#

THE UK ASSEMBLIES OF GOD – a different movement with the same name

Hi Philip,

I know what you mean and I agree.

I was saved from a RC background in Feb:1970 and entered an AoG church in Glasgow where I still attend.
Being a babe in Christ in the 70s I subscribed to our church magazine “The Redemption Tidings” hoping to learn something, and I did, for it was then that it happened. The alarm bells started to ring. RC priests, nuns, were referred to as “Brothers and sisters in Christ” in one article Pope John was referred to as being a saved man, etc. I was left wondering just why the Lord had bothered to take me out of Rome.

It became so bad that I cancelled my subscription, but it would take another six years or so for the minister to follow suit, needless to say the congregation were influenced by his action that they too cancelled their subscription.

I belong to a good Bible based church, nevertheless, I am left wondering why we have not abandoned the AoG in its present form, because those at the helm have long since run the ship onto the rocks.

Psalms 11:3 If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?

A few years ago, I read an article in CETF about the antics of Paul Weaver at one of the AoG conferences so I decided to write to him in the hope that he would clear things up, but instead, I received a letter from him saying that he had me investigated, and that his investigation showed that I was not, or ever had been a member of the AoG, so he was not obliged to answer my questions. This was the straw that was to break this camel’s back. Although I still attend the AoG In Glasgow I refer to myself as “Nondenominational”.

I would urge all Bible believing assemblies to consider coming apart from the AoG in its present form, and to abandon the madness that seems to have infected certain of its hierarchy.

Amos 3:3 Can two walk together, except they be agreed?

Brother - Alexander Lennox
59 Braehead Lochwinnoch
PA12 4BJ - Scotland

EDITORIAL - NOTE This comment has NOW been transfered to the New Thread about the AoG and Philip Powell’s article entitled “AoG-UK - a different movement with the same name”

By Anonymous on Jun 29, 2008 | Edit

By philip on Jul 5, 2008

“How many false gods have been worshipped in Christendom during the last few decades! What a travesty of the Divine character has been set forth by the major portion of Protestantism – a ‘god’ whom no one fears. What a mangling of the gospel has there been in the ‘orthodox’ sections of Christendom, whereby ‘another Jesus’, 2 Corinthians 11:4, has displaced the Christ of Holy Writ … Here and there was an Elijah who raised his voice in testimony to the living God and in denouncing modern forms of Baal worship, but who gave ear to them? Certainly not the churches, for they closed their pulpits against them so that, like the Tishbite of old, they were forced into isolation and virtual retirement; and now it seems their last task before God calls them hence is to pronounce sentence of death upon the whole apostate system.” [Pink, Elijah, 282]

Kept by His Divine mercy and grace,
Elaine

By Elaine on Jul 7, 2008

Dear folk;

I appreciate the fact you are having Jacob P. in next week [what are the dates again?]

In the same thought: he comes in and reasons strongly from the Bible on the fact there is a real God, and real Holy Spirit and that it is Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’s blood only that saves.

Can we make that the word from our mouth to every one that is lost in this world; It is the ONLY way out [Ill. The Egypt passover…”When I see the BLOOD I will pass over you”]

Be that as it may, there is hope for the movement of God. Just keep praying “Hope thou in God”

Br Jim PNG

By Jim Junkins PNG on Jul 7, 2008

I agree that there are some in the Pentecostal movement who have gone after a strange anointing - but let’s not “throw the baby out with the bath water”. I am a third generation AoG guy and after rebellious teenage years it was the powerful discipleship I learned that brought me through. I have experienced the power of God in my life … all of which line up with God’s Word.
There are many in the Pentecostal movement lamenting what is happening today. Many would argue that experience is enough but the majority (although not vocal majority) dismiss the idea that experience trumps all. In fact, we believe that unless a person’s experience lines up with the Word of God it is false and should be judged as such by the leaders, and then correctly disciple those who are misled.
I am not ashamed to be called Pentecostal…I just pray we will earnestly contend for the faith once passed down.

By Mike M on Jul 8, 2008

I’m not too sure I follow the topic here, but I do see many offended by the happenings around us, and more than enough who have renounced the faith–either in part, or altogether.

I was healed as a baby, saved at a tender age, and baptised and filled with the Holy Ghost with the evidence of tongues by the age of 12; all things being done decently, and in order. I see no Biblical reason to deny or repent of the gifts God has given me, nor has any been able to convince me of error.

I arrived in Australia in 1984 when it appeared that AoG Australia preferred to be known as ‘Charismatic’ rather than ‘Pentecostal’ (in Sydney at least). ‘Pentecostal’ supposedly had a bad reputation.

At that time David Pawson was a popular teacher. I had heard him in Zimbabwe and, as I said over there, I repeated over here, David Pawson is wrong. He is bringing unbiblical traditions from his denominational background into the church. He has an “anything goes” approach. Of course, this was not well accepted.

Back in 1982, or ‘83, I was given a book written by Francis Frangipane. I think it was “The House of the Lord”. I had hardly read into it when I remarked that it was heresy, yet I was finding it widely accepted in our movement.

In 1983, when I attended Africa Christian Training School, we were being taught from P Wagner’s book–I think it was entitled “Knowing Your Spiritual Gifts”–in which there are two psychological tests you can take to “supposedly” determine your place in the body. I strongly objected to this on the basis of the Word of God, and that it is the Holy Spirit that has the gifts, and not we ourselves. I pointed out that these gifts come to us “as He wills” and not according to our natural and learned talents.

My father bluntly called Kenneth Hagin a liar because Hagin said he had learned his doctrine from Jesus, when, in actual fact, it was the doctrine of his father-in-law.

Shortly after arriving in Australia, my very first AoG State Conference [I’ve never been to a national one] pursued the subject “Building Bigger Men for Bigger Purposes”. I was surprised, and disappointed how the topic turned out [but I came from Southern Africa — and South Africans were not well received in the movement at that time]. It appeared that “success” was the mark of your calling in Christ.

All these things contain the roots of the errors we see today, that have come into being by ignoring the textual revelation of God and have their foundations, not in actual Pentecostalism, but in Charismaticism which followed after.

It is sad to see the gift of Christ scandalised in such a way. Having grown up in the Assembly of God in South Africa I was always taught the manifestations were not proof of spirituality and must be discerned according to Scripture. Unfortunately, all around the world there have arisen teachers who have gone the other way.

Kerry.

By Kerry Stevenson on Jul 8, 2008

Hello…
Just a question.
If you speak in tongues aren’t you supposed to have an interpreter?
I am not a Pentecostal, but an Independent Baptist and I thought these “gifts” finished with the Apostles.
I believe that the Holy Spirit gives glory to Jesus Christ, the Son, and He gives glory to God the Father…

By veronica on Jul 8, 2008

Hi Philip,

Just a question about the ” gift of tongues”, since the subject has been raised here.

A I read the New Testament simply, it would seem that the “gift of tongues” was the ability to speak real languages, that had not been learned naturally, “as the Spirit gave them utterance”. “Tongues” were languages, that could be “interpreted”. (eg: Acts 2, but see also Genesis 11.)

Without saying categorically that the “gift of tongues” has ceased - I would however have to say, that when tested by the Word of God, I personally do not know anyone who has the “gift of tongues” that I read about in the Bible.

My question is genuine. Is there anyone in Brisbane that you know, or any of your contributors know, who has the Biblical “gift of tongues”? If so, I would love to hear about them.

In Christ,
Warrick.

By Warrick on Jul 9, 2008

Veronica, if the gifts of tongues is no longer for today - why would you need an interpreter?

By Anonymous on Jul 9, 2008

Hello, just wondered if I may humbly offer some insight on this topic. Firstly, I cannot find in my bible where it says spiritual gifts ceased at 12.00 midnight 100 AD. Some time ago I shared with a small group on this topic but space does not permit too much explanation here so I’ll be as brief as possible.

Firstly, there are a number of ways to negate something in Greek. For the sake of our topic I’ll explain just two. An action can be negated “before” the action has commenced and an action can be negated “during” the event. For example: I have just baked a cake and told my daughter ‘don’t eat that cake’ before she even starts on it. Or if she has already started eating it I can tell her to stop. When Paul says, in 1 Cor 14:39,40
Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and “do not forbid speaking in tongues” The Greek verb forbid (kwluete) is an imperative, present, active coupled with the negative particle ‘may.’ The meaning is; ‘do not forbid’ (to speak in tongues) which is already in operation and will continue on habitually with no indication of ceasing.

The other point I would like to make is the difference between the Greek and English word for ‘perfect.’ Paul says in 1 Cor 13:10
“….but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears.” Cessationists will tell you that ‘perfection’ here is Christ or the bible. It’s obvious to me that they are unable to read nor translate Greek. The participle form used above ‘telayown’ of the noun ‘telos’ simply means mature, full grown, complete. It is not like our Western protestant idea of perfection. Simply put, the spiritual gifts are for bringing believers to a place of maturity and when this is accomplished then spiritual gifts will “not dissappear” but just be rendered inoperable (nullified) see; Rom 11:29. Therefore, since not all believers have yet come to a state of complete maturity, spiritual gifts will continue as far as I see, until Christ comes back for us. We certainly won’t need them then. Anyway, hope this little snippet helps… God Bless!

By tru on Jul 10, 2008

The test first of all to be applied is whether the proponents of crazy pentecostalism are prepared to answer for what they do, to the lesser mortals like myself. If they are either too proud, or too remote, or do not think I qualify to be answered, then there is something wrong from the start, irrespective of any other issues that arise. Sadly, as Christians, we too often lack basic honesty about ourselves. The Lord knows our hearts intimately, so there is no point in being anything but totally honest. A failure here also brings in all the other failures that are being alluded to right now.

By Mike Lampard on Jul 11, 2008

Mike Lampard:
I certainly agree with your first point and, as a convinced (biblically and historically) classic-Pentecostal, I will always do my best to provide an apologetic for my position, as time allows in my VERY busy schedule. Please give me time if you take me on.

I also agree with what appears to be your second point, that basic honesty is at the root of the current problems that we are addressing in respect of the Lakeland con and it’s forerunners — Toronto and Pensacola. That’s why we have issued a call to the AoG and other leaders who foisted this terrible delusion upon ordinary Christians like you and me. I consider myself just as “ordinary” as you or any other Christian.

God bless you Mike.

By Philip L. POWELL on Jul 11, 2008

All these comments are interesting and we are all at different stages of of our Christian walk. We just need a teachable spirit and God can take us to where he wants us to be.

It is great to see that we can have a good discussion without insulting each other because we have all learned through many hardships, which seems the way most of us do our best learning.

I have a question to raise, and some comments following.

What do you run your life by?

I ran mine by dreams and visions and contemplation with a smattering of the Word. Mysticism is believing that you are getting something direct from God apart from the Word. Somehow you have a direct line.

It was when I had a lady and her three boys who were in a financial crisis come stay at my house that I experienced my first close encounter with a false prophet. While she was there, she saw angels and demons standing over buildings, she knew the names of every angel/demon behind every person’s life, her children saw shadows in doorways, got dumped out of bed, saw flames in the ceiling. She described her experience as she was walking down the street and saw blood spots all over her clothing. And when she would have such experiences, she would consult “the Lord” and he would tell her the meaning and what to pray for.

She made my mystical experiences seem like child’s play… She said “Now that I am here, you will have to put oil on all the window sills, because that will be the Holy Spirit anointing to keep out the evil spirits”. I didn’t say anything, but I refused to, on the basis that Christ was enough.

That night just before I went to sleep, in floats a pocket of black mist through the window. It really scared me for a moment and then I said the name of Jesus and it was gone. Then one day, very innocently, I said something to her about praising God continually and she began to shake and became very angry…she said, “Carolyn, you are undermining everything I have said”. At which point, she and her boys went downstairs to their living quarters. And I went to my knees. The Lord said, “Test the spirits…”1 John 4:1,2

I wish I could say that that was the end of my dabbling in mysticism, but many years later, after saying many things that “the Lord” told me, embarrassing myself totally, and being “open” to dreams that gave me a sense of being in touch with God in a special way… I came to see that they are only there to distract us from God’s truth. As long as we are feeding on the straw of mysticism, we will have no appetite for the meat of God’s Word. They come from two totally different sources.

I personally want no part with the straw. I will take the fire and the hammer. Jeremiah 23:29. Actually, the whole chapter of Jeremiah is good because it is a description of today’s false prophets…they never change.

If we continue to speak the Word of God faithfully, we will be speaking for the Lord. If we love our dreams and visions, we will be treading on dangerous ground. I refused to listen to my dreams, etc, even though they continued to come for a time, and every now and again will try to entice me. But I want no part with them. I want the Word of God alone. A safe place to be.

As for Pentecostal-ism, it is an “ism”… much like mystic-ism there is the human element that loves attention through some superior knowledge. It sets us apart. If we say that tongues are the evidence of being filled with the Spirit, would we not have to say that having the appearance of tongues of fire resting on each of us and a violent wind blowing, would also have to be part of the evidence? Because there were all three phenomena happening on the day of Pentecost.

But speaking in tongues is not the evidence as we have evidenced from many who have spoken in tongues and continue on in their vile ways. The evidence is a changed life and a love of truth and a longing for God to be glorified.

But because we have received these values from childhood, we have a hard time seeing things any other way.

We can argue “isms” forever, but the fire and hammer of God’s Word, we cannot void. It will accomplish its purposes for God.

Carolyn

By Carolyn on Jul 13, 2008

Hi Tru,

Thank you for your thoughts on gifts. 1 Cor.13 & Eph.4 both speak of spiritual gifts being given “until” maturity is reached. These scriptures show that gifts are a means to an end and that once the end result has been arrived at, the gifts will no longer be necessary.

This raises the question in my mind - what was the purpose of the “gift of tongues” and is this gift still needed?

In Christ,
Warrick

By Warrick on Jul 15, 2008

Here are some links that you may find helpful.

TONGUES
Glossolalia & Charismatic Renewal
In Light Of The Bible
http://www.tbaptist.com/aab/tongues.htm

The Charismatic Movement: A Biblical Critique by Brian Schwertley
http://graceonlinelibrary.org/articles/full.asp?id=40||43

Is Speaking in Tongues Valid and Biblical Today?
http://www.gospelcenterchurch.org/tongues.html

What about Speaking in Tongues
http://www.degrafffreewillbaptist.com/Tongues.html

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/confusion-abouttongues.html

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/pent-charismatic-tongues-vs-bible.html

http://www.churchofgod.net/tongues.htm

Submitted for your edification.

Elaine

By Elaine on Jul 15, 2008

Hi Paul,

Thank you for your comments.

Just one point in reply.

We must read all Scripture in context. As far as I can see, the idea that the “gift of tongues” was a private prayer language, is not in the Bible.

In 1 Cor.14, Paul is writing to correct what was happening in Corinth, when all the Christians came together. Evidently things were being said that were not able to be understood by the church and therefore there was no edification. What was being said was not unknown to the speaker, but to the hearer. (See eg: vs.13-17)

Anyway, just a few thoughts for your consideration.

In Christ,
Warrick

By Warrick on Jul 15, 2008

Thank you all so much for your loving and gracious contributions to this discussion which have encouraged my heart.
Since 1974 when I became a believer The Lord has led me through methodism, legalism, charismania/pentecostalism, and for many and varied reasons I now break bread, study the scriptures and pray with a group of ‘open’ brethren [not all of whom are cessationist, by any means!]. However 18 months ago a young woman came into my son’s life and the Lord gloriously saved her. Because of what she was saved out of she immediately discerned the mysticism/occultism that was evident in the services she attended. To the believer’s credit she was baptised in water and was loved and helped in a material way providing what was needed at the time.
However it has been to her, and my, great sadness and disappointment that I have had to inform her of the error and apostasy that is so prevalent in the body of Christ today. She has been horrified at what she has witnessed going on in Florida on the internet and has been deeply affected by it. This has had the effect of discouraging her in her zeal to share the gospel with others.
Please pray for her and others like her whom the Lord is graciously saving and redeeming, that they will be encouraged by Him and given everything that they need to sustain them in their walk in these perilous days. Pray also for wisdom and understanding for those of us whom the Lord has blessed by the lives of these dear ones, as we seek to nurture them in their new found faith.
Let us encourage one another to live and move in the truth of First Corinthians chapter 13, my particular choice being the NASB.
for the Lord Jesus and for the Glory of God.

By Isobel on Jul 17, 2008

Warrick,
1 Corinthians chapters 12 - 14 are a unit of teaching for those who will obediently follow the Lord and exercise these gifts provided by the Holy Spirit; it has some complexity in it and often ‘armchair theologians’ miss some nuances in these teachings (and I may be one, as our present corporate churching doesn’t include vocal spiritual gifts at this stage - and it is a place of great love). I found that many aspects made sense after I started to ’step onto the water’ in faith, and use what he was challenging me to use when I began using this mysterious gifting.
In many places the teachings effectively have created distrust in the Holy Spirit and an hybrid Trinity has resulted of God the Father, the Son & the Holy Scripture - along with a kind of evangelical rationalism. The warning “Don’t have anything to do with spirits of any kind” has affected many in their trust in the Spirit himself.

“Private prayer language” is your term, not mine. When I’ve delivered a message in tongues publicly it has been a familiar tongue that I’ve used in prayer - and I usually pray in English , even when in deep intercession. The tongue/language is still unknown to me. Speaking in tongues is an obstacle often for bright thinkers to exercise. 1 Cor 14 vs 14-15 indicate that the mind is by-passed when we vocalise ‘in the spirit’ and Paul the apostle must have done this very frequently cf.verse 18.
I heard a local Baptist preacher, in suburban Brisbane, give a series of teachings on this almost 12 months ago, and he incorrectly posited that the sounds of the language were already known to the speaker in other tongues (i.e. unknown languages) and they were easily created on that basis. Then he assumed that the interpreter knew the ‘code’ that the speaker used and filled in the vowels or consonants that were missing for it to make sense in English (that is a summary of his impressive presentation which included a MSPowerpoint visual aid). His sources were from a narrow band of reformed theologians (and I enjoy reformed theology in its grand scope, & its focus on the majesty & glory of the triune Godhead) and some secular linguistics scholars. It actually was an extremely rationalistic explanation, and not just rational in its reasoning for discussion of how the Holy Spirit is working in the process was not even considered.
When I challenged him privately and suggested this he became quite defensive and promised to show me his ‘evidence’ from many hours of research. (He never did, but moved to a ‘bigger & better’ church in Sydney soon after.)

It is good to discuss these things in such a forum as this. The enquiring mind does deserve some answers - and I suspect mine may be somewhat dissatisfying, my brother in Christ Jesus, as each of us have limited understanding at best. We rest in the omniscient One … the hope of our life.
May the Spirit of Christ guide you as you sort through conflicting ideas in this area.

By Paul, a small potato on Jul 17, 2008

Dear All,

It seems very obvious in this hour that those who call themselves Pentecostal (and by that I mean those who hold to the written Word of God as authoritive in all things, Christ as central, the Cross essential, the Blood of Jesus, holiness of life, the Lord’s table, life of prayer etc) are caught between two groups.

1. The first group that they have had to deal with is those who are Evangelical, upright and godly but who rejected the gifts for today. Of course they have had to deal with such for 100 years. The Pentecostals took their stand on the Bible. Scripture was their strongest argument. They proved all and rejected all things not written in Scripture. They did not build on emotion, experience or manifestations but upon the written testimony of God. Since my childhood I have sat with godly Baptists, Free-Presbyterians, Brethren, etc, but none have been able to give any viable defence of their view of the cessation of the 9 supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit. I am convinced by Scripture that these are for today until Jesus comes. The first Pentecostal Pioneers in the British Isles spent months (sometimes 10 months) diligently searching scripture to see if these things were for today. This Pentecostal Revival in Britain came as a conviction of Scripture. This movement was guarded and guided by scripture. It spread out into many nations in order to carry the Truth of God’s Word to all nations.

I believe its fruit, spread, purity, power and adherence to Scripture, Christ and the Cross, shows it was a genuine Revival.

It is worth noting that Cessationists would have to reject much that has happened in Church history previous to 1900 if they are correct. Including amongst the Reformers, Anabaptists, Covenanters, Methodists, Missionaries etc. Try explaining the ministry of Peden the Prophet and others.

2. A more recent group which they have encountered and sadly have not dealt with as effectually is a movement that took their practices of praising God, belief in the miraculous and the gifts of the Spirit but which has mostly rejected its essential beliefs. The charismatic Movement of the past 40 years is a corruption of the real. The so-called revivals of the past 20 years have been disastrous for the scriptural order of local churches. These new so-called revival movements generally undermine the authority of Scripture, the preaching of Christ, the Cross, the Blood and holiness.

The pioneers of the Pentecostal Movement in Britain and Ireland would have rejected these present revivals. It is interesting that Free-Presbyterians in Northern Ireland reject the Charismatic Movement as erroneous, but only disagree with the Pentecostal Movement on its belief on the gifts. They cannot fault them on their belief on the fundamentals.

The Pentecostal Revival and Movement was a genuine move of God – what we see today in Pentecostal churches is an utter corruption of a genuine work. To reject the original Pentecostal revival because of today’s foolishness amongst them would be like rejecting the Wesley Brothers and their Revival because of what the Methodist Church is today.

True Pentecostals who hold fast to the teachings and example of their pioneers reject today’s sham.

Anyone wanting to read the TRUE history of the Pentecostal Pioneers can read my book called “Pentecostal Pioneers Remembered” (by Keith Malcomson) or visit my website www.pentecostalpioneers.org

The devil fought hard to infiltrate the Pentecostal Movement and compromise it because it was having such a powerful, widespread affect in seeing people turn to Christ for salvation as well as to the written Word of God across the world. She was number 1 on the Roman Catholic Churches hit list – that ought to tell us something. But not anymore, as Rome has mothered another harlot. Most Pentecostals have gone to Rome.

What next? A new move and revival that will honour Jesus Christ and His Word. Where will it come from? The true Remnant who have held fast. What will they be called by their enemies? Probably legalists!!!!

By Keith Malcomson on Jul 21, 2008

I am also a third generation Pentecostal. I think a good thing to remember is that heresies & false teachings have plagued the entire body of Christ since the times of the early church. As a Pentecostal, I have seen manifestations of the flesh, of the devil, & of God in meetings since I was a child. I think it would be wise to test these things, correct them when they are clearly wrong but not quench the Spirit as Paul warns in the Scripture. I think you will find true Pentecostalism has a very strong view of Scripture, a love for systematic theology, & now a push for higher education for it’s lay people & ministers.
There are some people who put themselves under the Pentecostal / Charismatic umbrella that I would classify as false teachers & deceivers. But we have to remember most other denominations have experienced heretics too. I think our biggest failure is we are too slow or too soft on false teaching. I think that we need to change that & deal with it as the apostolic church did…which means they did not put up with it & exposed it. Pentecostal & Charismatic are very broad terms with a myriad of doctrinal view points on spiritual gifts, sanctification, & baptisms. I personally lean toward the Assemblies of God position after my own studies.
I would like to recommend those of you that have not received this great blessing of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit to read the entire book of Acts & 1 Corinthians chapters 12-14 to see the entire scope & context of this teaching. It will make you hungry for the church to earnestly contend for doctrines once delivered by Christ & the 12 Apostles.
Also I recommend these Pentecostal theologians’ & historians’ books as another source of understanding: William Menzies, Stanley Horton, Myer Pearlman, Gordon Fee, Vincent Synan, & Donald Gee. You might check out these denominations’ resources: The Assemblies of God, The Church of God (Cleveland, Tennesee), The Foursquare Chruch, The Church of God in Christ, Pentecostal Holiness Church & the Elim Church as possible resources.

By Scott Phillips on Jul 22, 2008

I just wanted to comment on a few things regarding traditional Pentecostalism. Classical or Traditional Pentecostalism has its roots in the Wesleyian, Holiness, & Arminian theology. Pentecostalism sprung up in the early 1900’s out of certain Holiness groups in America. Historically, it grew out of a Bible school in Topeka, Kansas & a mission in Azusa Street, California. While the church had experienced several powerful moves of God in the Great Awakenings, this was the first time the Baptism of the Holy Spirit with the evidence of tongues was sought out on a grand scale in church history. Early Pentecostalism taught the major themes of salvation, healing, baptisms, & the second coming of Christ. It generally embraced Arminian theology as taught by John Wesley. Most of these people who experienced this revival felt rejected & spurned by their home churches. As a result, years later, many Pentecostal associations & denominations formed to unify in doctrine & practice. In latter times, the latter rain movement & Charismatic movements shook the classical groups & challenged the earlier Pentecostal groups. Some embraced them, some did not. Pentecostalism has grown & changed quite a bit over the years. Some things have been good, some not so good. All we can do as any believer [no matter what brand or creed] is test all things, prove all things, & in love correct when necessary. I want to challenge all churches, creeds, & denominations with something that has been on heart. Let’s get back to the Bible, the teachings of Christ & the early Apostles. Let another Reformation arise in the church to bring the Bible back & the true power of the Spirit, & most of all, the true message of the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. Let’s quit relying on media, programs, & seeker sensitive agendas to replace & water down the eternal message of Our Supreme Lord Jesus Christ. Let’s return to & earnestly contend to the faith once delivered to the saints. Who cares what church you go to. If you are saved, you are my brother or sister. Let’s turn this thing around & stand up to the garbage that is another Gospel - which is not the Gospel at all. God has a plan for his glorious church in these last days. Arise! servants of the Most High God…

By Scott Phillips on Jul 22, 2008

Paul,

Thank you for your recent comments. Much could be said in reply - but this is probably not the place for it.

My original question still remains.

We have God’s Word. May He have the final authority in our hearts, as we wait for the Lord Jesus to come.

Your Brother in Christ,
Warrick.

By Warrick on Jul 23, 2008

Thank you Elaine for your two posts. The first one by Pink…very powerful. I thought of the prophet’s words…”how long will you waver between two opinions. If Baal be God…worship him…If God is God…then worship him.”

I think that the reason we are seeing so much error is that there is mixture…I mixed error (in ignorance) and truth for years!!! It was when I chose one above the other that I began to understand.

Even though I have given up the false and the supernatural, because I was raised Pentecostal, I haven’t heard some of the

Thank you for the sites that you presented. I need to know “why” from sound Bible teachers.

By Carolyn on Jul 24, 2008

Greetings Carolyn,

You are most welcome. I, too, was in error out of ignorance, so I completely understand your position. Your scripture reference to 1 Kings 18:21 was spot on. Paul says, “Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe; but to them that believe not ….” I Corinthians 14:22.

Have you also noticed that 99.9% of the time it was usually a woman who spoke in tongues during a church service? Strange, since Paul in 1 Corinthians 14:34 “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.” We do not need to know Hebrew or Greek to understand that.

I wholeheartedly agree with your post on July 13, “We can argue isms forever, but the fire and hammer of God’s Word, we cannot void. It will accomplish its purposes for God.” Amen.
I will close with a question from a dear brother-in-Christ, “How is it Christians can be divided over spiritual issues if the Holy Spirit is their Teacher?”

By Elaine on Jul 26, 2008

Elaine…yes, I see that now about tongues.

And yes, it was mostly women in my church growing up, who gave messages in tongues. In particular a missionary’s wife…who was severely messed up emotionally outside of church, but every Sunday she would give her message in tongues, and she would interpret as well, saying almost the identical thing every week and no one would dare to challenge her because of who she was. But even as a teenager, it was obvious something was wrong…I just didn’t know what.

If that was allowed when women were not scripturally permitted to speak in tongues in a service…then maybe I should be questioning many more Pentecostal practices — and I am.

Yes, there are those Pentecostals who know the Word…but many more who I am well acquainted with, who prefer the experiences, the tongues and the giftings. And why are we so surprised when these same people go after false prophets? Many times the false prophets are just a little more exaggerated in their orientation that we are.

When the root is false, so is the tree.

Since our hearts are deceitful above all things, says Jeremiah 17:9, we should not be following our hearts, ie if it feels right it must be right. But the Word is truth…that is our only measurement of what is right. When we follow what feels right to our own spirit we do so to our own peril. We will be easily deceived. Been there, done that.

I have had time to take a good hard look at the stuff that seemed so acceptable to me as I was growing up. I know I still do not have all the answers, but I’m a long way from the naive and gullible convert that I was.

Truth changes our reality from superstitious, vague, esoterical and man centered to factual, concrete, assured and God centred life.

It is so much easier to get your “truth” from man. Again in Jeremiah 17:6 “Cursed is the one who trusts in man, who depends on flesh for his strength and whose heart turns away from the Lord.”

It is so much easier just to go with the flow of what the church teaches than to ask some hard questions and get some straight answers that put an end to those uncertain teachings about tongues and gifts that you have heard over and over but they remain in the realm of the incomprehensible.

Here is my attempt to answer the question you raised from the brother in Christ: “how is it Christians can be divided over spiritual issues if the Holy Spirit is their Teacher?”

If we would defend truth and not our version of the truth, then the Holy Spirit would most certainly be our teacher and our own “agendas” (and we all have them if we are honest) would fall to the side.

Jesus said to Pilate, John 18:37 “Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.” There is the separation. And after the separation, there is no division between believers who are on the side of truth.

By Carolyn on Jul 27, 2008

Dear Paul,

Just in reply to your July 24 comment.
I do appreciate all your correspondence and note that to date you are the only one who has sought to answer my original question of July 9.

In looking back to July 10, you state “…the real languages I have spoken privately to the LORD, are unknown to me - some may be angelic and some would be human…”.
If the languages are unknown to you - how then do you know that they are real languages?

I can only repeat, in love, that when tested by the Word of God, I personally do not know anyone who has the “gift of tongues” that I read about in the bible.

In answer to your question as to which gifts I am exercising under the Spirit’s guidance.
It is only by God’s grace, through the Spirit, that we can function as members of the Body of Christ, under the direction of Him who is the head. No doubt we all know His grace in some measure.
I shrink from making any big claims about myself, but would say that I have proved that God gives grace even when one’s desire is to simply be a help to the Lord’s people (1 Cor.12:28).

In Christ,
Warrick.

By Warrick on Jul 28, 2008

Carolyn,

Interesting post about the missionary’s wife …so it would seem that both, the pastor and the missionary were ignorant of 1 Cor. 14:34! Seems to me she was severely messed up emotionally outside of church as well as in it. When I was regenerated and being converted, meaning an ignorant babe in Christ, this tongue speaking used to scare me. I used to be so nervous getting ready to go to church that I would pray, “God, PLEASE do not give me any message in tongues!” Praise God for his faithfulness!

I will tell you about a church I attended for a very short while. A friend of mine was the secretary/bookkeeper for the church; she was an example of a Proverbs 31 woman. All of a sudden she resigns her position and leaves the church. A short time later I found out the reason for her resigning and leaving the church. Since she was responsible for paying the bills, she noticed that an 800 number was called several times a day, and thought this must be a mistake. She decides to call it to reconcile the bill, but low and behold it was a Psychic hot line! Yep, the pastor’s wife and her hot line to “a prophetic word for you!” Evidently she missed 2 Pet.1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

I will defer to J.C. Ryle to answer, “How is it Christians can be divided over spiritual issues if the Holy Spirit is their Teacher?”

They have all learned in one school

(J. C. Ryle, “Having the Spirit”)
(”The man of granite, with the heart of a child.” 1816 - 1900).

All who have the Spirit–are taught by Him. He is called in Scripture, “The Spirit of wisdom and revelation.” It was the promise of the Lord Jesus, “He shall teach you all things.” “He shall guide you into all truth.”

We are all by nature ignorant of spiritual truth. “The natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God–they are foolishness to him.” Our eyes are blinded. We neither know God, nor Christ, nor ourselves, nor the
world, nor sin, nor heaven, nor hell–as we ought. We see everything under false colors.

The Spirit alters entirely this state of things. He opens the eyes of our understandings. He illumines us. He calls
us out of darkness into marvelous light. He takes away the veil. He shines into our hearts, and makes us see things as they really are!

No wonder that all true Christians are so remarkably agreed upon the essentials of true religion! The reason is, that they have all learned in one school–the school of the Holy Spirit. No wonder that true Christians can understand each other at once, and find common ground of fellowship! They have been taught the same language, by One whose lessons are never
forgotten!

Here is another thing to question, where in Scripture do we find “Altar Call?”

By Elaine on Jul 28, 2008

Hullo everyone but especially Paul, Warrick, Elaine and Carol - Philip Powell here.

I have been following this in a cursory manner only, being so inundated by many things.

For what it’s worth I think it’s interesting that the AV uses the word “manifestation” with respect to the so called “nine (supernatural) gifts of the Holy Spirit.” The word translated from the Greek signifies that which “shines forth”. When a true manifestation–there are only 9 and “prostration” is NOT one of them–of the Holy Spirit occurs it is like a bright light shining. If it happens publicly in a meeting then the meeting is set alight. That is one of the tests of genuinness. If there is doubt and disputing after a “manifestation” it’s a reasonable indication that it was not authentic. That of course is NOT the only test, but it is one.

There are many “gifts” of the Holy Spirit but only NINE manifestations–shinnings forth–of the Holy Spirit.

Thanks to all for all your gracious comments. I hope to return to this later.

In Christ,

By Philip L. POWELL on Jul 28, 2008

Dear Paul,

Thanks for your conversation.
It may be unprofitable to continue in a forum like this.
Be assured that my question of July 9 was genuine and that I had no desire to be contentious or stir the pot.
All false doctrine ultimately robs God. “…Prove all things, hold fast the right” (1 Thess.5:21).

With Love in Christ,
Warrick.

By Warrick on Jul 29, 2008

To Elaine:

That’s funny about how nervous you were. It sure does help knowing what is expected of you in the arena of tongues protocol and being a woman. I knew that verse about women keeping silence but thought it was for back then…not now, since clearly, (ahem) women spoke in tongues in this day and age.

I just see it now as the order that God set out for his own reasons and I’m quite happy with it.

Good answer to the question “How is it Christians can be divided over spiritual issues if the Holy Spirit is their Teacher?”

This part by J. C. Ryle stood out:

“The Spirit alters entirely this state of things. He opens the eyes of our understandings. He illumines us. He calls us out of darkness into marvelous light. He takes away the veil. He shines into our hearts, and makes us see things as they really are!”

As for altar calls, Elaine, I think it makes sense if you have a specific reason for calling people forward such as when Christ prayed for people and healed people. Their response was faith based on his teachings.

But the altar calls based in emotional pleas and pleadings are quite useless for when the emotions die out, there is not much left to stand on. Consequently you have the same people coming down to the altar every week, once again responding to their emotions. I have been in meetings where it became embarrassing because the pastor kept waiting and pleading for them to make a decision for Christ. I think that if the Holy Spirit is at work in the person’s life, it will be a decision based on reason and faith in the Word presented and the illumination of the Word lighting up the understanding in a person’s heart as described by J. C. Ryle in the above quote. No pleading necessary.

By Carolyn on Jul 29, 2008

Hi Phillip:

You said:

“When a true manisfestation of the Holy Spirit occurs, it is like a bright light shining. If it happens publicly in a meeting then the meeting is set alight. That is one of the tests of genuinness. If there is doubt and disputing after a “manifestation” it’s a reasonable indication that it was not authentic. That of course is NOT the only test, but it is one.”

What are the other tests because I am sure that all the false prophets would say that they are experiencing that ecstatic light shining forth. They would say that their meetings have been set alight.

I know what a genuine manifestation or illumination of the Holy Spirit is, but how do you communicate that to someone who is following after a false prophet who cannot discern between the false light and the true light?

How does one measure a false Holy Spirit experience with a genuine Holy Spirit experience on the basis of something like doubts and disputings? I know that you have more to say on that subject…

This is what I wrestle with in Pentecostalism, in that there is no clear definition or distinction of “rules” for lack of a better word, so that when the AoG or Pentecostal sheep goes off thinking he is experiencing the Holy Spirit’s illumination he is in actuality following a completely different illumination from the “angel of light” but doesn’t discern.

That is why I have walked away from Pentecostal experiences which I can’t seem to test and prove to something that I can completely count on to be reliable and 100% sure from God, the Word.

So yes, back to the topic… is Pentecostalism part of the con? I think it could be when there are gaps in the teachings of the Word, and assumptions that lead people away from the biblical tests that could save them from the wolves that stalk our churches.

What are the other tests that you spoke of?

By Carolyn on Jul 30, 2008

In determining whether ‘tongues’ continue today or have ceased, it would seem prudent to first determine and agree on what ‘tongues’ are biblically.

It is interesting that the initial mention of ‘tongues’ at Pentecost says this:

“Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man HEARD THEM SPEAK IN HIS OWN LANGUAGE. And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? And how hear we every man IN OUR OWN TONGUE, WHEREIN WE WERE BORN?” Acts 2:6-8

Whatever the ‘tongues’ sounded like to the speaker, they were heard by the audience as several already established languages, all at the same time. The ‘miracle’ appears to be in how they were ‘heard’, not so much in how they were ’spoken.

And in reference to who of this early church spoke, verse 4 says that they ALL spoke with tongues, both men and women, declaring plainly in different languages the ‘wonderful works of God.’ (verse 11). This, according to Acts 1:14 included all the women and Mary, the mother of Jesus.

Perhaps another definition of ‘tongues’ has come to overshadow and supercede a Biblical one?

By Gillian on Jul 31, 2008

Hi Philip,

I would have to agree with Carolyn.
I look forward to reading your answer to her question and mine also of July 9.

In Christ,
Warrick.

By Warrick on Aug 3, 2008

Carolyn Warrick & others:

Thanks for all your courteous comments.

1 Cor. 14:23-25 (NKJV) - “Therefore if the whole church comes together in one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those who are uninformed or unbelievers, will they not say that you are out of your mind? (24)But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an uninformed person comes in, he is convinced by all, he is convicted by all. (25) And thus the secrets of his heart are revealed; and so, falling down on his face, he will worship God and report that God is truly among you.”

Verse 25 explains the significance of a true “manifestation” (shining forth) of the Holy Spirit in the congregation of God’s people. It is not a mystical light and I did not use the term in that sense. The Bible always explains itself even the terms it uses. Words are at best “lame vehicles of expression” so we MUST always compare Scripture with Scripture and thus formulate our ideas and our teaching.

In Acts chapter 2 the outpouring of the Holy Spirit resulted, among other things, in men and women “speaking in tongues” as the Holy Spirit “gave them to UTTER …” In other words they articulated what the Holy Spirit initiated. They did not know they would “speak in tongues”. Apart from the some what ambiguous “they shall speak with new tongues” of Christ’s promise in Mark 16:7 our Lord did not allude to anything specific. He simply commanded them to wait “until they were endued with power from on high” (Luke 24:49). The impact of what occurred was startling (a true “manifestation”). Those of the diaspora who were sincere seekers were arrested and convinced (Acts 2:11). The skeptics misunderstood and misinterpreted what happened and foolishly attributed it to drunkenness (Acts 2:13). There is no contextual indication that the 120 acted in a drunken manner, contrary to what the supporters of Toronto, Pensacola and Lakeland would have us believe. To make such a false conclusion one has to read into the text something which is NOT there.

1 Cor. 14:1-5 - “Pursue love, and desire spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy. (2) For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries. (3) But he who prophesies speaks edification and exhortation and comfort to men. (4) He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church. (5) I wish you all spoke with tongues, but even more that you prophesied; for he who prophesies is greater than he who speaks with tongues, unless indeed he interprets, that the church may receive edification.”

There are several important conclusions we MUST draw from this passage considered in the full context of Paul’s teaching about “speaking in tongues” and other spiritual “manifestations”:

1) The person who “speaks in tongues” (i.e. biblical tongues speaking) “speaks mysteries” i.e. he does not understand what he speaks. This agrees totally with what happened in Acts chapter 2.
2) The person who “speaks in tongues” is “edified” i.e. built up spiritually, BUT if his tongues speaking is NOT interpreted the congregation is NOT edified and is left questioning and the “non believer” considers it strange and possibly stupid.
3) Speaking in tongues in the congregation without being interpreted is biblically wrong practice and should be avoided.
4) Speaking in tongues plus interpretation of tongues equates to prophecy.
5) Speaking in tongues without interpretation should be practiced ONLY in private - cf. verses 4 and 5 - above.

No-one would know what happens in Brisbane or in any other city in total in this regard. I personally do not know of any case where a foreigner has identified someone speaking in tongues in his/her native language. I have heard of it happening but it is ONLY third hand witness. So I hesitate to reference it without having specific documentation.

We can only go by what the Bible teaches and we MUST compare scripture with scripture.

IN SUMMARY - biblical tongues speaking is initiated by the Holy Spirit. It may, as on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2) be known languages to the hearers though NOT understood by the speaker. In the congregation (fellowship of God’s people) it should not be practiced without the other equally SUPERNATURAL manifestation–”interpretation” of tongues– in order that all may be “edified” i.e. “spiritually built up”. A person may speak in tongues in private WITHOUT interpretation as he is “speaking to God” i.e. involved in prayer.

By Philip L. POWELL on Aug 4, 2008

Dear Philip,

Thank you for your reply of Aug 4.

As you know, we run into problems when we isolate verses and don’t read them in context. In 1 Cor.11:17-14:40, Paul is speaking specifically about when the Christians come together and what he says is clearly corrective. He states what was happening in Corinth, not what should be happening.

My understanding as I read 1 Cor.14 is that Paul is saying the opposite to what Pentecostal Theology teaches - that He is not saying the “gift of tongues” are for praying to God with, but if I pray/speak in the church in a language (whether it be the “gift” or simply my mother tongue) and no one can understand me but God (vs.2), that is wrong - for all things are to be done for the edification of the church (vs.5).
- that it is not love in operation if I speak in the church and no one can understand what I am saying, thereby edifying only myself. Love does not do this (1 Cor.13:5). The word edify is used several times in the New Testament, eg: Rom.14:19, 1 Cor.8:10, Gal.2:18. It depends on what is being built up as to whether it is right or wrong. In 1 Cor.14:2, Paul is correcting those who build themselves up and no one else. This is not love and therefore not of God.
- that it is not the speaker who does not understand what is being said, but the others in the church who don’t know the language spoken. This is clearly stated in vs.7-9, 16, 19. If I pray publicly with other Christians, my desire should be to lead them, to stimulate in their hearts a response towards God, that my prayer should bear fruit. If no one can understand what I’m saying but me, my spirit prays, but because I am not being understood (vs.14), no one can say “Amen”. The church is not edified and God is not being glorified.
God is the One who gives the gifts so that they might be used in relation to others, exercised manward not Godward (1 Cor.12), in the power of His Spirit. The “gift of tongues” was not given so someone could pray to God in a foreign language, but as a sign to the unbeliever (1 Cor.14:22).

It seems to me, that the issue that Paul is addressing in 1 Cor.14 is not tongues, but that things were being said and done in the church that were not edifying.

I do not wish to be contentious. Much more could be said, but I will just leave these few thoughts for your prayerful consideration.

Your Brother in Christ,
Warrick.

By Warrick on Aug 8, 2008

Dear Warrick (August 8):

Firstly, thanks for your comments.

Secondly we are agreed that we MUST read all scripture in CONTEXT, which in my opinion in your argument you do NOT.

Thirdly we are agreed that what Paul writes in the context cited by you (1 Cor. 11:17-14:40) is largely corrective.

Fourthly I don’t think we should ever impute “contention” to anyone who, like yourself, have another view point and present it with grace and courtesy as you have done.

If I understand you correctly I must say that your argument to me is self defeating. For example in the context cited we have the matter of the Lord’s Table, otherwise called “Communion” among other names used. Paul was clearly correcting wrong practice and careless habits that had arisen among the Corinthians. Does this mean that what he taught has no relevance to us today or that Communion would be then but NOT now?

Another thing that you appear to have overlooked in arriving at your conclusion is that while Paul did write to correct the wrong practice of many people all speaking “in tongues” in a congregational meeting, he did not FORBID tongues speaking. Quite the opposite. He commanded not to FORBID “speaking in tongues” and told us all that he was thankful to God that he “spoke in tongues” MORE than anyone. All of this is in the context.

Obviously you must be wrong that the “speaking to God” that he refers to could have been his own native tongue. If that were so then you are faced with the conclusion that he actually forbids “prayer” to God in the open congregation. Surely that cannot be so!! Also I feel that in this particular conclusion that you have reached you overlook the contextual setting of chapter 12: 1 “Now concerning spiritual gifts [Greek “pneumikos” = literally “sprirituals”] …” cf. chapter 14:1. This takes you back to the more expansive context of 1 Cor. 2:10-3:4 etc, where Paul speaks of three categories of persons “the natural” (Greek “psuchikos” i.e. the “unconverted”); “the spritual” (Gr. “pneumatikos”); “the carnal” (Greek (Greek “sarkikos” = “of the flesh”).

The point is if you are true in your interpretation to the “context” it just could not have been “natural language” that Paul was talking about.

I think in addition that you make the mistake of equating “topic” with context. You say it was ALL corrective and you make your conclusion based on the idea that “CORRECTION” is the CONTEXT. No that is not the case. Correction is the TOPIC. The context is something different and has to take into account the passage per se.

I agree with you that Paul is correcting wrong practice but he does not leave it there. He goes on to say that we should not FORBID “speaking” in tongues and he rejoices that he DOES engage in the practice.

The key instruction is really at the end of the passage:

“Let all things be done decently and in order” and the main point is the “edification” ie. “the building up” of the congregation and NOT the mere “building up on the individual”. This is where Paul’s correction in this particular setting is directed.

The cessationist position is clearly untenable for a number of reasons, not least the fact that it renders whole sections of the New Testament irrelevant to our time. Now of course you may disagree with that comment, BUT if you think deeply about it you have to come to that conclusion.

God bless you and may the Holy Spirit guide us ALL into ALL of HIS TRUTH.

Pentecostal and Charismatic Churches that engage in open “tongues speaking” without “interpretation” are acting wrongly. Similarly the so called Toronto Blessing, Pensacola and now the hideous goings on at Lakeland, Florida clearly disregard Paul’s instruction about acting in a “controlled” manner. They are OUT OF CONTROL and for this reason as well as for others they are OUT OF ORDER biblically and must end in a mess.

By Philip L. POWELL on Aug 8, 2008

Dear Philip,

Thanks again for your thoughts.
My comment of August 8 continues to express my present convictions.

I don’t take the ground of being a cessationist, but do believe that we don’t have some gifts, eg: Apostles & Prophets, in the same way as they did in the early church. From my own observation, never having seen the Biblical “gift of tongues”, I suspect that this may be true of that gift also.

As for speaking in tongues, I have never forbidden them - but only say, let the tongues be real languages and not meaningless syllables.
If 1 Cor.14:2 is to be understood as you say it should be, the question still remains in my mind, how is a person edified by praying to God in a foreign language or syllables that they do not understand?

Your Brother in Christ,
Warrick.

By Warrick on Aug 11, 2008

May I ask a question?
IS PHYSICAL HEALING A PART OF CHRIST’S SUBSTITUTIONARY ATONEMENT ?
There are godly people I know who hold each view - can anyone help me sort it out, please ?

By Anonymous on Aug 17, 2008

To the question..Is physical healing a part of Christ’s substitutionary atonement?

That is a good question. I have read many books on the subject but the best book is the red letter edition of the Bible…in other words, Christ’s own Words on the subject.

I will admit, that I am less qualified to answer this question than anyone, but I will attempt to answer that question from my own experience.

Being that many people are not healed as a matter of course, perhaps we need the healer to explain things.

Jesus healed all that came to him, but in his own home town he healed very few because of their skepticism.

Many years ago, I believed very strongly in the substitutionary healing. (and I still do although the perfect has not yet come)

And perhaps it was that kind of faith that drove me to keep praying until I received the faith for several healings for my children and myself. I had the faith of the woman who touched the hem of Christ’s garment. I was determined to do or die. I remember falling asleep at my child’s bedside one night while he wheezed and shuddered with asthma. And then I awoke with the knowledge and words that put a stop to that horrible sickness. He just settled down and went to sleep. Only once afterward did it start up and I stood firm in my faith.

I think that if we really pay attention to what Christ taught to those who came to him for healing, then our faith will be rewarded. I think the best reward is a fascination and belief of Who we are coming to that becomes a reality and not the academics of How we are coming that counts.

Is there a fool proof formula of healing? I personally don’t think there is. To me, the Word, Christ, bids us to come to him. And in him we will find what we need.

The answer is in praying and reading the Word and receiving faith. Ask, seek knock. And what is his reward for doing that? He tells us in no uncertain terms what will happen if we do.

Those are my brief comments. Hope it is helpful.

By Carolyn on Aug 21, 2008

Yes Carolyn, they are, as you have obviously seen the Lord’s hand at work in your own and your family’s lives. Praise him still, for such mercy. I certainly believe that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Heb 13: 8), and heals people still.

One view says the Lord does heal physically whoever he wants to - and that’s up to him, of course, as he is Lord of the universe. This does not guarantee that everyone can be healed, and suffering is a real part of the Christian life, too, we recognize. We must stand up under hardships, and persevere, strengthened by the Spirit, to the praise of Christ’s name. We are to believe he heals today as he reigns from his throne until all his enemies are under his footstool.

Yet 1 Pet.2: 24 (and Isa.53: 4-5) seem to indicate that healing is available for ALL Christian believers. All that is needed is sufficient faith, we are told by those basing their understanding on these verses.

One view holds Christ’s Lordship high & the other holds Christ’s saving work and restoration of wholeness high. They can’t both be right, logically, about who can be healed: it’s all or some, isn’t it?

Every divine intervention of course is a wonderful mercy to us.

By Anonymous on Aug 22, 2008

Mike Oppenheimer says something similar to what I have said, on his site in an article titled ‘Is Healing guaranteed in the Atonement?’

I actually read it after I wrote my blog and was surprised by his similar conclusions.

Although I came away thinking that it really should be all or nothing…same as you think, so that we would have a firm footing to stand on.

But like I said we are not yet perfected … we see very little of the results of the Atonement on this side of the resurrection … but in the resurrection we won’t “see through a glass darkly” and we won’t be “groaning inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies” Romans 8:23,24

It seems the only firm footing that we come away with, as we search through the scriptures seeking answers to our temporary dilemmas, is a dawning of truth and a deeper understanding of who God is and where he is taking us. And all has not yet been completed.

2 Cor. 5:4 For while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to unclothed but to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. No, it is God who has made us for this very purpose and has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.

2 Cor. Therefore we do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day. For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all.

I guess we always begin looking for the temporary (our natural healing on this earth) but in the process we find the hope for eternity which takes up our focus more and more and frees us from the fears and frustrations of what we are experiencing in this brief moment we live in this old decaying body.

The more we suffer, the more we rejoice because who but those who are destined to redemption can understand and accept the divine design behind the suffering of our bodies.

In the final analysis I would have to say there is no final analysis. Some things remain a mystery.

There is some aspect of mystery to the details of the Atonement. There are paradoxes of hard pressed on every side but not crushed, perplexed but not in despair, struck down but not destroyed, always carrying around in our body the death of Jesus so that the life of Jesus may also be revealed in our body 2 Cor. 4

And there is the aspect of the Atonement where a new Christian starts seeking God because he believes that there is hope on this side of heaven for a healing. And he receives because he believes. And then he keeps seeking because he knows he needs more and that there is more.

So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, For what is seen is temporary but what is unseen is eternal. 2Cor. 4:18

Suffering in the body is beyond our temporary fixation with the present healing of our bodies. Suffering leads into a whole new realm of the eternal. And that is precisely where God opens up our eyes to see the limitless expanse of his wisdom and the brings our hearts into a trembling awe and worship of the majestic presence of our God.

Food for thought.

By Carolyn on Aug 23, 2008

Carolyn,
I certainly find real food in these thoughts - for everything is very pale compared to the grand Consummation of time, that is just ahead of us.
Yet I still wonder about the concept of physical healing being included in the Atonement. As I understand it, Jesus healed by the power of the Holy Spirit only - for he had laid aside his own powers of divinity when he became incarnate as God-man. The healings in his ministry don’t appear to proceed from the obscene beatings and death he suffered at the end of his time on Earth. He healed because these were the works the Father showed him to do, and they reveal the great compassion and mercy of the triune God toward humans in their suffering. And it is his mystery as to why some are healed and some are not, who have faith and come to him as Healer too.

Most Christians who hold pentecostal theology in this business of divine healing, suggest that healing physical illness and disease and disability is provided for in Christ’s atoning sacrifice - and we only need to have ‘faith’ to release it. This implies that people who are not healed when praying for it, are not exercising enough faith … and therefore are under Jesus’ chastening [”O ye of little faith”] and have a spiritual status like that of a backslider. This reasoning which I’ve heard many times in pentecostal teachings, is very offensive.
That’s why I’d appreciate help in sorting through it.

Many thanks to any others, also, who reply here.

By Anonymous on Aug 25, 2008

Hullo - Philip Powell here:

Thank you for your various comments on the confusing doctrine of “Healing in the Atonement”. Basically within Pentecostalism–both traditional and neo–there are two views, both of which can be shown to be incorrect and one of which is more extreme than the other. Both claim that physical or bodily healing is contained in the atonement as a separate provision:

THE MORE EXTREME VIEW teaches that the 39 stripes that Christ is alleged to have received dealt with each of the diseases known to man and that, separate to this, His death deals with the sin question.

This is of course total heresy and inaccurate as to fact. There is no historical or biblical basis for the claim that Christ suffered 39 stripes, which of course related to the Jewish penal code. Our Lord suffered under the Roman flail not the Jewish rod. When Isaiah says “by His stripes we are healed” (Isaiah 53) and Peter the apostle declares “by whose stripes you were healed” (1 Peter 2:24) the emphasis in both contexts is not on physical sickness and bodily healing but upon “sin” and its remedy. Further in both the Hebrew and the Greek, but especially the Hebrew of Isaiah 53, the emphasis is not upon individual “stripes” but upon the cumulative effect of what He suffered. Literally “by His bruise you are healed”. His suffering was such that His body was torn until it was a bloody mass of red, raw flesh. The scripture likens His suffering to the ploughing of a field (cf. Psalm 129: 3). The idea that He suffered 39 stripes, one for each of the physical diseases of mankind is an indictment upon our Lord and what He suffered as well as a denial of what the Bible teaches on this subject. It is NOT correct biblically or historically.

THE LESS EXTREME VIEW, which is also biblically untenable sees the full work of Christ in His death as being a total provision for man’s salvation but still claims that He atoned for sin by His death and atoned for sickness by His “stripes”. This is taught by man like Paul Yongii Cho and is echoed by many Pentecostal preachers who don’t think deeply about the matter and simply repeat what others teach. It is also the view of most so called “healing evangelists”—both TV and their forerunners e.g. Oral Roberts, T L. Osborne, A.A. Allen, John G. Lake, William Branham et al. It is wrong because it divides Christ’s cross work up into two parts and is clearly a nonsense e.g. could the whipping and scourging of Christ be effective in any “healing” process apart from His complete death? Yet in effect this is what you are led to conclude by the above notion.

The word for “healing” is a composite word with an emphasis upon deliverance from sin, which is the most important “healing” that can occur.

THE BIBLICAL VIEW teaches that everything relating to man’s future is provided for in the atonement as a completed work. The resurrection of the body and the rapture of the Church and every future blessing offered to those who follow Christ is provided for in through and by the ATONEMENT. None of it would be possible apart from the death of our Lord on the Cross. Without the ATONEMENT there would be no heaven and NO nothing!! In this way and sense physical healing must be provided for in the Atonement.

So how does it work out in the real world of people and of time and sense?

Paul the apostle tells us that there is one aspect of redemption which is yet future i.e. “the redemption of the body” for which he says we are still waiting and the whole creation is presently groaning cf. Romans chapter 8. Yet in the midst of this “groaning creation” those who have the first fruits of the Spirit i.e. those who are Christians have the privilege or participating by faith and in accordance with the Will of God in what is essentially the blessing of a world to come where there is no sickness and constant healing and perfect health. He says:

But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwells in you - Romans 8:11.

Theologically this is called the PROLEPTIC principle, but that’s another subject, which if you care to consider a bit more deeply you can listen to a 15 minute talk that I gave on this topic at: http://www.cwmfellowship.org/sermons.html

Just surf down the page and select - By His Stripes We Are Healed 14.34 min.

By Anonymous on Aug 25, 2008

Carolyn, (August 26th.) “He just settled down and went to sleep. Only afterward did it start up and I stood firm in my faith.” Isn’t that classic Kenneth Hagin Word of Faith theology that he came up with when the disease returned to people who had been “healed”? He taught that they had to stand firm in their faith or they would lose their healing.

By hope on Aug 25, 2008

Hope
You are right…and I was a Kenneth Haganite…read all his books. I think I am probably still a little confused at times…takes years to undo years of indoctrination.

I think the only reason that I was delivered from Word Faith was that my world fell apart and it didn’t “work” for me anymore. And because I was an avid reader of the Word, I didn’t lose my faith in God…just my faith in Word Faith. The last 10 years I have been “Word Faith free” praise God.

Actually, this is my first experience with blogging and I seem to be sorting out some things for myself. Hope I am not confusing anyone else by my own confusion.

By Carolyn on Aug 25, 2008

And Phillip:

Thanks for the site…and your comments.

It’s been helpful to hear from you here and there.

And it has been good having the opportunity to have some communication with others of similar and differing views.

No one has all the answers…we have not all attained and yet we benefit from the insight and honesty and theological input of each other.

Some things we agree with, some things we must ponder and pray about, but before the Lord we all are humbly “Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus. All of us who are mature should take such a view of things. And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you. Only let us live up to what we have already attained.” Philippians 3:13-16

By Carolyn on Aug 25, 2008

Warrick – Aug 8 and Aug 11
I agree with your statement that we do not have apostles and prophets in the same capacities as those of the New Testament. This conclusion is based on the fact that these two ministry gifts of Christ were the Church’s foundation laying functions, “Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone” (Ephesians 2:20). Incidentally there is no justification for capitalising the initial letters of those two ministries as you have done. The five (some say four) ministry gifts of Christ to His Church (Ephesians 4: 11) are NOT titles but functions and should not be capitalised. All of the New Testament apostles whom <strong>we</strong> name individually as the “Apostle so and so”, are NEVER so named in the Bible. It is always the other way around e.g. “Paul an apostle … Peter an apostle … James an apostle …” etc. The term “apostle” (Greek “apostolos”) appears most frequently in its verb form in the New Testament. It its basic meaning it carries the idea of someone who is sent with authority and often to lay a foundation.
Also I think you fail to distinguish between the “gifts of the Holy Spirit” of which there are a number (cf. 1 Corinthians 12 with Romans 12, etc), nine of them being designated “manifestations” (1 Corinthians 12: 7-11) and the gifts of Christ to His Church of which there are five or four. (Some argue that the pastoral gift has a dual function i.e. “pastor-teacher (shepherd-feeder)” and is one not two gifts).
Correct biblical hermeneutics rests on ALWAYS making a distinction where the Bible makes a difference and never making a distinction where the Bible makes NO difference between things. Failure here usually results in wrong teaching (doctrine).
Opinions—we all have them—will vary. But when the Bible speaks directly we dare not counter what it clearly states with human opinion. So to the point — yours and mine — about “tongues speaking”:
1 Corinthians 14: 1 – 6 (NKJV)
Pursue love, and desire spirituals {”gifts” is NOT in the original} (Greek “pneumatikos” cf. 1 Corinthians 2:15; 3:1), but especially that you may prophesy. (2) For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries. (3) But he who prophesies speaks edification and exhortation and comfort to men. (4) He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church. (5) I wish you all spoke with tongues, but even more that you prophesied; for he who prophesies is greater than he who speaks with tongues, unless indeed he interprets, that the church may receive edification. (6) But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you unless I speak to you either by revelation, by knowledge, by prophesying, or by teaching?
Those who spoke in tongues in Acts chapter 2 spoke of the wonders of God and this was a revelation to those who heard because they understood the language though the speakers did NOT understand what they were saying. To the speakers it was a mystery. To the hearers it was like prophecy and edified them as a revelation or as information (knowledge). While the Corinthian passage quoted allows for this to happen it clearly teaches that it does not always happen this way.
Paul the apostle does NOT condemn self-edification per se. He condemns selfish personal edification and instructs that everything in the framework of the local congregation should be with a view to edifying the whole and not just self. Many neo-Pentecostal or Charismatic congregations engage in wholesale “tongues speaking” and general “singing in tongues” and this is not biblical and is in fact condemned by Paul as being mad behaviour.
The only logical conclusion that can be reached from Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians chapter 14 is that there is a difference between speaking in tongues in private and doing so in public. The former does not require interpretation and it results in self edification and the latter must always be interpreted for the edification of the body i.e. the local congregation.
What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding – 1 Corinthians 14:15.
All nine of the “manifestations” of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 11: 7-11) are supernatural enablings (gifts) by the Spirit. The languages spoken by those upon whom the Holy Spirit descended on the Day of Pentecost were not naturally learned languages. We are clearly told that the 120 people—men and women and including Mary the mother of Jesus—spoke “as the Spirit gave them utterance [literally ‘to articulate’]” (Acts 2: 4). In other words, what those simple Galileans articulated was not of their own learning or ingenuity. They spoke the words that the Holy Spirit gave them to utter. It was totally supernatural. When Peter preached he did NOT give an interpretation of the languages that were spoken, simply because it was not required. The non-sceptical audience understood one or more of the various languages spoken in which the speakers talked of the “wonderful works of God” (verse 11). It was ONLY the sceptics who interpreted what was happening as being drunken behaviour, not because there was any semblance of drunkenness but because they were “mockers” of Christianity and had no other explanation cf. Acts 2: 13.
FINALLY those who take a CESSATIONIST view (that all of the manifestations of the Holy Spirit ceased with the establishment of the canon of Scripture) or a PARTIAL Cessationist view (some of the gifts ceased e.g. apostles, prophets, speaking in tongues, prophecy, word of knowledge etc) face two insurmountable difficulties:
1) They undermine the Character and Nature of God, whom the Bible presents as being IMMUTABLE i.e. changeless; and
2) They effectively render a considerable part of Scripture irrelevant e.g. Paul’s instruction about the operation of the gifts being no longer required.

Your position Warrick, and that of Paul Gowdy expressed earlier in this blog, is untenable based on these two conclusions alone, as well as for other reasons — biblical and historical.
Sadly, great damage has been done by leaders who should have known better when they endorsed Toronto, Pensacola and most recently the absurd goings on of Todd Bentley in his so called Lakeland Outpouring, which has collapsed in scandal as did the previous nonsensical so called “revivals”.
What we must avoid is a denial of the genuine, simply based on the counterfeit. There is the genuine and we need to be open to it, but always based on biblical precedent and examination.
God bless you,
Philip L. POWELL - 4-September, 2008.
http://www.cwmfellowship.org
http://www.christian-witness.org

By Philip L. POWELL on Sep 4, 2008

This business of divine healing is a perplexing matter, isn’ it. And an even broader view where the Isaiah promise of healing, affirmed in Peter’s letter, relates to sin’s curse and its effects [as Philip writes above, on 25/8] - yet leaves me wondering about genuine followers of Christ whose minds have been broken, who every day must struggle with such a weight. They learn experientially “My grace is sufficient for you” [2Cor.12:9] … for it is a hard road to walk.
May each of us be humble and compassionate toward those who suffer in their lives.

By Anonymous on Sep 4, 2008

Dear Philip,

I have noted the points you mention. In reply, I wish to ask one question.

Would you be prepared to say that someone who claims to “speak in tongues” but does not speak in a real language found somewhere in the World, does not have the gift of tongues that you read about in the Bible?

Your Brother in Christ,
Warrick.

By Warrick on Sep 19, 2008

Warrick:

Thanks for your gracious interaction.

In my opinion the reference in 1 Corinthains chapter 13 to “tongues of men and of angels” is NOT an allusion to the supernatural gift of “speaking in tongues” but rather a contrast by Paul between “LOVE” the greatest thing in the world and another great quality - eloquence. It’s a sort of figure of speech known as hyperbole i.e. exaggeration for effect.

So whereas there must be some sort of verbal communication in the angelic realm we have no clear biblical reference to which we can appeal, other than the general indication that when angels spoke e.g. “Holy, Holy, Holy” to each other as mentioned by Isaiah, they appear to have communicated in the known language i.e. in this case presumably Hebrew.

As a brief answer to your question I would say that mere gibberish cannot, of course, be the spiritual “manifestation” that Paul calls “speaking in tongues.” So my inclination would to answer your question in the affirmative, with this proviso. We do not know all human languages in the world. You may find the following illustration hard to “swallow”, but it has always made me cautious about dismissing what sounds like gibberish to me as being not genuine.

A pastor in UK was concerned about a woman who appeared to just “gabble” in a supposed tongue and approached a veteran missionary about his concern hoping to be helped so he could help the lady and the people who shared his concern. The missionary was the veteran William F P Burton who pioneered 1000 churches in what was, back then, Belgian Congo. Mr Burton offered to sit by the woman in a meeting, which he did and listened to her “speaking in tongues”. Afterwards he said to the pastor: “You need have no concern about that sister. She was this morning speaking in an obscure African language and using words which in the tribal tongue are reserved for speech to the highest chieftain and to no-one else. She was magnifying the Lord in the most exquisite manner possible.”

That is anecdotal and you may have difficulty with it. I simply use it to show that there are many kinds of languages some of which are and will always remain totally unknown. Paul says that a person who speaks in “tongues” speaks mysteries.

By philip on Sep 19, 2008

Dear Philip,
In that last comment the implication is that tongue speaking should be left alone. For if it’s a case of saying, “Oh well ‘…there are many kinds of languages some of which are and will always remain totally unknown’ and ‘anyway, Paul says that a person who speaks in tongues speaks mysteries’ “, then what I have heard is true. That in the Pentecostal world tongue speaking is “the great untouched manifestation”.

By Hope on Oct 6, 2008

HOPE:

What do you mean by “left alone”? Also I can’t grasp your meaning in the statement “the great untouched manifestation … “. Please explain and I will try to comment. I am sorry if my previous anecdotal illustration and comment were not clear. If I can get your “drift” I will try to explain my meaning.

Philip.

By philip on Oct 6, 2008

I have been a member a Pentecostal church in Glasgow, Scotland, for more than 38 years. As a young Pentecostal, alarm bells started to ring when I read our church magazine the “Redemption Tidings”, there was stuff in that magazine that I, as a converted RC, thought that I had left behind. In the Magazine, RC priests, nuns, bishops, and Pope were being referred to as “Brothers and sisters in Christ”. Clearly as far back as 1970 the AoG in Britain was like a runaway train with no-one at the controls. I still worship in the same Pentecostal church, but it’s a Bible-based church.
In all my years as a Christian I have never been taken in by the money-preacher, or the Todd Bentley’s of this world, for which I thank God. There are however still a remnant within the Pentecostal movement who have not bowed the knee to Baal. The day however is coming when all good men who are still part of the AoG in Britain will have to make the decision where they will stand.
Ps 11:3 If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?
Jos 24:15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.
Please remember that not all members of the Pentecostal churches are so easily led astray, so don’t go tarring us with the same brush.
God Bless.

By Alexander Lennox on Oct 7, 2008

ALEX - Oct 7, 2008

I agree with you totally and, like you, have retained my Pentecostal position and testimony. We have NOT moved from the truth. Others have. In my case my former colleagues used a “ploy” to get rid of me. I think they thought I would go away and die. One referred to my final preaching message at the big Paradise AoG in Adelaide, as my “Swan Song” and when folks requested the video they were told the lie that it was NOT recorded. Well it was recorded and we have a copy of the Master and now offer it as a dvd through our resource catalogue. My late uncle David Powell when he listened to the audio commented that he thought I was laying the axe to the root.
Much water has passed under the bridge since then (1992) and throughout I have sought to meet with my former colleagues to no effect. One actually threatened me recently that he would take legal counsel against me. They will use any ploy and argument rather than face the facts. It’s all very sad.

However I agree with your two main points:

1) Not all are the same. There are those who have maintained the faith of their fathers. Praise God that you and I and many others rank among that number.
2) There is a time when those within the ranks of them that have “denied” the faith should hear the trumpet sound and COME OUT from among them. I believe that time is NOW.

God bless you.

By philip on Oct 7, 2008

“Assemblies of God, a different movement with the same name”
I borrowed this title from Philip Powell’s article in the CWM. The modern AoG is unrecognisable; it bears no resemblance to the AoG of 50 years ago. And although there are still a great many in the present day AoG that have not ‘bowed the knee to Baal’, the movement itself has shifted from a sure foundation to sinking sands. It has degenerated from an Assembly which once stood for the truth, and has adopted an ‘anything goes’ mentality. It is my opinion, that the modern AoG has sold its birthright for a mess of mystical pottage, and has become a melting pot for every wind of doctrine.
This new breed, seems to put more emphasis on the gift, than the Giver, they are more incline to embrace the creature rather than the Creator, and the doctrine of man rather than the doctrine laid down in holy writ: we are seeing history repeating itself inasmuch as almost every man seems to be doing that which is right in his own eyes. [Judges 17:6 in those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.] God’s word no longer rules supreme in the new AoG order of things; it has been marginalised, and shunted off into a siding whilst the new movement goes full steam ahead along another track.
With man at its controls, the new Pentecostal ‘express train’ will eventually run out of steam and end in disaster.
God cannot judge the Todd Bentley’s and the Benny Hinn’s of this world without also judging those who endorse and encourage them. Each man shall bear his own iniquity.
Every penny that goes into the coffers of the money-preacher God sees, he sees the giver, and the encourager, without whom, the money-preacher would be history.
Even although there be a remnant within the AoG who are incensed by the way the movement is going, and would never dream of indulging in the excesses of it, they, sooner, rather than later, should make the decision whether or not they wish to be identified with this new breed of Pentecostalism, or with God.
Josh: 24:15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD. These words still ring true for many Pentecostals of the Old school, nevertheless, we will have to decide soon whether or not we wish to be identified with this new Pentecostal trend.

“Elijah and the prophets of Baal”.
What do you imagine would have happened if Elijah had shared a platform or identified himself in any way with the prophets of Baal? When the fire fell, there would have been confusion among the people; The prophets of Baal would have claimed that Baal sent the fire, whilst Elijah would have protested — either way, confusion would have reigned among the people, but our God is not the God of confusion, and that is why he made sure that Elijah had a separate altar from Baal’s prophets, so that when the fire did fall on Elijah’s altar, there would have been no confusion among the people. Come out from among them. Because if the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do? Well, we can get out, before the structure falls about their heads.

By Alexander Lennox on Oct 12, 2008

Pity my comment that I posted wasn’t approved. Why?

By Lee Mullen on Oct 16, 2008

Philip

You are entitled your your opinion. It doesn’t make you correct. Believe what you wish, but instead of banging the anti-apostasy drum, try banging it a little louder near home. You clearly support replacement theology and pity the Protestant movement didn’t completely disconnect from Rome, i.e. Luther didn’t do a proper job as your response goes.

Anyway, why have a blog where people’s comments are restricted? Seems like a control issue you have Philip. May I ask, have you ever questioned your own beliefs, or is that a mortal sin? You stand on the pagan bandwagon with its ridiculous stance with christ-mass, easter (the name of a pagan goddess) and your sun-day instead of God’s sabbath! And, no, the Feasts are NOT Jewish, they are Yahweh’s, so please re-read the bible!!

Shalom

By Lee Mullen on Oct 16, 2008

LEE - your comment was posted exactly where you made it in the latest “blog”. No-one removed it though we are considering doing so, as it is not relevant to the “thread”. You obviously have a “barrow” to push. Blogs are meant for particular issues not any position that you may want to push. Also your latest comment makes no sense as readers would not know what you are talking about [seeing my earlier comments to you were privately by email].

Your question is silly IMO. Of course I have questioned my beliefs, but what has that got to do with anything. I have explained my position about the Christian (not pagan) festivals. They are NOT obligatory nor are the Jewish festivals that you keep harping on. Easter is NOT the name of a pagan goddess as you claim. Have you read the carefully argued article by Nick Sayers in the March issue of CETF? You need to read that and respond to the argument, not just waffle your own opinion without any substantiation.

Please LEE - learn before you try to teach, and check things out before you spout off. You wrongly accused me (us) of NOT posting your comment. It’s there. Seek and you will find.

God bless you.

By philip on Oct 16, 2008

Puzzled.

By Lee Mullen on Oct 17, 2008

Philip
Thank you for responding to my post dated 6/10/08 , which concerned your anecdotal illustration and comment connected with “speaking in tongues” sounding like gibberish (posted 19/9/08 ). My post was:

“In [your] comment, the implication is that tongue speaking should be left alone. For if it’s a case of saying, “Oh well, ‘…there are many kinds of languages some of which are and will always remain totally unknown’ and anyway, ‘Paul says that a person speaking in “tongues” speaks mysteries’”, then what I have heard is true. That in the Pentecostal world speaking in tongues is “the great untouched manifestation”. You queried the meaning of the words “left alone” and “the great untouched manifestation”.

“Left alone” was used in the meaning of - to refrain from bothering or interfering with. “Great” refers to the exaltation of tongues in Pentecostalism. “Untouched” was used in the meaning of - not dealt with so that something is not affected, changed, or damaged in any way.

I find that Paul a small a potato also implies that tongues should proceed unchecked when he said:

“It is clear that we do not know all the human languages in use in the world today….Which linguistic layman would presume to judge a message in tongues as not being real language?”. But we are to “Prove all things” and you have stated that “biblical precedent and examination are needed” (4/9/08). The word “mysteries” is not a synonym for gibberish.

In the anecdote relating to tongues sounding like gibberish, there was no teaching given about the need for the tongue speaker to be silent if there is no one present to interpret the words. The emphasis was only that tongues should sound like a language, and if they did not, someone is needed to provide reassurance that the tongue raising doubts is a known language. William FP Burton identifies the tongue as a known language, and is presented as only giving a general summary of the content to the Pastor after the meeting ended. I believe that an interpretation of tongues is an accurate translation of what has just been said, which is then shared with the congregation so that everyone profits ( 1 Corinthians 12:7).

It troubles me that you say that this story has, “always made me cautious about dismissing what sounds like gibberish to me as being not genuine”. An extra biblical source of knowledge shouldn’t put a constraint upon your judgment and allow for a “proviso”. That kind of teaching gives with one hand and takes back with the other, and we are left halting “between two opinions”. Choice brings clarity and that is confirmed in Scripture - “choose you this day whom ye will serve” (Joshua 24:15) - “How long halt ye between two opinions?” ( 1Kings 18:21) .

By Hope on Oct 31, 2008

Thank you HOPE, for clarifying your meaning, although I must say that your extrapolation beyond a simple explanation which is what I requested, only confuses the matter. What in the world does the challenge of Elijah to an idolatrous nation about their uncertainty of whom they should worship have to do with a genuine hesitancy to check an “unknown” tongue simply because it is “unknown”? Your appeal to the Joshua reference is similarly bizarre to my way of thinking. Having said that I’ll try to keep to the point.

Firstly let me say that I agree with you that public tongues speaking should be publicly interpreted. We insist on that in our CWM fellowship, for good and biblical reasons which we are all aware of - cf. 1 Corinthians 14: 28. In the case that I cited the tongues speaking was not public and I did not discuss the issue of interpretation but only the validity of the actual language being spoken. The anecdote was intended to point out the difficulty of being sure about the validity of the language on account of the number of languages (dead and living) in the world. It is impossible to be certain — even an accomplished linguist does not know for sure. That does not mean that the matter of tongues speaking cannot and should not be regulated within the ambit of the requirement of Scripture e.g. 1 Corinthians 14: 40.

My anecdotal incident and Paul’s (a small potato) additional explanation were simply and only related to the major issue as to whether a “tongue” constitutes a valid language. You appear to miss the point on both occasions.

Recognising that we should be biblical in ALL things I think there are two things here:

1) Things should be orderly and properly regulated by the requirements of Scripture–”Let all things be done decently and in order” (1Co 14:40). Private speaking in tongues is allowed without interpretation as it is prayer to God [cf. 1 Co 14: 2 & 4]. I guess in the context of our discussion this raises the question “How private is private and when does it become public?”. In my view a matter is NOT public simply because it occurs in a public setting. It becomes public if it causes confusion and/or disruption. A person may speak in tongues very quietly and that does NOT require interpretation. This was the case in the anecdote that I used.

2) The second equally important biblical mandate is emphasised by Paul the apostle in his penultimate remark on the subject cf. 1 Co 14:39 - “Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.”

We should, in our gatherings together, avoid being like a policeman who stands with a baton in his hand daring anyone to move or speak. Take that too far and you will simply end up trying to control a grave-yard.

Sadly, with us all, our prejudicial backgrounds frequently influence the side we favour — too much liberty or NO liberty.

“For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind” (2Ti 1:7).

By philip on Oct 31, 2008

I think it is rather interesting to observe that Paul never said that he did not speak in tongues in the “church” [ie. the gathering of God’s people], but gave his preference in view of all being blessed. When you read his arguments for this it can get rather confusing if you do not understand the apostle’s heart.

For instance, on the one part he says that “tongues is a sign to the unbeliever” [to prevent it, then, could lead to a soul being unnecessarily lost], yet on the other he says “the unlearned and unbelieving will consider you mad.”

I think I’ll leave this apparent contradiction open for discussion. I’d like to hear your perspectives.

By Kerry Stevenson on Nov 2, 2008

Praise to the Lord that I was born into a Pentecostal home, 82 years go. We were reared with the Bible as central, the world as distant and things Pentecostal as most important. We did not frequent doctors’ surgeries and knew many healings.
Nevertheless, over the years listening to many Australian, and even English and American, Pentecostal preachers and experiencing very much in the Lord, it became obvious after entering the ministry, that we lacked quite a deal and had many things, including ways and doctrines, at variance from the Word of God.
It took long years, even through different associations and ministry with Charismatics, to see the Lord by His grace and Spirit sort many things out for us, both in beliefs, experience and ministry.

Often, having seen what the Word says, one must be like Noah, preaching the Truth with the majority not listening.
However, Jesus said, “If any man wills to know the will of the Father” and that is the criterion for getting through all the errors around, and finding out exactly what the Word of the gospel teaches and how the Pentecostal experiences should be embraced and taught to others. It certainly does not include the teachings of Kenyon, Copeland, Hagin, Hinn, and almost all T.V. preachers, nor does it include feasting on present day popular literature and DVDs.
Strangely, one hears a good evangelical gospel message from a Sydney Anglican Cathedral on A.T.V. and from no one else!
Yes, the present day so-called Pentecostals are far from the truths of what used to be - and instead of progressing in knowledge of the Lord, the Word and the Spirit, they have succumbed to humanism, worldliness, unbelief, fanaticism, psychology, selfism, greed and heresies.
To many, the cry is, “Where can I find a church that is Biblical, Spiritual and correct?”
The answer remains elusive.

May I close with saying that having seen the multitude of blessings by the Spirit on folk in many countries and having studied much to find the correctness of “handling the Word of God aright”, one has to remain committed to the fulness of the Pentecostal message as disclosed in the Word of God, 1 Corinthians 12-14 included. One has to remain committed also to the pursuit and holding of the full Truth of the gospel as preached by Jesus and continued on for us in the epistles.
It was the preaching of these truths of the gospel that were attended by signs and wonders and gifts of the Holy Spirit according to the will of God. The preaching of the gospel truths was always pre-eminent, including the baptism with the Holy Spirit that is always accompanied by speaking in other tongues. The experience of salvation and the baptism with the Spirit are the gifts of the Lord Jesus Christ. Speaking in other tongues as the Gift of Tongues with the Gift of Interpretation are the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

Let Christ be exalted always. He is the Word Who is quick and powerful. His Words are Spirit and they are Life. Only full attention to such Words under the teaching of the Holy Spirit, even through men of God who lived some centuries ago, and present-day true preachers, will provide us all with the true Way for the church of the Lord Jesus Christy.

By Irene Bonney Faulkes on Nov 10, 2008

Good teaching from the “Enrichment journal” an official publication of the AG USA.

Take special note of thesis #7 as it is directly contrary to AG tradition and teaching, but very scripturally convincing. URL is below.

Biblical Glossolalia -
By William Graham MacDonald

Theses 1 and 2
Thesis 3
Thesis 4
Thesis 5
Thesis 6
Thesis 7

http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/200501/200501_Glossolalia_1_2.cfm

By Bill Scudder on Dec 18, 2008

I also came from a Pentecostal background and have come to see the error of some of their teaching, but I am convinced that the Holy Spirit can be very real in your life. I have gone to an Independent Baptist Church and they are very sincere and evangelical, but they do not give much honour to the work of the Holy Spirit in their lives — so it seems ‘from one extreme to the other’. And what is the balance?
I still speak in tongues and would hate to miss it. I have asked the Lord, many times, if it is wrong to take it away from me and He never has. I use it to praise and worship my Lord whom I love with all my heart and soul. Dina Wood.

By Dina Wood on Apr 24, 2009

Regarding Kerry Stevenson’s comment re tongues in the church both as a “sign to the unbeliever”, & also “if all speak with tongues will not the unbeliever think we are mad”. Does not Paul teach that when the gift of tongues is interpreted that “miraculous” sign brings conviction, not necessarily of sin, but of the presence/power of God as prophesied in Isa 28vv11-12. If “all speak with tongues”, as mentioned in 1Cor 14v23, there is confusion without interpretation, so it is shunned in that case.

By David Clifford on May 2, 2009

Hi, I have been reading this with great interest as I was saved in a Pentecostal church after the Lord brought me forth out of Mormonism. I was baptised a Mormon when I was eight years old, since then my life was tormented (as I am sure all reading would understand why). Being saved out of Mo’ism caused me to look with great care at anything remotely appearing deceptive and I have to say that I cannot reconcile with the practice of tongues in this way as Biblical. Don’t get me wrong the people there are great, good friends and very caring however, I just can’t see it being Biblical. I could pretend to speak in tongues but I see it as learned behaviour, I am rather skeptical. The congregation “all speak with tongues” 1Cor: 14:23, and there is little or no interpretation and therefore this activity does present as being unbiblical or even worse of a different spirit.

By Jennifer on May 12, 2009

For a totally different view on ‘tongues’ so-called, see:

http://www.tonguesrevisited.com/

The book ‘Tongues Revisited: A Third Way’, is available online from the website for free and hardcopy as per the website.

It rejects totally both the usual Pentecostal/Charismatic and the non-Charismatic cessationist views as unsupported by the text of Scripture. In short, a con of great proportions has been hoisted onto the Christian community.

By Renton Maclachlan on May 12, 2009

As far as I am aware, no one ’speaking in tongues’ so-called, understands what they are saying - granting they are saying something.

Further, no one giving a supposed ‘interpretation’ understands what any of the sounds issuing from the mouth of the ‘tongues speaker’ mean either - granting they mean something.

Thus, as I say in my book, the term ‘interpretation’ is is a misnomer. No interpretation is actually occurring. Interpretation involves a person hearing a language spoken, understanding the words being said, and restating the meaning of the words in another langauge. This does not occur with so-called ‘tongues’. What is claimed to be happening is that God gives the meaning of the sounds made to the ‘interpreter’ independent of the sounds. Neither the ’speaker’ nor the misnamed ‘interpreter’ know whether any meaning is attached to the sounds, even though they believe there is.

In such a situation, no independent check is possible to know:
1. Whether the ’speaker’ is actually saying anything.
2. Whether what the ‘interpreter’ says the ‘interpretation’ is, has any connection to what the ’speaker’ is saying - granting the ’speaker’ is saying something.

As I say, a ‘tongues speaker’ could be abusing God to his face, for all they know, but all the time thinking they are praising him to the skies.

Also…in 1 Cor 14, that an interpreter is present should be known before the event.

By Renton Maclachlan on May 14, 2009

Hi Paul

I didn’t say there was no interpretation. I said that interpretation within a Pentecostal/Charismatic view is a misnomer.

I defined interpretation as involving ‘…a person hearing a language spoken, understanding the words being said, and restating the meaning of the words in another langauge.’

This goes on all the time, all around the world, wherever people with non-shared languages meet. An interpreter - one who knows both languages - is required to span the language barrier and bring edification/understanding to those who do not understand. This is what was occurring in Corinth.

Re: ‘The Spirit himself bears witness within us as to when these messages are out of whack…’

There is no way to test whether there is even a message at all, let alone if there is such a message, whether it is out of whack. No ‘godly leader’ can help in such a situation even if others look to them for such help, or even though they may profess to be able to help…

If ‘a message’ - granting there is a message - is from the Spirit, how can it possibly be ‘out of whack’?

By Renton Maclachlan on May 14, 2009

Hi Paul, I mean the Pentecostals when talking about speaking in tongues. As a Mormon I had never come across such a thing. The Pentecostal people are generally really lovely people. It is my own reservations that has eventually taken me away from their services, amoung some family objections, too complicated to explain here. I could never reconcile with the open speaking in tongues that had no interpretation and I have to say thankyou to Renton, I have downloaded the book, very good argument as far as I have read. I agree. Your explanation has helped me to realise that I was correct in my reservations, as I agree, how do they know they are not abusing God to His face?? You see, I had spiritual manifestations when I was a Mormon, I was a temple going, garment wearing, tithe paying, baptising for my dead relatives, full on “member missionary” mormon. Why was I this way??? Because I had been out and out deceived by evil spirits. If you pick up a Book of Mormon, you may as well pick up a ouija board, they are the same thing! Joseph Smith was a heavily demonised man. So, I was totally deceived and you see,this is why I have been SO cautious since the Lord showed me the truth. I never was comfortable with the practice of tongues as I have seen it done. I do beleive in the gifts of the spirit but it has to be biblical.

By Jennifer on May 14, 2009

Thanks Jennifer. Enjoy.

All abilities anyone has, believer or unbeliever, are gifts from God and should be used to the glory of God, no matter what ability it is. However, as a result of the Fall, God’s giftings to humans have been turned away from glorifying God to glorifying man or demons. They are still giftings from God, but are now used for wrong ends.

When a person is converted, born again, becomes a believer, is regenerated, the giftings they have - all of them - should now be reorientated to their proper end, the glory of God manifest in every aspect of ones life.
Some are gifted linguistically, though I am not. Multilingual churches need people with such giftings. Monolingual churches do not.

As I understand it Mormons include ’speaking in tongues’ so-called with their practices.

By Renton Maclachlan on May 14, 2009

Hi Renton, I had never heard or seen tongues in the Mormon church. That is not to say that certain persons didn’t practice it. I can only say I have found Christiandom to be full of concern to be careful since arriving in it. I take the Lord and His word as a lamp to my feet. Thanks… Jennifer

By Jennifer on May 17, 2009

Paul…it all depends what the ‘genuine gifts of the Holy Spirit’ are. I would say that all that goes under the name ‘tongues’ in Pentecostal/Charismatic circles today is counterfeit.

Yes, ‘the Spirit of God’ does give gifts as he wills, but Scripture also says to ‘test all things’. So-called tongues are unable to be tested. No ‘tongues speaker’ understands the content of their ’speech’, granting there is content, and the same applies to any claimed ‘interpreter’. No one, ’speaker’ or ‘interpreter’ derives, or resolves, any meaning from any of the sounds being made, even though they believe the sounds carry meaning, thus the sounds are beyond test.

There are two problems regarding testing:
1. There is no verification possible of whether or not meaning in general is being carried on the sounds being made - whether the sounds form a code capable of being deciphered.
2. Granting there is a code and meaning in general as above, no one knows/understands the code that carries the meaning so no test is possible of the specific meaning/content being carried on the code.
For example, We are speaking to each other at present in the English code/language. We know the code in our communication very well and don’t give much thought to that knowledge. What we are dealing with is primarily assessing the content of what is carried on the code. Paul, despite knowing to some degree what I am arguing, you are warning Jennifer that the specific content of what I am saying is suspect. You are doing this because you understand some of the content and question its validity on the basis of other ideas you have which you think are verified. No such evaluation or discussion about the validity or not of ‘content’ is possible with so-called ‘tongues’ because no one knows the code - granting there is a code - and so can decipher ‘the content’ to enable it to be discussed! Thus no present day ‘tongues speaker’ has any objective knowledge of whether they are blaspheming or not.

You have put your finger on the one, final backstop verse - the last stronghold, the last line of defense - used to support the Pentecostal/Charismatic view of ‘tongues’ so-called - 1 Cor 14:14. ‘For if I pray in a language, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful.’ The Apostle Paul does not say ‘the mind is uninformed’ as you suggest. He says his mind is ‘unfruitful’.
Two questions:
1. ‘What is the fruit the mind bears?
Answer: ‘Understanding.’ I don’t think too many people would object to this answer. 2. “Where does the mind bear fruit?’
Answer: ‘The mind bears fruit not in itself, but in the minds of others who hear the thoughts of a speaker’s mind expressed through their speech (or via any other vehicle of communication, such as writing). However, if I spoke a language to you you did not understand, my mind would be unfruitful as it does not produce the fruit of my mind in your mind, that is understanding. You do not know the language I am speaking and so cannot be edified/understand.
A speaker always understands all the languages they speak. However hearers do not understand all languages and in cases where they do not understand a language being spoken, they need an interpreter so the fruit of the speakers mind can be produced in their mind.

The Pentecostal/Charasmatic view fails at its final stronghold.

By Renton Maclachlan on May 18, 2009

Speaking in tongues (with interpretation) is a ‘hefty’ subject - two decades ago, as I remember, it broke up a Baptist church into two halves, following the Minister receiving a remarkable and genuine Baptism from (or in) the Holy Spirit. He simply said “God, there must be more to church than this” and our Sovereign Lord provided the answer. A few more in the church also desired to be so baptised, and as more gathered round him at this new level, a third meeting had to be held called the ‘after service’ where up to 60 people attended. Sadly, Old Nick was quickly at work, meetings were called, and shortly after the Minister was forced to resign.
However the point I would like to make is this : to speak in tongues requires intense faith (that obviously builds up with time) and those indwelt by the Triune God would never speak thus without the unction from God - otherwise the counterfeit will ‘jump in’ - even the “look at me, I can speak in tongues - any time I want to!” syndrome. One time God graced me with insight and I knew there was something He wanted to teach a member of the Church standing nearby. My wife & I held this person’s hands (yes, I know, beware of ‘impartation’) and I was gifted with a message (in an unknown tongue) and then waited for interpretation which came swiftly from a person I did not know had this gift. It was a perfectly-framed message - to do with the soul being often too concerned with being busy, busy for God rather than quietly learning to know Him better. Why not simply a prophetic message? Well, it was such, of course, but the impact was heightened. Sadly the would-be recipient took little notice of it, though her daughter did nudge her and say “that was for you…”
Contrarily, I have heard brother A. in church uttering forth in ‘tongues’ every Sunday without fail - there was little or no impact and rightly or wrongly an elder would ‘interpret’ - but in effect was wrapping round a prophetic message to the tongue, and so very few would know the difference. Speaking in tongues does always require discernment from a trusted elder or elders, but whilst the witness of at least two is ideal, alas this is rarely to be found and so the speaker(s) are left unchallenged.
Discernment in the churches that permit of the pentecostal flow, or that which purports to be of the Holy Spirit, is absolutely essential as pure Spiritual gifting is quite rare, at least in my opinion.,

By Abraham on May 18, 2009

Problem is Abraham, none of what you describe is supported by Scripture.

Nor did any interpretation occur in the situations you described as no one did any interpreting. That’s why I said the use of the word ‘interpretation’ etc, is a misnomer within the PC view.

Further, even granting the PC view, you were out of order in the situation that involved yourself because in 1 Cor 14:28 says, ‘If there is no interpreter (this is known in advance, before the event. RM) the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and to God.’ Seeing you did not know whether or not there was an ‘interpreter’ present, you should have kept quiet. Note, this is even granting the PC view of ‘tongues’ so-called, which I do not accept.

Further the verse says the speaker should ‘…speak to himself and to God.’ This at least implies that the speaker knew what he was saying so he could be described as speaking ‘to himself’, just one of the clues in the passage that indicates the language speakers knew what they were saying. No one manifesting PC ‘tongues’ so-called, knows what they are saying - even granting they are saying something.

By Renton Maclachlan on May 18, 2009

The Bible was not written in a vacuum. Paul’s letters to the Corinthians were dealing with specific problems. The problem in question within the above discussion concerns the Corinthian church spending their entire meeting talking in tongues, with nothing else happening. Trying to apply this to Pentecostalism today is rather silly.

By Mike on May 19, 2009

Mike: Your statement is simply amazing, and wide open to dispute on several counts. Amazing in that 1 Corinthians contains the largest volume of text we have containing the word ‘language/glossa’ (chapters 12>14), and thus gives us the best opportunity to be able to determine the meaning of the Greek word ‘glossa’ from use and context. And yet you say: ‘Trying to apply this to Pentecostalism today is rather silly.’ Incredible!

It is even more incredible given that the major propositions re PC ‘tongues’ so-called, and the final line of defense for the PC view, are drawn from this extended passage, even if done so tenuously, sloppily, and in a cherry pick fashion, without thorough exegesis of the passage!

Yes, no question, the Corinthian letters were written to deal with specific issues in the Corinthian church. However, what the specific nature of the issue in chapters 12>14 is not so easy to come by and it’s simplistic and resolves nothing to say, ‘…the Corinthian church [was] spending their entire meeting talking in tongues, with nothing else happening.’

This begs the question, ‘What are ‘tongues?’ That is what this whole discussion is getting to!

If, as I’ve pointed out, the speakers of the languages in Corinth knew what they were saying, then the PC view of ‘tongues’ so-called is dead. As I have repeatedly noted, no one today manifesting or claiming to interpret PC ‘tongues’ so-called, knows what is being said - granted something is being said - thus what is described in 1 Cor and identifed as ‘glossa/language’ or its plurals, is not what is experienced today and given the name ‘tongues’. They are two distinctly different things.

Further, re this specific Corinthian situation, the issue was not with the languages being spoken per sae - there is no negative comment from Paul anywhere regarding the languages spoken. The issue was the languages were not being interpreted and consequently those who did not know the languages were not being edified. For Paul, edification was paramount.

If we ask the question, ‘Why were people willing to speak in languages they knew others did not know, without making sure that what they said was interpreted?’ then we’re heading in the right direction to identify the root cause of this problem in this church.

In the mean time, it is quite legitimate to use this extended passage to justify and endorse, or refute and deny, the PC view of ‘tongues’ so-called. I say the passage emphatically refutes and denys it.

By Renton Maclachlan on May 19, 2009

Thanks for your response Paul.

Regarding condescension:
I’m speaking concisely and explicitly, and obviously to some people who disagree with what I am saying. If that is taken as condescension by some , I’m sorry but so be it.

RE PC:
By ‘PC’ I am not referring to ‘politically correct’ as I thought would have been clear, but to ‘Pentecostal/Charismatic’.

Re which view ‘…That of cessationists or that of continuationists?’:
This presumes there are only two views. My book was not subtitled ‘A Third Way’ for nothing. I am a ‘continuationist’ but not of the sort you imagine. The two terms actually are irrelevant. ‘Cessationists’ so-called, for all their anti-PC rhetoric are in many cases crypto-Charismatics in the way they frame their arguments.

Re Abraham:
I’m not sure who you’re saying in this case has this ‘spiritual gift of interpreting tongues’. Abraham? If so, he never claimed to. He said someone else interpreted his ‘message’. I said that because he didn’t know if an ‘interpreter’ was present before giving his ‘messge’, something that can be known before any ‘message’ is given, he was out of order.

Re whether the speaker of a language knows what they are saying:
With all due respect my case is based totally on Christian Scripture and what the text says. I don’t see why ‘human reason’ even needs to be brought into it as human reason is simply a faculty we all possess as a gift from God from our creation which we all use all the time. You are using it in your attempt to rebut what I am saying, so if it’s ok for you to use it, it’s ok for me to also. I have no issue at all with you doing that because I fully accept my reason and your reason as God given and to be used for his glory and see no need to argue on those terms. But for you to imply that you have access to some other sort of superior reason than I have, and therefore have a superior argument than me, can I say sounds – well – condescending.
Now…your reasoning ability, grip of logic, language comprehension, etc, may be better than mine or not, but that is another issue altogether. There is absolutely nothing ‘de-supernaturalising’ about what I am saying.

Re: ‘Unknown means unknown, to my way of thinking.’:
Unknown is not in the Greek. But even so, ‘Unknown means unknown’ doesn’t tell you whether it is unknown to all or to some. I know one language but all others are ‘unknown’ to me.

Re: ‘Are your ideas on the other “pneumatic” gifts of the Spirit so anti-supernatural? Tell us about them.’:
For one, my ideas on God’s gifts are not anti-supernatural, but no, I am not going to address any of that because it is irrelevant to our discussion.

Re Bereans etc:
Good to hear your comments. My book opens with two quotes, one of them that referring to the Bereans. One of the fruits of the Spirit is to be self-controlled, which means our minds must always be ‘engaged’, if we are manifesting the work of the Spirit. This is one of the reasons I am so opposed to the PC view of ‘tongues’ so-called, as in every case today the speakers mind is disengaged in regard to the event occurring.

Re the comment on my website about buying the book:
The comment speaks for itself and needs no further elaboration.

By Renton Maclachlan on May 19, 2009

Good discussion here. I have to say however, when I was a Mormon the strength of my faith was in the spiritual experiences I felt I had. (I use the words “experience” and “felt” to help readers understand that while I read the Book of Mormon and the Bible, the strength of my convictions was in what I believed were direct communications from God.)
As I now know, Praise be to God, the reading of His word is my guide and communication from Him.
I do believe in the gifts of the Spirit however as practised in the Pentecostal continuance system I see lots of experiential occurrences. Additional to this, I was given a book titled ” Spiritual Power, How to get It - How to Give It” by Don. W. Basham. Alarm bells. I really have to say I believe it is learned behavior. The Bible states that if we pray in a tongue we should pray to interpret it otherwise it is not edifying to anyone (1 Corinth 14: 13). I think the Bible is clear that tongues is a proper language interpreted, not the unintelligible noises I have heard. In my experience I would seek that all test the spirits, so they are not deceived.
Cheers, Jennifer

By Jennifer on May 20, 2009

Actually Jennifer, there are several options for interpretation in 1 Cor 14.
1. The language speaker could attempt to interpret what they have said, something which may be hard to do because not everyone is equally fluent in the languages they know - and also because not everyone who knows more than one language necessarily has a very good ability to interpret across the language barrier.
2. If someone is present who also knows both languages (thinking only of a two language situation here) and has the ability to interpret, they could do it. This is why it is known in advance that an interpreter for a particular language is present or not, because it would be known in advance in the church who knows what languages and also has interpretive abilities.

By Renton Maclachlan on May 20, 2009

Paul:
I was not presumptuous in my judgment at all - though it sounds like you are quite willing to pass judgment. Could it be a case of the pot calling the kettle black?

Scripture says: ‘If there is no interpreter present …’ something known before the event, then keep quiet. Abraham gave no indication this ruling was followed but did what I understand always happens in PC ‘tongues’ so-called situations. The ‘message’ is given in the hope that after the event, God will give someone the ‘interpretation’. (As I have repeatedly said ‘interpretation’ is a misnomer because no interpretation actually occurs.) But perhaps Abraham could tell us whether or not he checked to see, or knew already that an interpreter was present before proceeding. And perhaps you could tell us how you consider a person gets an ‘interpretation’, as you understand it. Spell out the process in steps from go to wo. Thanks.

Re: ‘…(using your own method of logic)’, and, ‘Reasoning and logic alone [from our limited frameworks of understanding] are not enough to provide wholesome understanding of the workings of the pneumatikos.’
I do not have my ‘own method of logic’. There is logic full stop – which is one aspect of God’s world. I am either logical – in conformity to this world as God has made it - or I am not. Now I may have faulty presuppositions which can be built logically on and lead to wrong results inevitably. But it is not logic which is at fault, but the presuppositions. So the question is whether or not the presuppositions are correct. Seeing we are discussing claims about experiences people have which are claimed to be grounded in Scripture, it is quite legitimate to scrutinize these claims and see if in fact they are grounded as claimed.
If ‘reason and logic alone’ are not enough to test the validity of claims such as those made by PC’s re ‘tongues’ so-called, what are we supposed to use? What else is there to use?

Re: ‘In your 18/5 reply to me you state “all that goes under the name ‘tongues’ in Pentecostal/Charismatic circles today is counterfeit”. What a grandiose assumption is that!!! There are hundreds of millions of Christians in the world today who speak in other tongues, and here you presume to judge them as following Christ with counterfeit gifts (and therefore implicitly praising and worshipping him falsely). Only someone with omniscience could make that call.’
Paul, you are committing a logical fallacy. Perhaps your minimizing the importance of ‘reason and logic’ has led you to neglect these with resulting breakdowns in both your reason and logic. The number of adherents an idea has does not validate the truth of the idea. And no matter how many people experience something, if that experience is illegitimate or false, then it is quite valid for anyone to pass judgment on the experience. Philip Powell is renowned for passing judgment on experiences other Pentecostals (and others) have. Should he be condemned simply because he evaluated and scrutinized and came to a conclusion that what he is commenting on is wrong? Of course not. Well, the sort of judgment you have passed on me is unwarranted also.
If the PC view of tongues is wrong, it’s wrong, end of story, and all those who think otherwise are wrong and deceived. There is nothing at all unusual about vast numbers of people being deceived, people who passionately believe they are right and have God backing them up. Mormons and Moslems for example. Most people throughout all time have been deceived.

Re: ‘These statements do not stand up under the light of Scripture, my brother.’
With all due respect, they do, and to date you have not answered as far I recall, one of the points I have mede. You have simply passed judgment on me.

RE: ‘Reflect, and consider.’
Are you suggesting I apply ‘reason and logic’ and come to a conclusion different to that I have come to by very close, persistent, and hard nosed scrutiny of the text of Scripture?

By Renton Maclachlan on May 21, 2009

If issues were dealt with rather than comments made about tone, etc, it would be helpful…

I’ve had a look back over a few of the posts and it is a pity some of the contributors aren’t posting now. In a number of the posts there is the basis for some serious debate…unfortunately those writing at the time did not seem to have thought of the necessary questions to get clarity/resolution…

By Renton Maclachlan on May 22, 2009

Renton - as with all scripture - it is bad scholarship to disregard the historical and cultural background and the relating specific problems addressed against, and within, Paul’s letter to the Corinthians.

By Mike on May 22, 2009

Mike: Sure is. Absolutely agree. What are you suggesting?

By Renton Maclachlan on May 22, 2009

Renton: That you are erroneously applying the problem Paul addressed in the Corinthian church to all 21st century P/C’s who practice the gift of glossolalia and/or xenoglossia.

By Mike on May 23, 2009

Mike: With all due respect, you appear to have misunderstood what I am saying. I am not applying any problem to any time.

I’m saying that the phenomena occurring today which has been labeled ‘tongues’ since around 1901 at Azusa St, and back to the Irvingite movement of the 1830’s, has nothing whatsoever to do with 1 Corinthians 12-14 because it is not the same stuff as described there. I’ll extend that further and say that it has nothing to do with any situation where the word glossa or derivatives appear in the New Testament.

Paul was without question addressing a problem in this section of 1 Corinthians which manifested itself in the way languages were being used in the church. I don’t actually think the underlying problem is even mentioned, though the Corinthians would have been all too aware that Paul was addressing it.

This problem could very well have analogues today but I doubt very much they would be in Western PC churches, at least not manifested in the specific way it was in Corinth which Paul dealt with.

In some parts of the world, the lessons of 1 Cor 14 would be very applicable, though perhaps without the underlying problem. I have been in situations where the guidance given in these chapters didn’t even enter the organisers minds because the chapter was misunderstood and so not seen to apply. It was not that they considered the situation and rejected applying the chapter. Applying it didn’t even enter the equation at any point!

By Renton Maclachlan on May 23, 2009

Comments appreciated, those in support and those not - might I simply say that I never go on “gosh, I must check this out, where is brother so and so and dare I utter this message (in tongues etc.) It’s like this, and those who know - know it - and those who don’t - don’t ! If Holy Spirit quickens my Spirit and impresses Himself upon my Spirit I am obedient and do as He tells me (or not if I choose of course) In simple terms He quickens my spirit. Otherwise the instant is ‘lost’ and God’s grace wasted. This has always been the case with prophetic messages, and many are the times God has graced me with this blessing and ability. I am quickened, my Faith is ‘anchored’ in the Spirit and I speak forth in inspired mode. Many of you will know what I am saying here. Am I being really quickened and/or inspired of God ? Or is it just my own mind and soulishness ? Well, that’s the task of discernment in other believers, be they elders or not. So far I have had no complaints! Do we have a frisson of enslavement to the Word of God rather than an acknowledgment that He does as He wills that men should be blessed? May I be frank - I have a very jaundiced view of those who are technical Bible students rather that Lovers of God in Christ.
Abraham.

By Abraham on May 26, 2009

Renton - you are contradicting yourself

By Mike on May 26, 2009

Mike: Please point out the contradiction.

Abraham: You said: ‘May I be frank - I have a very jaundiced view of those who are technical bible students rather that Lovers of God in Christ Abraham.’

Who are you saying are ‘technical bible students’ who don’t love God?

By Renton Maclachlan on May 26, 2009

Renton: You say that the tongues practised in Pentecostal and Charismatic churches have nothing to do with that practised in the Corinthian church and which was the subject of Paul’s address - yet at the same time you are applying it to these people today.

By Mike on May 27, 2009

Mike: You’ve got it wrong. I am not applying it to the PC’s today. I’m judging PC’s claims re ‘tongues’ so-called, on the basis that what they practise does not conform to what is described in 1 Corinthians. And yet they claim what they practice is what is described there.

Let’s be clear, if the current phenomenon is not found in 1 Corinthians, it emphatically is not found anywhere in Scripture. And if that is the case there is absolutely no biblical justification for it - end of story.

And that is precisely what I am arguing. The PC phenomenon known as tongues has no Biblical justification whatsoever.

By Renton Maclachlan on May 27, 2009

Renton: …Inappropriate personal comment deleted here - Moderator 2…
Just because you say that the tongues addressed in Corinthians is not the glossolalia practiced in P/C today - does not make it so. That is your opinion - not fact. The experience and testimony of millions who do practise the gift of glossolalia shows complete disagreement with that conjecture. A man with an experience is never at the mercy of a man with an argument.

By Mike on May 27, 2009

I am serving as a Pastor here in Arifwala city and surrounding village areas from last 5 years. From last 2 years we are running an awesome project called Bible village reader. Under this project we are training young Christian boys and girls as future leaders of Christian community. We are training them how to read the URDU language Bible clearly and loudly to their families and communities. Till now we have 15 young students those are under training.
We are printing Bible tracts and distributing them to the lost people and distributing free Urdu Bibles to the deserving people - those have none. You will be surprised to know that here in our areas even believers don’t have Bible copies at their homes to study; they have to wait till Sunday to hear the word of God. So our Church tries our best to bless these deserving people with the Bible copies. We are trying to reach out to as many souls we can with the word of God.
Please always remember us in your prayers. We will appreciate your Love and prayers. I really like your wonderful work that you are doing, and want to work with you. I can do translation of English to Urdu and Punjabi so that here, in Pakistan, Christian people may read them and grow in their faith. It will be a wonderful blessing for all of us. I am looking forward for your kind response, GBU
Your in Christ,
Pastor Fahim John

By Pastor Fahim John on May 27, 2009

Mike: I’m glad you’ve said it so clearly. I was going to say that for the PC, at the end of the day it comes down to experience, not the Bible as the final authority in this matter. Hardly the Christian position.
Plenty of people have experiences they swear by. Doesn’t make them right. All the laughing revival people had experiences. Mormons have their ‘burning in the bosom’ which testifies to them that what they believe is correct. All your ‘common garden’ type Indian Gurus and their followers have experiences that validate for them their beliefs. Doesn’t sound like you are any different.
As I’ve said before, universally, no one manifesting the PC ‘experience’ of speaking in ‘tongues’ so-called, knows what they are saying, granted they are saying something. This goes for so-called ‘interpreters’ also. No one hears sounds that are meaningful to them. No one understands, no one knows what is being said.
Now all that needs to be established to disprove this experience as being what the Bible describes, is to show that the people who were speaking the languages as described in 1 Cor knew what they were saying.
So…
1. Reflect on the way the term ‘edify’ is used in the passage. For a person/the church to be edified, they must understand. That is why interpretation is required because as soon as a message in a language is interpreted, it is understood by the church and they are edified. The message, once interpreted, then comes onto exactly the same level understanding-wise as ‘prophecy’. However the language speaker is said to edify themselves. In other words, they know what they are saying.
2. v16 says: ‘If you are praising God with your spirit, how can one who finds himself among those who do not understand say “amen” to your thanksgiving, since he does not know what you are saying?’
How so you know you are praising God/giving thanks? Because you know what you are saying. Why can the other person not say amen? Because they don’t understand, don’t know what you are saying.
Same in v17: ‘You may be giving thanks well enough but the other man is not edified.’ How do you know your giving thanks? Because you and others who know the language you are speaking, know what you are saying so can identify your speech as thanksgiving. However the other man, who doesn’t know the language, can’t understand so is not edified and can’t say amen.
Further, there is clearly a group who do understand what is being said, as well as a group who don’t.
In v9 is says: ‘Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will be just speaking into the air.’ So speech without interpretation is simply worthless to the group - spoken to the air.
And so on…
As the speakers knew what they were saying, the current PC phenomenon is not what they were manifesting.
Pastor Fahim John, who clearly understands English, Urdu and Punjabi, is able to interpret/translate so that people around him, who otherwise would not be edified, are edified through hearing the word of God in languages they understand. His post is a timely and powerful illustration of what 1 Corinthians is all about re languages.
Thank you Fahim. May the Lord bless and encourage you in a difficult work, and may many come to trust in the Lord because they understand the wonderful grace and kindness of God revealed in the Lord Jesus in the Word of God, and carried to them on their mother tongue.

By Renton Maclachlan on May 27, 2009

No Renton - that spin won’t stick. Pentecostals and Charismatic Christians indeed regard the Bible as the final authority; they view their experience as confirming it. Furthermore, an attempt at applying the Corinthian passage on tongues as relating to natural languages rather than spiritual gifts, is rather fantastic and dishonest - as well as an inconsistent stretch of hermeneutics, historical comprehension, and exegesis.

By Mike on May 27, 2009

Mike: …Inappropriate personal comment deleted here - Moderator 2…
And there is no spin here. Why don’t you put up this great exegesis you talk about and allow it to be subject to scrutiny?
Oh, …Inappropriate personal comment deleted here - Moderator 2…
.
PC’s may say they have the Bible as the final authority, and some genuinely want that to be the case, the ones at the Biblical end of the mystical spectrum - apparently Philip Powell is one, and I know others. But at the end of the day, experience trumps the Bible no matter your attempt to salvage the matter.
So how about it? Put up your exegesis, blow by blow. Tell us your methodology also…

By Renton Maclachlan on May 27, 2009

I’m off line for four days or so…

Read my book. The full argument is there. Then we can debate the thesis. My methodology and full exegesis is there, verse by verse…

Don’t like it? Tell me why and justify your case.

By Renton Maclachlan on May 27, 2009

Renton: Where did I question your character? I am talking about methodology. As I said, experience confirms the scripture - it does not ‘trump the Bible.’ Experience does however trump your argument. I really don’t mind what you say, as nobody can argue away my experience with the Lord.

By Mike on May 27, 2009

I will be taking the time to go through all of these responses as there seems to be great conversation going on about this important topic. I have an almost identical story to CG (at the top of the blog) and have been victim of the excesses of hyper-pentecostalism/charismania.

I don’t regret the experience because, like CG, I encountered the Word of God in a new and exciting way - I’m definitely a sola scriptura believer now and, whilst I would not regard myself as a cessationist (although I do believe there are some compelling cessationist arguments), I agree with Luther “Let the man who would hear God speak read Holy Scripture”. Ultimately, while I still love and respect many of my Pentecostal brothers and sisters I believe that it is in many respects, an aberrant movement. I have an appreciation of its innocuous roots out of the Weslyan-Holiness movement, but as a modern movement I believe it is largely apostate.

By Mosco on May 28, 2009

I apologise that I said “unintelligible noises”. The tongues being practised, as I have heard it, does contain vowel sounds. I was reading this blog last night and then went to the Bible, I read in Acts chapter two, the original event consisted of persons speaking in languages that other persons understood, they heard their own language being spoken! Would I be wrong to expect then, that that is what should occur in a public meeting today? Thankyou to Paul and Renton for your helpful comments…

By Jennifer on May 31, 2009

Jennifer: You are absolutely correct regarding Acts 2 languages. They were normal human languages, heard and understood by those hearers who understood the languages spoken. This does not happen in PC circles today and so any appeal by PC’s to this chapter in support of their view of ‘tongues’ so-called, is ruled out. And this is despite Act 2 being the chapter that gives rise to the Pentecostal name! This is highly ironic - that the passage from which the name is drawn, does not support the practice claimed to be drawn from it!

Further, there only need be perhaps three languages that were spoken, Greek, Aramaic, and Latin, with perhaps dialects of Aramaic. The list of places people came from is not at the same time a list of languages spoken. The places listed conform to the Eastern and Western diapora of the Jews, with the Eastern one speaking Aramaic and the Western one Greek. Visitors from Rome are also listed so Latin would have been spoken as well. I don’t think Hebrew was included as I think Hebrew was the language the other languages were ‘other’ to - ‘…they spoke in other languages…

In support of the above statement, included in the list is ‘Judea’. There was no ‘Judean’ language. People who lived in Judea - which of course included Jerusalem, the very place the events described occurred - spoke primarily Aramaic, though Greek would also have been prominent.

By Renton Maclachlan on Jun 1, 2009

I must say I don’t like at all the way comments are censored/removed from this blog. I have been in torrid debates with Marxists and have never had a single word I’ve said censored by them. Yet those who claim to follow ‘the TRUTH’ all too often seem quite happy to censor others. And it is happening here again!
Surely readers are mature another to be able to make up their own minds about posts…

By Renton Maclachlan on Jun 1, 2009

Just a thought from a humble follower of the Way - should a true believer really love God - by Holy Spirit and in Christ, then he will evince the fruit of the Spirit - unless an immature Believer of course, time to grow in grace is needed as one would expect. E.g, patience and peace in particular. Sometimes I wonder whether much, if any, fruit is being expressed in some of the blog responses? The sharp retort, and desire to be contentious does not sit well at all with the apostle Paul’s exhortations. Neither do the responses that have to be moderator-deleted! Mind you, only my thoughts.
There is a book incidentally I could recommend that may well answer a lot of questions raised and discussed here - one point I am convinced of is this - that the baptism in Holy Spirit - preferably after water baptism (for Believers having heard the Gospel) is essential in this day and end time age.

By Abraham on Jun 2, 2009

Abraham: Do you know what was said in those ‘…responses that have to be moderator-deleted!’? I imagine not. If this is so, you are trusting Paul that they were scurrilous enough to be deleted, and as a result I am defamed in your eyes by his deletion message. This precisely why I objected in a post that has been deleted in total by Paul, to such comments being inserted by the moderator.

Who actually is failing to act in conformity to the Apostle ‘Paul’s exhortations’? Can I suggest it is the one who causes others to be defamed.

If Moderator 2/Paul had just left all the comments alone, none of these things would have been said, and people could have judged for themselves whether comments were acceptable or not. It makes me wonder if it was done intentionally so as to sidetrack the discussion…

Now back to the issue…

By Renton Maclachlan on Jun 3, 2009

The website www.pentecostal-tongues-theology.org has good info for truth-seekers.

By Anonymous on Jun 3, 2009

Anonymous: I have briefly looked over the website you pointed to and I could not see any refutation at all of the position I have been arguing on this blog. It appears the whole target of the website is against ‘cessationists’, as though that is the only non/anti-PC view there is. As the view I advocate is not ‘cessationist’, it is left standing untouched by the website’s arguments.

I am not a cessationist because I do not think cessationist arguments are sound. But nor are PC arguments.

Will look at the site later on, and comment further if need be.

By Renton Maclachlan on Jun 3, 2009

There are probably quite a few who come across this particular site and read the various comments with interest - however many may well be confused at the issues debated, but would like to know more - one book I have recently read which is both challenging and well exegeted is “Jesus Baptises in One Holy Spirit” by David Pawson. It was written about 10 years ago, and seems to be well balanced. One very concise point made, drawn from scripture, is that baptism in the Holy Spirit is a ’second event’ - and ‘does not automatically come’ at the point of conversion (incidentally, when is that?). This confusion is rampant in the church today, I have even heard so-called leaders say “see if you can speak in tongues, try it out, the Holy Spirit is already in you if you are born again” and other such gross errors of ignorance and misunderstanding! Also this author - in another book - challenges the “Once saved always saved?” soteriology prevalent in our charismatic/evangelistic church movement of today, whereby many leaders especially in the mega churches in the US are claiming “thousands brought to Christ daily” when there is by discernment grave doubt about this …whilst I will say no more on this subject, truly we are in the end time and Satanic forces are very active indeed.

By Abraham on Jun 4, 2009

Abraham: Do you ’speak in tongues’ as per the PC understanding of this term?

If so, and granted that you are saying something, do you know what you are saying? That is, do you, when you speak in your ‘tongue’, know/understand what you are saying as a result of you, yourself, hearing meaning in the sounds you make, in the same way you do when you hear yourself speak in English?

By Renton Maclachlan on Jun 4, 2009

Crashing silence from Abraham to my question.

Perhaps it should be opened up to all…

By Renton Maclachlan on Jun 8, 2009

Renton -from Abraham – no, I do not speak in tongues, though I have very occasionally in the distant past. The Spirit has gifted me with ‘prophecy’ – or prophetic charisms as some say, and as most will know these are focused messages of a divine nature. Almost always they ‘assure, comfort or exhort’ in one way or another.
Coming to the matter of a Believer’s (or ‘professing’ believer’s) eternal security, and whether authors such as David Pawson (DP) Kent Philpott (another author on the same subject & church pastor) and others justifiably throw doubt on the matter of the “Once saved always saved” syndrome — I firmly consider after much careful deliberation over many years that churches are home to many more un-saved souls than we actually think. Why this conclusion? To convey the light of Christ our Saviour with the shades of humanity requires more than a short blog such as this, however some thoughts and quotes on this very serious subject may help :
“Once saved always saved” is a familiar cliché in evangelical circles, even appearing in the title of books and pamphlets - such expression cannot be found in scripture. Agreed - though as a human statement it could contain Bible truth of course. However, might it not be the case that our minds have been well penetrated by the concept of ‘eternal security’. It is easily used by pastors, preachers and evangelists to convey the impression of ‘saved equals safe forever’. But is this correct? Is it not true that those seekers who have had to search the bible for themselves for answers soon come to the conclusion that ‘keeping it up’ is an essential part of heaven’s promises in Christ?
This is of course, a very emotive issue, rarely contemplated by most. “Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith” said Paul in 2Cor. 13:5. The idea that Salvation involves any effort on our part is contemptuously dismissed as … works – whereas we should speak clearly of ‘working out our salvation’.
Finally, though yet only scratching the surface .. “the noun Christian was a nickname coined and used by outsiders in the NT – in it’s modern connotation it is more likely used as describing someone who has somehow arrived among the saved or at least ‘crossed the line’. It is a static word lacking any sense of further progress. But the favourite title in the early church was ‘disciple’ – much more dynamic implying someone who goes on learning and over-coming, and following in obedience the Master - whom to love means taking note of all His commands.
This further implies that Christianity in real terms is not Sunday worship, or membership of a church, but of seizing the ‘dunamis’ of Holy Spirit in our lives and following The Way. Few appear to do this with exceptions made for ‘babes in Christ’. The preaching of a weak Gospel (= no gospel) and little teaching on discipleship does not augur well for the purported Body of Christ – even now being seriously invaded by apostasy. Is all this worthy of the vile and violent death of our Lord Jesus at Calvary?

(PS - apologies for being tardy - I use dial-up and have to slot in when I can!)

By Abraham on Jun 9, 2009

Thanks Abraham.

For any ‘PC tongues’ speakers out there, how about answering the questions?

As you ’speak in tongues’ as per the PC understanding of this term, and granting that you are saying something, do you know what you are saying?

That is, do you, when you speak in your ‘tongue’, know/understand what you are saying as a result of you, yourself, hearing meaning in the sounds you make, in the same way you do when you hear yourself speak in English?

I have said earlier on in the thread that it is universal that no ‘tongues’ speaker understands (as above) what they are saying. Anyone want to contradict this?

By Renton Maclachlan on Jun 10, 2009

To Renton Maclachlan: On MAY 18, 2009 above, you said
“1 Cor 14:14. ‘For if I pray in a language, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful.’ The Apostle Paul does not say ‘the mind is uninformed’ as you suggest he does. He says his mind is ‘unfruitful’…1. ‘What is the fruit the mind bears?”
I SAY THAT THE ANSWER TO THE ABOVE QUESTION IS THAT THE FRUIT THAT ONE’S MIND BEARS IS IT’S “UNDERSTANDING”, BUT YOU STATED THE FOLLOWING
“A ‘The mind bears fruit not in itself, but in the minds of others who hear the thoughts of a speaker’s mind expressed through their speech”
IN MY OPINION YOU ERR IN THINKING THAT, “THE THOUGHTS OF THE SPEAKER’S MIND IS EXPRESSED THROUGH THEIR SPEECH” ACTUALLY, IT IS THE THOUGHTS OF THE SPEAKER’S SPIRIT THAT IS EXPRESSED THROUGH THEIR SPEECH (NOT THE THOUGHTS OF THE SPEAKER’S MIND). THIS IS NOT SPLITTING HAIRS; FOR A SPEAKER’S MIND (HIS OWN UNDERSTANDING)DOES NOT BEAR FRUIT IN OTHER PEOPLE’S MINDS (THEIR OWN UNDERSTANDING). IT IS THE SPEAKER’S SPIRIT SPEAKING THROUGH HIS MOUTH THAT CAN BEAR FRUIT IN OTHER PEOPLE’S MINDS. YOU ALSO WROTE
“However, if I spoke a language to you you did not understand, my mind would be unfruitful as it does not produce the fruit of my mind in your mind, that is understanding”.
I THINK YOUR STATEMENT ABOVE WOULD BE ACCURATE IF YOU CHANGED IT TO SAY: “HOWEVER, IF I SPOKE A LANGUAGE TO YOU THAT YOU DID NOT UNDERSTAND, YOUR MIND WOULD BE UNFRUITFUL AS THERE IS NO UNDERSTANDING, AND IF I SPOKE IN TONGUES A LANGUAGE THAT NEITHER YOU NOR I UNDERSTAND THEN BOTH OF OUR MINDS WOULD BE UNFRUITFUL AS NEITHER OF US COULD UNDERSTAND THE MESSAGE.”
IT IS NOT THE JOB OF THE SPEAKER’S MIND TO BEAR FRUIT IN OTHER PEOPLE. IT IS THE JOB OF THE SPEAKER’S SPIRIT, SPEAKING THROUGH HIS MOUTH THAT CAN CONVEY A MESSAGE THAT WILL BEAR FRUIT (UNDERSTANDING) IN SOMEONE ELSE’S MIND.
WHAT I’M ABOUT TO WRITE MAY SOUND SILLY BUT I BELIEVE YOU ARE IMPLYING THE FOLLOWING:
IF A SPEAKER’S MIND DOES NOT BEAR FRUIT UNLESS SOMEONE ELSE’S MIND UNDERSTANDS IT, THEN THAT PERSON’S MIND ALSO CANNOT BEAR FRUIT (OF UNDERSTANDING) UNLESS HE, IN TURN, REPEATS THE ORIGINAL SPEAKER’S MESSAGE TO OTHER PEOPLE SO THAT THEY MAY UNDERSTAND IT WHICH WILL MEAN FRUIT FOR THE 2ND SPEAKER’S MIND, BUT NOT UNTIL THESE OTHER PEOPLE REPEAT THE MESSAGE TO OTHERS AND SO ON AND SO ON. THIS CYCLE WILL CONTINUE AND NO ONE’S MIND WILL BEAR FRUIT UNTIL EVERY PERSON ON THE PLANET HAS HEARD AND UNDERSTOOD THE MESSAGE WHICH WOULD BEAR FRUIT IN THEIR MINDS AND IN WHOEVER TOLD THEM THE MESSAGE OF THAT ORIGINAL SPEAKER.
YOU ALSO STATED THE FOLLOWING:
A speaker always understands all the languages they speak. However hearers do not understand all languages and in cases where they do not understand a language being spoken,
THE VERSE BELOW, FROM 1 CORINTHIANS SHOWS THAT A SPEAKER MIGHT NOT UNDERSTAND A MESSAGE THAT HE SPEAKS.
ch14:13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue pray that he may interpret.

By Peter Kwiatkowski on Jul 22, 2009

Dear Brethren,

May the peace of the Lord be with you!

I am assistant director of Bible In Right and True Hands (BIRTHs) Ministry. We serve to get the Word of God out reach to the people who are looking for the Lord’s salvation for them.We do not have any church or affiliation with any kind of ministry. I studied your site and wish to become the part of you to work in my area through your guidance and through the same beliefs. To know more about my ministry and my work please follow this: http://birthsministry.webs.com
I pray that our coordination will bring many souls around us to be saved and get into the Kingdome of the Lord. I will be waiting for your response on this.

In Christ,

Faheem Qaiser

By Faheem Qaiser on Nov 4, 2009

My name is Pastor Asif Mubark. Me and my Younger Brother, Evangelist Kashif Mubark, have been running Catch The Holy Fire Ministery here in Pakistan for 8 Years. We have 20 home churches all around Pakistan. As you know serving in an Islamic country is not easy way to go but we are very thankful to our Lord for His protection that we are still safe and serving. Please always keep us in your prayers as nowadays persecution is very high in Pakistan. Last year some Muslims burned down 3 different Christian colonies including our Christian colony Gojra. The other 2 Christian Colonies are just on 10 miles away from my Hometown. Please pray for the persecuted church of Pakistan. May God bless you abundantly and your work! Your fellowship will be a privilege for me.
Your Brother
Pastor Asif Mubark

By Pastor Asif Mubark on Apr 23, 2010

I am an editor for Christian.com which is a social network dedicated to the christian community. As I look through your web site I feel a collaboration is at hand. I would be inclined to acknowledge your website offering it to our users as I’m sure our Pentecostal audience would benefit from what your site has to offer. I look forward to your thoughts or questions regarding the matter.

Vicky Silvers
vicky.silvers@gmail.com

By Vickey Silvers on Jun 4, 2010