DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Religious Convictions
HTML https://religiousconvictions.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Religious Discussions
*****************************************************
#Post#: 1857--------------------------------------------------
Re: The importance of praying in other tongues.
By: Kerry Date: May 10, 2015, 10:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Roberson admits frankly that most of the talking in tongues is
not a sign to the unbeliever. On page 53 he admits speaking in
tongues make unbelievers think Christians are crazy.
He then goes on to say he asked God about this and was told it
was a sign to unbelievers when someone was able to speak a
language that wasn't his own and other people could understand
him. He then claims to have preached in "an Indian dialect, in
French, in Spanish, in Arabic, and in German." All told he's
done it 19 times.
I would say that would indeed be a sign if he had evidence for
his claim. Better yet, I'd like to see it on video. If
speaking in tongues is meant for a sign for unbelievers, why is
what we see on television the kind that makes unbelievers scoff?
Further down, around page 56, he says that "everyone in the Body
of Christ is called to fulfill the commission of the believer
found in Mark 16:16-18: to speak with new tongues, lay hands on
the sick and see them recover, and cast out devils." Yes,
that's what he wrote.
Now let's assume that part of Mark is authentic. It may not be
since it's not in all the oldest manuscripts; but let's assume
it is authentic. I wonder why Roberson didn't quote the
passage? Why just refer to it like that? Well, let me quote it
for you.
Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but
he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name
shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly
thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick,
and they shall recover.
I wonder why he left out the part about taking up serpents and
drinking poison? If he reads that to mean that all Christians
should speak in tongues, why shouldn't they take up serpents and
drink poison too? Strange, isn't it, how some people twist the
Bible to mean what they want it to mean? It's as clear as the
nose on my face that he wants to use that verse to prove
something about tongues and is willing to ignore the context, to
ignore the rest of it. This is not using the Bible in an honest
manner.
Then he takes on the passage where Paul asks, "Do all speak in
tongues?"
"I finally noticed the next question Paul asks in verse 30: "Do
all interpret?" and realized that Paul was talking about the
second diversity of tongues, tongues for interpretation. He was
not referring to the gift of tongues for our own edication.
So Paul is asking, "Do all operate in tongues and interpretation
in a public assembly?" The answer is a definite no. Not
everyone is called to operate in that diversity of tongues. But
all are called by God to speak with tongues for personal
edification, which is the number-one diversity of tongues.
Call me stupid, call me unspiritual, call me whatever you want;
but I somehow don't see Paul said all that. I see him saying not
everyone speaks in tongues.
Later he writes (page 105):
So we know from First Corinthians 14:4 and Jude 19 that we are
edified when we pray in tongues.
Are we reading the same Bible? He's right about the first
passage but seriously off about Jude. I assume he must mean
verse 20.
Jude 1:19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual,
having not the Spirit.
20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy
faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,
Jude speaks of praying in the Spirit but doesn't mention
tongues. There is praying in the Spirit with groanings and not
tongues, and there is also praying in the Spirit without sounds.
I don't know why he added that passage there since his point
was made by 1 Corinthians 14:4 anyway.
Jude definitely does not mention tongues. I'll admit it could
include praying in tongues; but I won't admit he meant only
praying in tongues as Roberson seems to imply. So far as I can
see, there is only one reference to speaking in tongues in the
four Gospels and that one may not belong there. At any rate,
speaking in tongues is mentioned often in Acts, also another
book with passages that seem added -- and finally in some of
Paul's books. I don't see it mentioned in the other books
written by Jude, Peter, James and John.
If it was so important, I'd think they would have discussed it
more. It also doesn't seem to have been that important to Paul
when he was converting people, not if he had to write them
letters later about it to straighten them out. If it was such a
critical thing, wouldn't he have instructed them at once?
I'm still smiling about how Roberson reads Mark 16. I wonder
why he doesn't take up snake handling? Shouldn't all Christians
do that?
#Post#: 1858--------------------------------------------------
Re: The importance of praying in other tongues.
By: A nonny mouse Date: May 11, 2015, 1:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Kerry link=topic=182.msg1857#msg1857
date=1431316301]
Now let's assume that part of Mark is authentic. It may not be
since it's not in all the oldest manuscripts; but let's assume
it is authentic.
[/quote]
I seem to remember you similarly questioning the authenticity of
Hebrews and one or more of the John epistles, etc.
But you quote other parts of the bible with a certainty that
seems to parallel that of those who (to quote various Statements
of Faith) believe the bible to be the "complete and final,
verbally inerrant, Word of God, written by God himself, using
man as his robotic pen".
The difference between us is that whereas you positively
identify the bits that you suspect as not being the authentic
'Word of God', I regard the whole lot as being no more than the
writings of man (albeit inspired to degrees that we cannot
define), limited by the various academic and cosmic knowledge of
the writers, and therefore only of limited authenticity.
In consequence I read the bible (and find it to be a helpful aid
to my 'faith'), relying on 'Christ Within' to bring bits to
'life', but only to the degree of certainty that is consistent
with my mortal limitation.
Added to that I believe such 'Christ Within' influence to be
'personally relevant' as distinct from 'universally absolute',
and consequently of variable benefit between readers.
#Post#: 1859--------------------------------------------------
Re: The importance of praying in other tongues.
By: Kerry Date: May 11, 2015, 6:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=A Trusting Deist link=topic=182.msg1858#msg1858
date=1431326710]
I seem to remember you similarly questioning the authenticity of
Hebrews and one or more of the John epistles, etc.[/quote]One of
John's epistles? Perhaps but I don't recall that.
I don't base my doubts about certain passages or certain books
based on my own beliefs. What should I do with Hebrews when it
gets wrong what was in the Ark of the Covenant? What can I say
when it misinterprets other passages from the Old Testament?
And what do you do with the glaring contradiction between
Galatians and Acts? Acts says Paul went to Jerusalem and Paul
denies that in Galatians.
And what to do with Mark 16? Now it's odd that that passage
mentions picking up serpents without harm -- and it's in some
older manuscripts and not in others. Another passages in the
New Testament has the same imagery -- Acts has Paul doing that.
One big problem there -- Malta doesn't have poisonous snakes and
never did. This suggests to me that perhaps the same culprit
added both passages to these two books.
[quote]But you quote other parts of the bible with a certainty
that seems to parallel that of those who (to quote various
Statements of Faith) believe the bible to be the "complete and
final, verbally inerrant, Word of God, written by God himself,
using man as his robotic pen".
The difference between us is that whereas you positively
identify the bits that you suspect as not being the authentic
'Word of God', I regard the whole lot as being no more than the
writings of man (albeit inspired to degrees that we cannot
define), limited by the various academic and cosmic knowledge of
the writers, and therefore only of limited
authenticity.[/quote]I am very confident in the authenticity of
some passages. Take Ezekiel 28 which mentions stones of fire.
The imagery sounds absurd, does it not? Yet I am sure it's
right. I know how this book originated first of all. I know
too that I saw something myself that could be described no other
way.
Sometimes the things I have seen in visions came to me before I
was aware that a prophet discussed them in the Bible. That
tells me I was not influenced by descriptions in the Bible.
More than once too, I have seen things but was not quite sure
what I had seen or what they meant. When I ran across
descriptions of them in the Bible, I often understood better
what I had seen. Oh and yes, give 1 Peter a "approved" stamp
too with its description of "lively stones." He's talking
about the same thing, more or less, but saying "lively" instead
of "fiery."
The passages that I cite with confidence are those which I see
"hanging together" with coherence. The prophets all have
their unique literary styles; but they are almost always
consistent in how they use symbols. They think along the same
lines.
David wrote about grass:
Psalm 103:15 As for man, his days are as grass: as a flower of
the field, so he flourisheth.
Few would connect that verse with Genesis:
Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the
herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his
kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
But I do. This is a critical point too in understanding many
other things. Remember how the same curse that produced thorns
and thistles also condemned Adam to die? A principle is
involved --and when the prophets write about grass, they are
often consistent in how they use it.
Isaiah 40:6 The voice said, Cry. And he said, What shall I cry?
All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the
flower of the field:
English even recognizes this to an extent when we talk about
"unconscious" people being in a "vegetative state." You bet.
There is an aspect of man that is a vegetable.
So when I get to the New Testament, I ask if the authors use the
word the same way? The following by Jesus is slightly different
but still similar:
Matthew 6:30 Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field,
which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he
not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?
Peter and James' minds followed the same line -- even if Peter
is quoting Isaiah. The mind properly attuned naturally draws
on the past imagery of others when such imagery can be used to
describe something.
James 1:11 For the sun is no sooner risen with a burning heat,
but it withereth the grass, and the flower thereof falleth, and
the grace of the fashion of it perisheth: so also shall the rich
man fade away in his ways.
1 Peter 1:24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man
as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower
thereof falleth away:
But more startling is how John uses it:
Revelation 8:7 The first angel sounded, and there followed hail
and fire mingled with blood, and they were cast upon the earth:
and the third part of trees was burnt up, and all green grass
was burnt up.
Revelation 9:4 And it was commanded them that they should not
hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither
any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in
their foreheads.
I burst out laughing when I hear people who think John is
talking about physical grass. Trees, of course, represent a
more mature spiritually person -- and Moses says directly that
man is a tree. Isaiah talks of men being like trees.
That also helps explain something about the Cross. Why on a
tree? Why the crown of thorns?
For me when a passage hangs together with so many others, I
don't doubt its authenticity. And if I can see how the Love of
God figures into it, I don't doubt it.
[quote]In consequence I read the bible (and find it to be a
helpful aid to my 'faith'), relying on 'Christ Within' to bring
bits to 'life', but only to the degree of certainty that is
consistent with my mortal limitation.
Added to that I believe such 'Christ Within' influence to be
'personally relevant' as distinct from 'universally absolute',
and consequently of variable benefit between readers.
[/quote]I'd say we are all the same in that we are all made in
the image and likeness of God -- but then again, we are also all
unique. Each person seems meant to be a unique expression of
God.
#Post#: 1860--------------------------------------------------
Re: The importance of praying in other tongues.
By: Kerry Date: May 11, 2015, 7:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Oh, let me add this about Kathryn Kuhlman. She lived with a
heart ailment for over twenty years! From
HTML http://www.canecreekchurch.org/what-s-your-legacy/33-kathryn-kuhlman<br
/>
In 1952, Kathryn went to Akron, Ohio to preach and the police
were at their wits end. The meeting was scheduled to start at
11:00 A.M. that morning and by 4:00 A. M. nearly 18,000 people
were gathered around the tent. Kathryn's ministry was known
world-wide and she even was having converts in Hollywood. Top
screen stars were coming to her meetings. Even comedienne
Phyllis Diller recommended one of Kathryn's books to a dying
fan.
Around this time Kathryn was diagnosed as having an enlarged
heart and a defective mitral valve. It never stopped her because
she was more concerned with the healing of the masses than with
her own personal health. Her schedule was extremely hectic and
many times she was suffering from physical and mental
exhaustion. She continued to minister around the world in
Israel, Finland and Sweden. She was asked to appear on many
television shows that were popular at that time including the
Johnny Carson show, Mike Douglas, Merv Griffin and the Dinah
Shore Show.
Her last miracle service was in Los Angeles, California, on
November 16, 1975. Three weeks later she lay dying in the
Hillcrest Medical Center of Tulsa, Oklahoma, after open-heart
surgery. Oral and Evelyn Roberts went to her room to pray for
her healing. As they walked toward her bed, Oral remembers:
"When Kathryn recognized that we were there to pray for her
recovery, she put her hands out like a barrier and then pointed
toward heaven."
Evelyn Roberts looked at her husband and said:
"She doesn't want our prayers. She wants to go home."
I wonder why the Spirit didn't tell the Roberts not to bother
going to pray for her?
#Post#: 1864--------------------------------------------------
Re: The importance of praying in other tongues.
By: Kerry Date: May 11, 2015, 4:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Is no one else outraged by how recklessly Roberson has treated
Mark 16? If he thinks that passage means all Christians
should speak in tongues, then he should also believe all
Christians should pick up poisonous snakes and drink poison.
Frankly, I'm coming to believe that many Pentecostal ministers
don't care what the Bible says. They'll say it's without error
and all inspired; but then they're willing to treat it
disrespectfully. I wonder if the people in the pews read
their Bibles or do they rely on their minister's interpretation?
If he says the Bible is inerrant and says thus-and-so, do the
people in the pews think it must be true?
If they did read their Bibles, did they understand and remember
what they read? It seems not. Now seriously folks, if you
really believed the whole Bible was inspired by God and without
error, why wouldn't you pay more attention to it when reading
it? Why would you follow a minister who can say Mark 16 means
all Christians should speak in tongues as a sign when he doesn't
also tell you to handle snakes as a sign?
#Post#: 1866--------------------------------------------------
Re: The importance of praying in other tongues.
By: Heartsong Date: May 11, 2015, 5:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Kerry link=topic=182.msg1864#msg1864
date=1431380402]
Is no one else outraged by how recklessly Roberson has treated
Mark 16? If he thinks that passage means all Christians
should speak in tongues, then he should also believe all
Christians should pick up poisonous snakes and drink poison.
Frankly, I'm coming to believe that many Pentecostal ministers
don't care what the Bible says. They'll say it's without error
and all inspired; but then they're willing to treat it
disrespectfully. I wonder if the people in the pews read
their Bibles or do they rely on their minister's interpretation?
If he says the Bible is inerrant and says thus-and-so, do the
people in the pews think it must be true?
If they did read their Bibles, did they understand and remember
what they read? It seems not. Now seriously folks, if you
really believed the whole Bible was inspired by God and without
error, why wouldn't you pay more attention to it when reading
it? Why would you follow a minister who can say Mark 16 means
all Christians should speak in tongues as a sign when he doesn't
also tell you to handle snakes as a sign?
[/quote]
I agree with you about this. I guess some churches take part of
Mark 16 to say that all Christians should speak in tongues while
others say all Christians should speak in tongues and handle
poisonous snakes and drink poison. I guess it depends on as you
say the minister's interpretation that people rely upon.
On the official website of holiness serpent handlers it says
that they have: 1: A spiritual and literal belief in Mark 16:
15- 18 as a five fold ministry. This involves literally picking
up poisonous serpents, drinking strychnine on top of healing,
speaking in tongues & casting out demons as well as handling
fire. (Dan 3:27/ Mark 16: 17,18/ Luke 28: 5/ Heb 11: 34).
This is dangerous business. People do need to pay more attention
to what they are reading in the scriptures and not just rely
upon a minister's interpretation. Acts 17:11 For those Jews who
were there were nobler than those Jews who were in Thessaloniqa,
and they were hearing gladly from the word every day while they
were distinguishing from Scripture whether these things were so.
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUdc5h10zTo
#Post#: 1867--------------------------------------------------
Re: The importance of praying in other tongues.
By: Heartsong Date: May 11, 2015, 6:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Kerry link=topic=182.msg1864#msg1864
date=1431380402]
If they did read their Bibles, did they understand and remember
what they read? It seems not. Now seriously folks, if you
really believed the whole Bible was inspired by God and without
error, why wouldn't you pay more attention to it when reading
it? Why would you follow a minister who can say Mark 16 means
all Christians should speak in tongues as a sign when he doesn't
also tell you to handle snakes as a sign?
[/quote]
I wouldn't follow a minister like that nor would I handle snakes
as a sign. There's something wrong with both of those
interpretations by ministers.
#Post#: 1869--------------------------------------------------
Re: The importance of praying in other tongues.
By: Kerry Date: May 11, 2015, 8:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Heartsong link=topic=182.msg1866#msg1866
date=1431383326]
I agree with you about this. I guess some churches take part of
Mark 16 to say that all Christians should speak in tongues while
others say all Christians should speak in tongues and handle
poisonous snakes and drink poison. I guess it depends on as you
say the minister's interpretation that people rely upon.
On the official website of holiness serpent handlers it says
that they have: 1: A spiritual and literal belief in Mark 16:
15- 18 as a five fold ministry. This involves literally picking
up poisonous serpents, drinking strychnine on top of healing,
speaking in tongues & casting out demons as well as handling
fire. (Dan 3:27/ Mark 16: 17,18/ Luke 28: 5/ Heb 11: 34).
[/quote]I'll give the snake-handlers one thing. They are are
consistent about Mark 16. They aren't picking and choosing
which signs.
I'm not sure if that passage belongs in the Bible; but if it
does, I give it two interpretations.
1. Physical interpretation: That believers should not be
afraid of not being able to talk to others if they became
missionaries and went places they couldn't speak the languages.
Perhaps in some cases, they would speak the other languages by
miracles; and perhaps God would bless them too with being able
to pick up languages fast. They shouldn't fear any wild animals
including snakes on their travels. Nor should they fear being
poisoned by enemies. If demonic forces came at them, they could
cast them out. If people come to them who are possessed, they
should be able to deal with them.
2. Spiritual interpretation: Believers will speak with pure
lips and tongues, not with the lying and cunning tongue of the
serpent. This cunning tongue began in humans with Adam trying
to blame Eve and with Eve trying to blame the serpent. Humans
became infected by the serpent's kind of talking. I'd say at
Pentecost, the tongues of fire that came down purified their
human tongues -- just as the coal of fire purified the lips of
Isaiah. James definitely deals with the subject of "tongues"
but not in a "Pentecostal" way.
Believers should also spiritually be able to deal with the
serpents of black magic without injury, just as Moses did. This
seldom involves any kind of serpents visible to the human eye
although in the case of Moses it did. The powers of voodoo and
the like are harmless to the believer.
The poison of the "forbidden fruit" is even harmless. The
believer can eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil
without harm. Thus the poison we have already ingested from
it and any future poison from it is harmless. The poison of
being as "cunning as the serpent" is handled by being "as gentle
as the dove."
Casting out devils goes way beyond the stage shows of the
Pentecostals. I also would not say it involves what they
often call "spiritual warfare." I think Paul had it right
when he wrote this:
Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but
against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of
the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high
places.
The early Christians cast out the devils that pretended to be
gods from Rome. It was far, far more than conducting stage
shows. When I do see these shows, I often see people acting as
if they can rebuke Satan. That is a dangerous thing to do.
Even Michael did not pretend to be able to rebuke Satan.
Jude 1:9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the
devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring
against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke
thee.
10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but
what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they
corrupt themselves.
11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran
greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in
the gainsaying of Core.
When Satan tempted Jesus, did Jesus rail against him?
We should realize that if Satan has a foothold in this world,
it's for a reason. God allows it, too. This has to do with
the free will of men. If they choose to have demons around,
then the demons are entitled to be there. That is the Law.
In some cases, we see Jesus carefully obeying this law by asking
people if they were willing to be made whole. In other cases, I
guess he could discern they wanted it; but in these other cases,
I'd say he discerned they had not yet decided they wanted to be
made whole. They were still "halting between two opinions."
To heal someone or to cast out a demon from someone who is not
willing to be made whole is breaking the Law of Free Will. It's
demonic.
Of course, I doubt myself if the stage shows we see involve any
real casting out of demons. It looks like some sort of
hypnosis to me. If it is real, they shouldn't be doing it to
create a spectacle. It is simply wrong to use people with
mental or spiritual problems as stage props in a show probably
meant to rake in money.
[quote]This is dangerous business. People do need to pay more
attention to what they are reading in the scriptures and not
just rely upon a minister's interpretation. Acts 17:11 For those
Jews who were there were nobler than those Jews who were in
Thessaloniqa, and they were hearing gladly from the word every
day while they were distinguishing from Scripture whether these
things were so.[/quote]
Yes! If we hear something, God expects us to ask ourselves if
it can be true. We should not believe something just because a
man stands up and says he knows more than we do.
Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy
and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments
of the world, and not after Christ.
The video? What can I say? We can only pray that the eyes of
these people be opened.
Do people want evidence that they have the Holy Spirit? Here
are the signs!
Galatians 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace,
longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
There is another verse at the end which also may apply.
26 Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another,
envying one another.
If someone else has the gift of tongues, I mean really has it, I
will not be tempted to envy him. Nor can Roberson and others
like him "provoke" me into envying it by telling me something is
wrong with me if I don't have it and I should really go after
it. If some people want to feel superior because they speak in
tongues and I don't, let them. I remained unmoved.
What I see is that the people who feel superior to others who
don't speak in tongues are often the ones who fall into great
sins themselves. It seems pretty shaky to me to put so much
faith in tongues as a way of telling ourselves we are right
with God and then condescendingly tell others they need to speak
in tongues too. I'd rather not, thank you, not if it made me
like some of these Pentecostals preachers. No thanks.
#Post#: 1870--------------------------------------------------
Re: The importance of praying in other tongues.
By: Heartsong Date: May 11, 2015, 9:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Kerry link=topic=182.msg1869#msg1869
date=1431393090]
I'll give the snake-handlers one thing. They are are consistent
about Mark 16. They aren't picking and choosing which signs.
[/quote]
I agree they certainly are consistent and aren't picking and
choosing signs.
[quote]If someone else has the gift of tongues, I mean really
has it, I will not be tempted to envy him. Nor can Roberson
and others like him "provoke" me into envying it by telling me
something is wrong with me if I don't have it and I should
really go after it. If some people want to feel superior
because they speak in tongues and I don't, let them. I remained
unmoved.
What I see is that the people who feel superior to others who
don't speak in tongues are often the ones who fall into great
sins themselves. It seems pretty shaky to me to put so much
faith in tongues as a way of telling ourselves we are right
with God and then condescendingly tell others they need to speak
in tongues too. I'd rather not, thank you, not if it made me
like some of these Pentecostals preachers. No thanks.
[/quote]
There's a lot of pressure in Pentecostal churches to speak in
tongues as evidence that one has the holy spirit. If someone
shows the fruit of the spirit, that really tells me that they
have the holy spirit. I remember reading an article that said
that is also what nonchristians look for in Christians, not such
things as speaking in tongues.
#Post#: 1872--------------------------------------------------
Re: The importance of praying in other tongues.
By: A nonny mouse Date: May 12, 2015, 12:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Is anybody able to take a stab at explaining what is happening
when people (not just 'Christians') are speaking in
undiscernible tongues?
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page