andyc
New member
See post 88.
ECT Speaking in tongues
- Thread starter andyc
- Start date
See post 88.
No luck needed.
Just as in Romans 12; so in 1 Cor. 11 thru 14; Ephesians 4; etc.
Paul was chastising those edifying; building; or puffing themselves up; he was knocking their self-centeredness.
The entire letter to the Corinthians is largely this one issue.
Learn to rightly distinguish the things that differ, and you'll see the obvious...
Things that differ that neither going in with one's mind already set, and or perceiving another's attempts to point such things out as being some sort of an intentional personal offence; will NOT allow...the seeing of...
musterion
Well-known member
I have not misunderstood the text. You are twisting it to support your lies.
The gift was actual, identifiable human languages. We know this from Acts 2:6. SOME unbelieving Jews mocked (Acts 2:13) but the rest recognized the languages as for real, being spoken by people who did not know those languages (Acts 2:7). That standard did not change even up to the end of the gift.
Tongues were a sign for unbelieving Jews. That's been pointed out to you before and I've been waiting for you to bring it up.
That sign gift was specifically intended as a witness against Jews who would not repent. That was its primary purpose.
That is why the church at Corinth evidently had an abundance of gifts, including tongues -- it shared a common wall with the synagogue next door (Acts 18:7), from which Jews kept getting saved. Why? They heard these Gentiles and ex-synagogue members speaking in languages they knew those people did not know. Those Jews were the very ones the gift was targeted at.
You can claim none of that. No charismatic today can. We're in a new dispensation.
That means if you do not have an unbelieving Jew to witness to, you do not have the gift.
That means if God is no longer dealing with Israel as Israel -- and He isn't -- you do not have the gift.
That means if you're not speaking in an identifiable human language which can be proved you never studied, you do not have the gift.
That means when you do speak in "tongues" if you're not speaking the Word rightly divided according to the revelation of the mystery, you do not have the gift.
That is YOUR perception.
I qualified what I'd meant as to my butting heads comment - by what I also said in that post.
My point was that, on the one hand; you are insisting I name names.
On the other; I am insisting that the "naming of names" is neither the right focus, nor do I want to make it the focus.
I have traveled this road before...only to be accused each time, of anything but my having attempted to simply share my understanding of some of these issues.
Even the chuckles are viewed from an absolute one sidedness :chuckle:
:duh:
Of course it is.
Just another wordy post with no answer.
YOU brought up the issue that you believe some MADist hold to superstitions.
Why even bring that up that issue at all if you are not willing to discuss it in detail?
Did you think you could just throw out some generalized statement with no backup, and that no one should question it?
I have questions about the issue YOU brought up.
I asked a question.
You don't answer the question.
And the beauty is, you are not obligated to answer anything anyone asks of you.
Welcome to TOL!
I placed Danoh on "Ignore" a few days ago. He's kind of an "Attack Dog" when it comes to his fellow Mid-Acts believers. I don't understand why he feels it necessary to go after people who share a common belief with him? It seems "Counter-productive" to me.
"You keep using that word. :AMR: I do not think it means, what you think it means." Eph 4:14 ~ Inigo Montoya
It appears as if Danoh is a bit torn between being a Mis-Acts kind of guy and, at the same time attacking those who adhere to the truth that's preached by it. He seems like he's sitting on the fence and a wee bit of a "split personality" regarding his association with fellow Dispensationalists. I don't know what's going on with him?
musterion
Well-known member
And that moldy oldie goldie goes out here on KTOL in a Long Distance Dedication to...um...well, we're not sure who it's intended for...some MAD out there in MAD-Land, that's all we know. But THEY know who they are!
Up next on our Superstition Sunday show, "Witchy Woman" by the Eagles, "Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered" by Ella Fitzgerald and "That Old Black Magic" by ol' Blue Eyes himself, Frank Sinatra.
Stay tuned!
Up next on our Superstition Sunday show, "Witchy Woman" by the Eagles, "Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered" by Ella Fitzgerald and "That Old Black Magic" by ol' Blue Eyes himself, Frank Sinatra.
Stay tuned!
My honest response is that he is not the only one.
You would be hard pressed to find any MADist here that has not at one time or another given negative responses to other MADs.
Danoh is a MADist and he is having negative things being said about him.
Well, again to be honest, I would have to ask if it productive or counter-productive to say anything negative about Danoh who shares common beliefs.
And low and behold, by all that is holy, Danoh also has opinions on other MADists.
Well I'll be, just like me!
On the positive side, Danoh has provided TOL with a whole lot of info on MAD.
So, when it comes to what we consider to be a MADist, does not Danoh qualify as a part of our group?
I say yes he does.
But yeah, it gets a little boring to hear day after day after day about how it's just our perspective and how we don't all agree 100%.
:duh:
We know that already!
One of the dumbest excuses for an argument ever.
Generalizations and guesses are worthless.
Last edited:
musterion
Well-known member
I hope I don't go up in flames. (((knocks on wood)))Now you're just being superstitious.
heir recently posted what appears to have been addressed to me regarding her understanding of what I had posted to 1 Mind, about Acts 17:30...
I perceived that as addressed to me.
If it was, it would obviously be an attempt at an expressing on her part that she believes I am wrong.
I'm fine with that.
I do not see it as an attempt to one up me.
Because I refuse to see myself as the issue.
The Gal. 2:20 principle - of Who we are to focus on as the issue: the Lord we are crucified unto the world to; and visa versa.
From that; I see no "attacking me."
This is the grace enablement we each been given full access into and that we each can acesss by faith.
From within that, the idea that we cannot explore our different understandings, and or correct one another, and or point one thing or another out to one another, or what ever one wants to refer to such things as - the idea that we are a part of some sort of an us against others clique whose three fingers ever pointing back to each and every one of is to be ignored...is self-defeating.
Not only to each one of us, and not only to us as a group, but to our witness to others of something of much greater importance than "well that's not the gospel of our salvation!"
Of what use is said gospel if we allow ourselves to so easily circumvented of its' intended glory in and through us not only with ourselves; not only with one another; but to others?
"Yeah, yeah, we know..." rings too hollow to me.
As it obviously does to so many on TOL who may or may not, not only not have answers as to the sense of completeness in Christ that we claim we understand; but who we too often only prove to that we ourselves are found paper tigers, when disagreed with.
In this, Tam, thank you for at least trying to see these things from both sides.
And none of the above has been a lost cause for.
It sometimes only feels that way; when I too allow myself to take my own off the mark.
Already it has brought to mind a grace principle pointed out to me as a much needed correction by a fellow MAD long ago.
Think I'll make a thread about it.
As I have always wanted to explore issues beyond what is not for us...
Those things pertaining to what are - that victory we each all fully have in the Lord.
I perceived that as addressed to me.
If it was, it would obviously be an attempt at an expressing on her part that she believes I am wrong.
I'm fine with that.
I do not see it as an attempt to one up me.
Because I refuse to see myself as the issue.
The Gal. 2:20 principle - of Who we are to focus on as the issue: the Lord we are crucified unto the world to; and visa versa.
From that; I see no "attacking me."
This is the grace enablement we each been given full access into and that we each can acesss by faith.
From within that, the idea that we cannot explore our different understandings, and or correct one another, and or point one thing or another out to one another, or what ever one wants to refer to such things as - the idea that we are a part of some sort of an us against others clique whose three fingers ever pointing back to each and every one of is to be ignored...is self-defeating.
Not only to each one of us, and not only to us as a group, but to our witness to others of something of much greater importance than "well that's not the gospel of our salvation!"
Of what use is said gospel if we allow ourselves to so easily circumvented of its' intended glory in and through us not only with ourselves; not only with one another; but to others?
"Yeah, yeah, we know..." rings too hollow to me.
As it obviously does to so many on TOL who may or may not, not only not have answers as to the sense of completeness in Christ that we claim we understand; but who we too often only prove to that we ourselves are found paper tigers, when disagreed with.
In this, Tam, thank you for at least trying to see these things from both sides.
And none of the above has been a lost cause for.
It sometimes only feels that way; when I too allow myself to take my own off the mark.
Already it has brought to mind a grace principle pointed out to me as a much needed correction by a fellow MAD long ago.
Think I'll make a thread about it.
As I have always wanted to explore issues beyond what is not for us...
Those things pertaining to what are - that victory we each all fully have in the Lord.
Each of us - myself included...