tongues

It's after midnight and I'll probably sign off soon. I have read thru all 12 pages of this topic and would like to get in on the subject more. I have been away for some time because of my mom's illness and recent passing.
Some of you remember me. I'm the Baptist married to a Charismatic Pentacostal. And I've suffered many a persecution and anguish from our differences. I have learned the hard way to just walk away from a "discussion" of any kind with my spouse. And by doing so, the Lord has blessed me. When my mom died in October, I was told it was too late for her because she was never baptized in the Holy Ghost and never spoke with tongues. I held my peace and said nothing.
I "know" that my mom was ready to go and that is all that mattered.
Because of my belief, he has tried to cast the demon out of me on various occasions.
Needless to say our relationship is not what it should be between two confessing christians. I have learned from experience to keep my mouth shut and rely upon the Lord for deliverence. A soft answer turns away wrath. I am too close to home to turn back now and the devil is hard at work trying to confuse christians with all these different doctrines. If we put Jesus first and
foremost in lives, I believe all will be alright!
I don't know if this will happen or not, but when we stand before Him, I wonder if He will ask us if we spoke in tongues or will He look The BLOOD?

 

I, too, would like to see chapter and verse for that!

Sounds like United Pentecostal Church, too me?

I admit, I'd like to see everyone filled with God's Spirit with the initial physical evidence of Speaking in Tongues. For me, I am convinced, that is God's best.

But, the thief on the cross neither was Baptized in Water or Baptized in the Spirit. Yet, Jesus said today he would be with Jesus in Paradise.

Now, I suppose an argument could be made that when Jesus went to Abraham's Bosom and preached there that he got dunked and spirit-filled?

Somehow... I don't buy that. Especially, since I can't find any scriptures that even allude to Spirit-Filled speaking in tongues are a pre-requisite to heaven.

The Ephesians were called believers **before** they were Spirit-Filled! Yes, a point was made to introduce them to becoming tongue-talking pentecostals...

**BUT** there never was a statement that they'd cease to be believers if they didn't!

Again, I'd like to see the scripture on this one, too!

I think between DHK and myself we can set this one to rest. :D (Talk about two extremes working together for a common good! )


Susanpet... I admire your tenacity in your marriage. You have my highest esteem and respect.

I will add you to my prayer list. I know it can't have been easy.

But, if DHK and I can have a 'tenuous' truce. Perhaps God can help bring a middle ground for you and your spouse.

Again, you *really* must be a P31 (Proverbs 31 Woman).

 

So when YOU speak in tongues what language is it?
I speak some French and Spanish but only when I converse with french and spanish people. I find anything else very rude. When you do speak in the church is there ALWAYS an interpreter or is it the tried and true "hallelujah, hallelujah, hallelujah?"

I don't mean to make fun, but if people want the BEST gifts, TONGUES ISN'T ONE OF THEM. The fact is that tongues ceased along with scripture prophesy writing and apostolic succession. Personally, I believe that anyone who thinks that one can lose his/her salvation may be the one unsaved, because they can NEVER explain if they lost it or if they got it back again.

I would never get involved with an Assembly of God person. They simply place all their eggs in the basket called F E E L I N G S and make Christianity a system of WORKS and FEELINGS. When things go wrong they fall apart and make eveyone else feel guilty.

 

On the contrary. I am Assemblies of God. And, while I have deep feelings and am highly emotional by nature. I deprecate your statement.

There are *many* AoG people who are very deeply versed in God's Word and who make it a matter of Faith to put Biblical Knowledge in gear *before* engaging emotions.

I think if you *really* read my posts you will see that not *all* AoG people fit the rather broad paint brush you have used.

Lastly, the doctrine that one has to be filled with the Holy Spirit and speak in tongues to be saved is not an acceptable doctrine in the AoG.

Please see: http://ag.org/top/beliefs/baptism_hs/baptmhs_02_savedwithout.cfm


Mee... Shall we agree that having DHK in the same room with a 'rabid' Pentecostal would be like throwing a lump of pure sodium in a lake? :D

Suffice it to say there was probably enough 'blame' to go around.

However, if 'we' are going to claim to be motivated and filled with the Holy Spirit of God, with an emphasis on **Holy**.

Should we not also subjugate our zeal to the fruit of the Spirit which manifests Love, Patience, Gentleness, etc.?

As it is that poor mis-directed Pentecostal was 'lucky' DHK wasn't possessed as he suspected because I have no doubt he would have become a 'Son of Sceva'!

I am sorry but I myself can not in good conscience condone such behavior in another believer.

And, I would like a response from the Bible Scholars on this forum to tell me if there is any case where Jesus ever cast out a demon without first being requested to do so?

I don't think there is any such instance. But, I have been wrong before.

As for DHK's statement that the Pentecostal wasn't saved. He may well have been right judging by the conduct portrayed. The fact that God is Love. And, he that loveth not knoweth not God.

And, yes, having been on the receiving end of a DHK rebuttal I can only imagine how flustered that Pentecostal was. :eek:

It's a shame that the Spirit didn't give him an answer in the self-same hour... Hmmmmmmm.

Sometimes when we aren't given God's answer it means to keep our mouths shut and walk away.

 

My goodness DHK, calm down! No need to get so upset. You have good nights sleep and just maybe you will feel better in the morning. OK?

MEE

 

I am not upset at all MEE. I am just stating facts, giving a more accurate picture so others like yourself will understand the facts. Don't assume things that are not.
DHK

 

The question of spiritual gifts is a generic one. That fact that some people are focused on the Gift of tongues does not change that.

#1. Spiritual gifts have either been abolished - or they have not.

#2. If they have been abolished - then we should find some doctrinal statement on that in the Bible - we do not find such a statement.

What we do find is the Ephesians 4 statement that they continue as long as the church is being built up, growing and maturing into the ALL the fullness of Christ.

Guess what - the Christian church is still maturing and growing in Christ - the builders have not stopped yet - building the building. In fact, though we find places like Eph 4 and 1Peter 2:5 and 1Cor 3 all agreeing that we are being built up, and 1Cor 12 saying that all the spiritual gifts are needed - we find no statement saying "spiritual gifts are now dead".

Having discovered that fact of scripture - then the next question that seems to concern this thread directy - is whether the tongues manifestation today is really the same gift of tongues as was manifest at the feast of Pentecost in Acts 2.

That is a very "different" question than the one about spiritual gifts of 1Cor 12 still being valid.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Folks, look carefully at what MEE just did. It's typical of charismatics, and almost exactly mirrors what DHK said happened to him in the Christian book store.

DHK challenged the man's belief that tongues are what saves. The man tried to find some verses, and was unable to do so. This man's lack of ability to find his way through the bible was then transferred to DHK by claiming DHK must be possessed.

DHK introduces this story, and MEE responds with "I'm wondering just why the man would think DHK needed an exorcism" (not a verbatim quote, but pretty close). This was a thinly veiled statement that possibly she, too, thinks DHK is demon-possessed. DHK offers up the facts of his story, and MEE responds with "DHK, calm down and go to bed."

In both cases, both individuals were unable to actually defend their beliefs/positions. So they did a naturally human thing, and cast the doubt upon the individual attacking their position. This removed the emphasis from their weak position and focused it on a made-up human frailty. This sort of argument is usually known as an ad hominem.

What it boils down to is, look at the facts: Neither the man in DHK's story, nor MEE, actually provided proofs or rebuttals to DHK's statements and challenges. Since they apparently couldn't refute what DHK said, and are unwillingly to re-examine their position (which would be the correct thing to do in this circumstance), they chose to slander DHK's character instead.

MEE, you should apologize to DHK. If you can't refute his statements and challenges, and therefore show him to be wrong, you're not going to convince us by casting aspersions upon him and/or his character. Either show us definitively where tongues are required for salvation, or just leave it alone.

 

Susanpet: " ... when we stand before Him, I wonder
if He will ask us if we spoke in tongues
or will He look The BLOOD?"

Jesus Saves, not tongue talkin'.

By the same token, nor will God be booting folks
out of heaven who were tongue talkers.

I've know DHK for 18 months and like to read his posts.
The Holy Spirit witnesses to me that DHK is
NOT possessed for he is save and secure in Christ.

 

If the debate is to be on whether tongues is needed for salvation - I assume all parties debating that point - have reached the pre-requisite understanding that it is possible to speak in tongues - because it is a spiritual gift for today.

Obviously if you do not believe it is "possible" then having the debate about whether it is essential for salvation is "talking passed each other".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Don, you've got to be kidding! You think that I should apologize to DHK? That's like saying, "Carol tell DHK that he is right." You want me to blaspheme against God? Don, don't hold your breath! ;)

I have refuted his statements, with scriptures. I can't help it if he is blinded to the Word. The man doesn't even know the difference between the 'baptism of the Holy Ghost' and the 'gift of tongues.' How can you follow a person with no more knowledge than that?

I didn't say anything about DHK being possessed. How could he be?...he is only at a repented stage...meaning there is still hope. He needs the Spirit of God as well as to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, as they did in the beginning.

If you, Don, don't like what I said then YOU leave it alone! :cool:

MEE

 

If I understand DHK correctly - he does not believe that the miracle gifts listed in 1Cor 12 are valid anymore.

That means you guys are probably talking "passed each other" if you are not looking into that key point.

Simply "going on" to whether tongues is necessariy - is swallowing the camel that came before that topic, and it enables you to talk passed each other.

In Christ,

Bob

 

MEE, from your post on page 12, posted December 29, 2003 07:44 PM --

Now, MEE, go back and read my post. Did I say that you said DHK was possessed? My exact words were, "This was a thinly veiled statement that possibly she, too, thinks DHK is demon-possessed." You see, you must read my posts carefully; I'm usually pretty picky about my choice and usage of words.

Now, would you care to answer the other part of the post I made? Specifically, "Either show us definitively where tongues are required for salvation, or just leave it alone."

 

Bob, they can't agree on that point. Therefore, you have to take the main argument and work backwards.

If MEE cannot provide scripture that shows definitively that speaking in tongues is required for salvation, then she must back up a step and determine whether tongues were a requirement or a result. If she can provide no scripture that shows people had to speak in tongues in order to be saved, then the conclusion has to be that speaking in tongues was a result of salvation.

If she can provide the scripture showing that we must speak in tongues in order to be saved, then DHK must re-examine his position.

To me, in my warped view of reality, it seems like simple logic:

A) We must speak in tongues to be saved
B) We don't have to speak in tongues to be saved

If it's A, then there's scripture to prove it.

If it's B, then speaking in tongues is a result of salvation, not a cause; and there would be scripture to prove that once they were saved, people spoke in tongues. (sub-arguments of this would necessarily be, did everyone who was saved speak in tongues? And was it a "requirement" to prove to others that they were saved?)

Only from there can they then work towards any kind of agreement on whether it still exists today or not.

 

Correct Answer: 'When I see the Blood, I will pass over you....'

Besides... I strongly suspect that we will not be using 'physical' speech anyway as there will be a level of 'rapport' with Our Lord that will make most words/speech un-necessary.

My Two Cents

 

There absolutely NOTHING in the Bible that indicates that the gift of tongues was anything but the ability for some people to be able to communicate to foreigners with a language that they in fact never learned.

If you have done that, then you have spoken in tongues. If you have not, then you have communicated nothing to anyone and you are wasting your breath.

If you don't understand what you are saying, then I will pray for your condition...

 

Wow. That was harsh.


But then, truth often is, isn't it?

 

Hi