff, I subscribe to d women should not be leaders/teachers doctrine BC I think scriptures are quite clear about it and many troubles in Christian ministry is much associated with women.

For example in 1 Corinthians 14, Paul says women shouldn't teach in church. There is a sense in it that the whole Charismatic Confusion in Corinth was associated with women prophets, teachers and tonguers.

Remember also that it was a woman who first spoke in tongues or gibberish in 1900. A woman started the whole Chaos!

Someone gave a wisdom somewhere: he said that he has learnt from experience that regardless of the argument, Paul always turns out right. And I suspect he's right in this too.

There is no 'sense' in women being behind the errors of Corinth my broda. And women are no authors of 'many troubles' above men, but there is an abundance of scapegoating since Adam

That women have had limited roles in churche which still manufactures heresies after heresies tells you that errors are not gender sensitive.

Of course a Negro from the darkest continent with preconceived notions of superiority over a human chattel woman would be thrilled endlessly by some teachings. I have lost count of he many times some chauvinist pigs flash out these sentiments when a woman beats them in a debate

Women the weaker vessels could walk in the highest of all gifts; prophecy

The key is to distinguish between prophecy and teaching I suppose

Gombs,

there is a difference between the gift of tongues that accompanies the baptism in the Holy Spirit, which every believer can receive, and the gift of tongues that is a ministry gift.

What difference?
Verses please!

What is known to God only is "impossible" to man and it is satanic. 2, Only God understands, is satanic spirit which only God can control!!!! 3, Penticostal fundamental and sentimental clap trap!!!!

cc Vooks,WinsomeX. I have replied this topic. see my first post and drop ur comments.

sportsmaster:
cc Vooks,WinsomeX.
I have replied this topic.
see my first post and drop ur comments.

I have said all that need to be said on this I suppose.
1. There is no difference between unknown tongue and tongues
2. Tongues even when uninterpteted do edify
3. Uninterpteted tongues has no place in public worship
4. Cessationism has ZERO scriptural basis

Sorry for the late response. I must commend you for your response to my query on tongues in this thread. I particularly wish to thank you for letting go of that air of arrogance you came to this thread with at first. You have supplied some valuable information and I will in a few moment analyze them according to scriptures. I'm not sure I have any question for you at least for now.

Permit me to say that despite your lengthy post, there were only few valid points I could lay my hands on. They will be:

1. Tongues are not human languages.
2. Tongues interpreted=Prophecy=edifying church.

Sorry to say, but the rest of the post was simply beating the air. For example, I have not disputed that the people present at Jerusalem were not Gentiles but Jews. I have not made such ascertion anywhere on this thread. Why it required such lengthy explanation from you beats me. So I will simply skip that part of your post. I will attend to the two above and straighten out your justifications for them.

sportsmaster:

That settled let me deal with the language.
we can see that the events of the Pentecost is the fufilment of prophecy.

Isaiah 28:11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
Joel 2:28 And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:
Joel 2:29 And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit.

WinsomeX said something like to build a doctrine,there has to be at least 2-3 witnesses,this very scriptural read mattew 18,1cor 14,2cor 13:1.
but on the issue of tongues,it was discussed extensively and emphatically in only one chapter. Theologians call this the LAW OF EMPHATIC MENTION.
Tongues was discussed emphatically there.

First, I do not dispute that the bible teaches tongues. What I say is that modern tongues is not biblical tongues.

Secondly, I am hearing of a Law of Emphatical Mention for the first time in my life. I request a credible source for such a teaching or else I must say that such a law is one of the un-biblical laws that emanate from pentecostals like Seed Faith.

Lastly, when I request two or more scriptures, I requested it for the charismatic practice of tongues for self edification not speaking in tongues itself.

sportsmaster:

lets come back before we lose our focus.
Tongues are not human languages and can never be understood by man except when it comes interpretation.[color].

i will explain extensively.
lets go to 1cor 14.
the word "unknown" in this chapter was put by the translators. this is why you will find it italics in the KJV.
it just funny how that someone can just base an argument on a word that is not in the original text.sorry for WinsomeX.

[color=red]
1Co 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

this is in pellucid terms, Tongues goes to God alone.

1Co 14:3 But he that prophesies speaks unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.

prophecies goes to men.

1Co 14:4 He that speaks in an tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesies edifies the church.
tongues only edify the speaker,
prophecies edifies the church,the church here is not the building,its the people in the church.

1Co 14:5 I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

Fortunately, scriptures shows that tongues are human languages. The tongues spoken in Acts 2 were understood by Jews from those countries. There is no evidence in scripture to show that tongues are unintelligible.

I also stated that the word "unknown" was added by the translators. But that was not my only point. I said that the unknown tongues was made to "a god". I said it was a mystery; biblical tongues were not mysteries. And I said it was used for self edification. It is its use for self edification that I have requested at least one more scripture other than 1 Cor 14:4 which no one has been able to provide on this thread. Perhaps you may try.

Until then, tongues for self edification is false doctrine and a wrong practice. All spiritual gifts, including tongues, were for the benefit of the church and not self.

sportsmaster:

notice that in the previous verse,we see that prophecies goes to men i.e the church,
look through this verse.
you will see that when a person speaks with tongues and interprets the church receives edifying. Notice the previous verse we read earlier and tell me what you see. if you see what i see i.e

with TONGUES + INTERPRETATION OF TONGUES = The church is edified.
with PROPHECIES = the church is edified.
we can conclude that

TONGUES + INTERPRETATION OF TONGUES = PROPHECIES .

this is clear and translucent enough. Vooks and Gombs are you with me.
it is clear enough that tongues cannot be understood by men.
but Acts 2 seems to contradict this.
Really it is not a contradiction.the contradiction is in our understanding.we fail to understand it.

I like your mathmetical deduction. Just note that while tongue with interpretation in contrast with prophecy will yield edification for others, they are not equal in the strict mathematical sense. They cannot be used to replace each other contextually.

But I'm interested in the contradiction you wish to explain in Acts 2.

sportsmaster:

lets see again
acts 2
Acts2:4 and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost and began to Speak with other tongues,as the spirit gave them utterance.

The word "other" used in this verse,when i checked the greek,
The word "other" is the greek word "heteros".
"heteros" means "of uncertain affinity;strange"

Also from Isaiah's prophecy
lets see again
acts 2
Acts2:4 and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost and began to Speak with other tongues,as the spirit gave them utterance.

The word "other" used in this verse,when i checked the greek,
The word "other" is the greek word "heteros".
"heteros" means "of uncertain affinity;strange"


Also from Isaiah's prophecy
Isaiah28:11- "for with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people"

The word stammering used here in the Hebrew means UNINTELLIGIBLE,
while the word another means strange and different

Mark 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe;In my name shall they cast out devils;they shall speak with NEW tongues.
When i checked the word "new"in the Greek. The word is KAINOS
"Kainos" means according to
1)Strong dictionaries
"of Uncertain affinity:new(especially in freshness)"
2)Thayer dictionaries
"fresh,unused,a new kind,unheard of"
3)Wordstudy dictionaries
"Newly made"
Note: NO ACCOUNT ever refer to tongues as some other language belonging to another culture different from the speak! Paul settles this with a well laid out explanation.

1cor14:2:- For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaks not unto men,but unto God:FOR NO MAN UNDERSTANDS HIM/b];howbeit in the spirit he speaks mysteries.

Something else to note
Acts2:13:- Other mocking said,
[b] These men are full of new wine..
lets analyse this statement.
Other said those people speaking with to
The word stammering used here in the Hebrew means UNINTELLIGIBLE,
while the word another means strange and different

Mark 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe;In my name shall they cast out devils;they shall speak with NEW tongues.
When i checked the word "new"in the Greek. The word is KAINOS
"Kainos" means according to
1)Strong dictionaries
"of Uncertain affinity:new(especially in freshness)"
2)Thayer dictionaries
"fresh,unused,a new kind,unheard of"
3)Wordstudy dictionaries
"Newly made"
------------------------
1)You are speaking another man's language fluently or
2)You are just speaking gibberish,unconstructed statements,unintelligible words.
Obviously the answer is Option 2. Because wine cannot make you speak another man's language with respect to the Observers comment in this verse.

I appreciate your investigation into the above root Hebrew and Greek words. You have not supplied some specific words but I won't dispute them. What I find hard to comprehend is your ability to equate "new" and "strange" with gibberish. They certainly are not the same. If I were to hear Greek or Hebrew spoken to me fluently today, despite my brush with it in my theological studies, it will still remain new and strange to me. That's the point. Now let's see that Isaiah 28 scriptures:

Isaiah28:11 "for with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people"

Why exactly do we have this scripture in the bible? To confirm speaking in tongues? No.

Contextually, what Isaiah was speaking of was God bringing judgement to Israel. Every time God judged his people, he used people of strange tongues. Not that they spoke gibberish but that they spoke a language that no one in Israel understood.

Incidentally, tongues in the NT also served the same purpose. A few years after Pentecost, Jerusalem was invaded by the Roman in AD 70 and destroyed.

sportsmaster:

Isaiah 28:11 was quoted in 1cor 14:21. dont mind those translators.they acted funny in this very verse.

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

1Co 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.

tongues is not human language.

Again, as I have explained those scriptures were not saying tongues are not unintelligible. Rather they were saying they will be unintelligible to a people as a sign of God's judgement.

sportsmaster:

lets hear from peter.
Act 2:14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:
Act 2:15 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.
Act 2:16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
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:
Act 2:18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:

if you read through this verse,you will notice the word PROPHESY is key here.
the events of acts2 goes beyond tongues alone.it is the fufilment of prophecy Joel 2:28.
people did prophesy,people had visions, many things happened.
then i had explained earlier that prophecy is tongues plus interpretation.
An2elect are you with me.?.

Nothing here speaks of tongues being unintelligible. Peter spoke of a sign to come. In Acts 2, the sign was fulfilled. What does this have to do with your often made statement: speaking in tongues were not human language?

sportsmaster:

lets see another instance
Act 2:11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
scholar8200 is quick to quote this verse,oya come here and understand. .
the folks who came from those regions listed in acts 2 are of Jewish origin. but they lived abroad.there is a possibility that they may have learned the language of where they lived.maybe thats why the statement below was made.
Act 2:7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? .

pay attention closely,
Act 2:8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

they said they heard every man in their own tongue where they were born, this refer to their language of origin,their original language where they were originated from.this refers to the original Jewish language.
when they spoke in tongues in acts 2:4,no one could understand but when they interpreted people understood them.
are you here Muttleylaff !!!.
cc winner01,Goshen360,Anas09
that will be all for now.
but wait what of 1cor13:1,i will explain that later.

What exactly do you mean by this statement: "they said they heard every man in their own tongue where they were born, this refer to their language of origin,their original language where they were originated from.this refers to the original Jewish language."

This is Deduction Disaster. Friend, that's not what that scripture meant. It means just what it says: they heard languages from the cities were they came from. Yes, they must have been born in those cities because the scriptures listed the languages after and Hebrew is conspicuously absent!

Acts 2:8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? 2:9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, 2:10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, 2:11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

The tongues they heard was intelligible. Your tongues you speak in church is not. It is gibberish!

sportsmaster:

Ensure you read through and get the information here.before you ask any questions.
i will ignore any question that i have already answered in this post.
it took me time to write this up.
cc WinsomeX,vooks,An2elect.
SELAH

sportsmaster:
are you here Muttleylaff !!!.
cc winner01, Goshen360, Anas09
that will be all for now.
but wait what of 1cor13:1, I will explain that later.

Ensure you read through and get the information here. before you ask any questions.
i will ignore any question that i have already answered in this post.
it took me time to write this up.
cc WinsomeX, vooks, An2elect.
SELAH

I am here, keenly reading all
Though delayed, the continuation from where I stopped and rebuttals to WinsomeX, vooks,
and DoubleDeeX (i.e. he's mentioned here, as he shared similar strong sexist sentiments on another thread) is forthcoming.

I can throw something together and write a slapdash post
but it will be preposterous and unfair to people's sensibilities

The continuation from where I stopped and the rebuttals to WinsomeX, vooks, you, et al will resume asap
but is currently on a back burner, this from losing place or position to others jumping the priority queue

MuttleyLaff:
I am here, keenly reading all
Though delayed, the continuation from where I stopped and rebuttals to WinsomeX, vooks,
and DoubleDeeX (i.e. he's mentioned here, as he shared similar strong sexist sentiments on another thread) is forthcoming.

I can throw something together and write a slapdash post
but it will be preposterous and unfair to people's sensibilities

The continuation from where I stopped and the rebuttals to WinsomeX, vooks, you, et al will resume asap
but is currently on a back burner, this from losing place or position to others jumping the priority queue

Looking fwd to this

Tongues
I believe that key to understanding 1 Corinthians 14 is to bear in mind that Apostle Paul wrote the Corinthian church to REBUKE and CORRECT them. He had already shown us in chapter 3 that they were CARNAL. They therefore needed straightening out. He was not presenting a fresh 'mystery' doctrine but correcting a MISUSE and CONFUSION. 

Paul corrected the Corinthians (a lesson that is still applicable to us today) that ALL spiritual gifts are given for the purpose of building up the Body of Christ, NOT for individual benefit or recognition - "To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good." (1 Cor. 12:7). 

Therefore 1 Cor. 14:2-4 (a continuation from chapter12 discuss) should immediately tell us that uninterpreted "tongues" fall short of edifying the church but rather was a detraction from the spiritual life. Paul refers to uninterpreted speech as "speaking to the air" - 1 Cor. 14:9 "So with yourselves, if with your tongue you utter speech that is not intelligible, how will anyone know what is said? For you will be speaking into the air." This means meaningless. 

It should be clear then that Paul's focus was that tongues if not used for the edification of the church is meaningless. Recall what he said in 1 Cor. 13 - "If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal."

Tongues was understood by those who spoke or understood the language like happened on the day of Pentecost or interpreted by another believer with the spiritual gift of interpretation. Either way a clear message is communicated. If the speech is not interpreted whatever was said would be incomprehensible. So, Paul's emphasis in verses 1-4 should be immediately clear to any reader - an emphasis the church and many individual Christians today have flagrantly ignored. It would appear that today many turn 1 Cor. 14:5 the other way round; to them "......greater is one who speaks in tongue". Here, in verse 5, Paul again emphasizes the issue of the need for church edification - "....................The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be built up.". The exercise of spiritual gifts is for the common good so that the church is edified. 

The analogy in verses 7 to 9 which was explained in verses 10 to 25 clearly shows that in corporate worship of the church (where the use of the individual believer's spiritual gift should evidently be for the common good), uninterpreted tongues is meaningless and therefore to be discouraged. Any other interpretation given to it other than this amounts to an affront against the clearly revealed word of God.

vooks:


Am sorry for that my broda. I just clicked on it and it opened. Check your connection or something.

Calvin was somewhat a flip flop on spiritual gifts but we can say he did lay the foundation for Cessationism


http://www.spirithome.com/cessationism.html

But am not sharing the commentary to show you this but rather you may observe the fatal flaws these post-modern anti-Pentecostals are making in 'combating' Pentecostalism.

Read his commentary on 1 Cor 12-14 and then we can exchange notes

I GUESS I LEARNT SOMETHING TODAY