SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Does anyone know of a solid biblical response to MacArthur's sermons on tongues and spiritual gifts?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 Next Page )
PosterThread









 Re:

by krautfrau on 2010/5/18 22:47:02

Phane

"Let me get this straight, in 1st Corintians, you think that Paul said do not speak in tongues because "tongue talking" is not of God? or what?"

Paul is allowing the genuine tongue speaking, that is real languages that are new to the speaker ie that they do not understand what they have said, and rebuking those who are babbling and not speaking a real language and so are sounding brass. I did not say that tongues were to be used for preaching, you are once again confusing me with cessationsists. It says clearly in Acts that they were praising God in these exisiting languages which the visiting Jews recognised as their own.

As I am not a Greek scholar I cannot explain the differences between the two words that Paul is talking about to the Corinthians, it is my own understanding of the text revealed to me by God I believe.

------------------------------------------------------------
g:
There is no basis whatsoever except, if it is one, that short phrase beginning 1C13.1. all of it is assumption and speculation.

So you think that the tongues were intended as a sign for jews alone hunh? Book, chapter, and verse please?
___________________________________________________________




This should not be to hard for you to figure out.

There are over 7 instances in Acts regarding the outpouring of God's spirit, and only the first one was recorded to have these tongues of fire...and the sound of hard blowing wind with it. Neither of these things happened in any of the other instances.

Is this always the case, based on this information?

------------------------------------------------------------

Like said before, John the dunker's prophecy was intended for a certain point in time.

Should we conclude that when the apostles laid hands on others to recieve the outpouring after Pentecost that this was of the devil or a deception???
____________________________________________________________





"There is little discernment in all people."

This is the phrase you were saying I had said. Sorry but I am having trouble underststanding some of what you are saying.

------------------------------------------------------------

Does this make it clearer? Jer. 10:23
____________________________________________________________





"Regarding your conclusion though, consider Paul's words beginning I Cor. 13 in relation to Mark 16:17's meaning, rather than assuming that he was being either sarcastic or cynical."

I do not think he was being sarcastic, but he was using a figure of speech callled hyperbole so saying "if it were possible that I could speak the language of angels". During that period, it was a well known expression - to use the language of angels and it did not mean a specific language, and his hearers would know that. Angels moreover spoke in human languages whenever they were seen.
------------------------------------------------------------

What makes you so sure you can assume it to be hyperbole???

In the greek, there is no 'it were' after 'If'.

If this was such a well known expression, how come it has not yet been noted here from read classical texts of that era?

If someone is speaking in tongues, i'm sorry, but unless someone is present who speaks that known tongue, nobody understands it, and unless you hear it for an extended period of time, without revelation, it is just jibberish to you.


You draw too many assumption...and in answer to not answering questions, well that's like the pot calling the kettle black...it has not been counted---> all the things you have failed to respond to that have been placed before your eyes from here

Regarding the issue of your response to other posts saying it was some oracular imitation, possessed chithonic manifestation, or from the spirit of the Python is utter nonesense. Two of these type end results were preceeded by sex magick in order to obtain the vision and the voice, neither of which were practiced in a church assembly. The other required not only noxious gasses, but as well, smoke inhaled from mixes that included, among the other things, plants of the nightshade family. in essence, one had to practice sorcery (pharmakia) in order to do such. This was not done in the church assembly either.

Paul did not mince words when writing. Many recipients considered him overly bold while writing but a wimp in person.

By taking cultural context out of context, you assume that Paul is saying more than he did.

In so doing, you are making God's word less than what it could be to you:
a love letter.

Further, you are disregarding all the other scriptures related to just a few verses.

____________________________________________________________





Are you basing your relationship with Jesus Christ on what other people tell you and what you see others doing rather than adhering to what is written?




Gotta go do lay-out
and hit nails,
g
Acts 20:32

____________________________________________________________

 2010/5/19 9:01









 Re:

Yes Robert I am sure that tongues are a reality for you and for those who also practise them. I look for sound scriptural exegesis though first.

No I do not think that Paul operated through a spirit and he also spoke many human languages which he could just as well be referring to.

I begin to be wary once the fanatical spirit is in evidence, which compels people to react with strong emotional offense just because someone is disagreeing with them over their favoutite doctrine or practise so they can no longer practise politeness or grace and start to insult the person who is offending them even though they are only expressing their beliefs...I do hope we can keep this civil for the sake of other readers, thanks

Brenda

 2010/5/19 9:18
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

In answer to the secondary question as to, "Why only in Corinthians?" I would answer that subjects are dealt with in the biblical corpus based upon needs known in the mind of God. The Bible is a unit of revelation that is carefully put together for our instruction. The writers are not giving a historic account of all of the events that took place in the New Testament period, but are a record designed to reveal Jesus Christ, The New Covenant, etc. If a complete record of all of Paul's writings were known we may know that the issue may have been dealt with before. Galatians is an example of what has come to be called, "Galatianism", but again, this issue may have been dealt with far more often than to the churches around Galatia. Shall we discard all the related subjects only dealt with in one book or in one place?

There is also the fact that there are words that are only found in one place in the Biblical Corpus. They are called hapax legomenon. We cannot extrapolate those passages from the scriptures containing those words based on a rule that unless there is plurality of certain Greek or Hebrew words the passage should be called into question. These attitudes towards the Corpus of scripture are akin to those of the higher critics. The historical writings in the Old Testament are a record written for our learning, they are not a record of everything that happened. The volumes would be endless. We have many examples of what 'not' to do, etc. The same is true with the abuses on Corinth. They are written for our instruction and learning. This is why the Bible is unique- it is God's revelation down to the last jot.


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2010/5/19 9:26Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Quote:
No I do not think that Paul operated through a spirit and he also spoke many human languages which he could just as well be referring to.



He is not referring to human languages. He spoke in and sang in glossa by the Spirit. (I Corinthians 14:15) That is not learned language it is Spirit enablement.


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2010/5/19 9:30Profile









 Re:

Phanetheus

"So you think that the tongues were intended as a sign for jews alone hunh? Book, chapter, and verse please?"

I will not be repating things that I have already answered. You will have to read back for that.

"This should not be to hard for you to figure out."

Please read the previous post to Robert - it also applies to you - please keep it civil and do not insult me thanks.

"Does this make it clearer? Jer. 10:23"

I am going to give this one a miss too - you misquoted me.

"What makes you so sure you can assume it to be hyperbole???

In the greek, there is no 'it were' after 'If'."

It is not just me - it is the theologian Adam Clarke too and I will quote him :

"And of angels] i.e. Though a man knew the language of the eternal world so well that he could hold conversation with its inhabitants, and find out the secrets of their kingdom. Or, probably, the apostle refers to a notion that was common among the Jews, that there was a language by which angels might be invoked, adjured, collected, and dispersed; and by the means of which many secrets might be found out, and curious arts and sciences known.

There is much of this kind to be found in their cabalistical books, and in the books of many called Christians. Cornelius Agrippa's occult philosophy abounds in this; and it was the main object of Dr. Dee's actions with spirits to get a complete vocabulary of this language. See what has been published of his work by Dr. Casaubon; and the remaining manuscript parts in the Sloane library, in the British museum.

In Bava Bathra, fol. 134, mention is made of a famous rabbin, Jochanan ben Zaccai, who understood the language of devils, trees, and angels.

Some think that the apostle means only the most splendid eloquence; as we sometimes apply the word angelic to signify any thing sublime, grand, beautiful, &c.; but it is more likely that he speaks here after the manner of his countrymen, who imagined that there was an angelic language which was the key to many mysteries; a language which might be acquired, and which, they say, had been learned by several.

Sounding brass] calkov hcwn? That is, like a trumpet made of brass; for although; calkov signifies brass, and aes signifies the same, yet we know the latter is often employed to signify the trumpet, because generally made of this metal. Thus Virgil, when he represents Misenus endeavouring to fright away the harpies with the sound of his trumpet:- Ergo, ubi delapsae sonitum per curva dedere Littora, dat signum specula Misenus ab alta AEre cavo: invadunt socii, et nova praelia tentant, Obscoenas pelagi ferro faedare volucres.

AEneid, lib. iii. ver. 238.

Then as the harpies from the hills once more Poured shrieking down, and crowded round the shore, On his high stand Misenus sounds from far The brazen trump, the signal of the war.

With unaccustomed fight, we flew to slay The forms obscene, dread monsters of the sea. - Pitt.

The metal of which the instrument was made is used again for the instrument itself, in that fine passage of the same poet, AEneid, lib. ix. ver. 603, where he represents the Trojans rushing to battle against the Volsciane:- At tuba terribilem sonitum procul aere canoro Increpuit: sequitur clamour, caelumque remugit.

And now the trumpets, terrible from far, With rattling clangour rouse the sleepy war.

The soldiers' shouts succeed the brazen sounds And heaven from pole to pole their noise rebounds. Dryden.

And again, in his Battle of the Bees, Geor., lib. iv. ver. lxx. -- namque morantes Martius ille aeris rauci canor increpat, et vox Auditur fractos sonitus imitata tubarum.

With shouts the cowards' courage they excite, And martial clangours call them out to fight; With hoarse alarms the hollow camp rebounds, That imitate the trumpet's angry sounds. DRYDEN.

Examples of the same figure might be multiplied; but these are sufficient."

I might ask you your last question too.

Brenda

 2010/5/19 9:35
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Quote:
I begin to be wary once the fanatical spirit is in evidence, which compels people to react with strong emotional offense just because someone is disagreeing with them over their favoutite doctrine or practise so they can no longer practise politeness or grace and start to insult the person who is offending them even though they are only expressing their beliefs...I do hope we can keep this civil for the sake of other readers, thanks



You can spare me of such talk. You have accused Pentecostals of moving in demonic spirits. Seems to me you would be better suited to answer my points than merely suggest I was 'emotional'. You have misjudged tongues and me.


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2010/5/19 9:41Profile









 Re:

OK Robert

So now the insult, demeaning avenue has been closed, you try to make me seem uneducated but we all know that theologians are the worst people in getting deep spiritual meaning out of texts and you are also demeaning the many people who are also reading this and who also do not have theologiacal training and go to the Spirit for their understanding of scripture, just like the apostles did in fact. Please communicate in plain English thanks

Brenda

 2010/5/19 9:44
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

This issue has been discussed several times over the years. Many have contributed fruitfully to the subject. For those that are really interested in this issue I would recommend doing a search of these forums.

Quote:
Please communicate in plain English thanks



I will make that commitment if you will commit to share what you believe personally and not utilize resources that are somehow being sent to you to bring into this discussion. Too many internet discussions degenerate into cut and paste sessions that are not helpful. I am not saying it is happening, I am saying that in order to rightly speak to the subject I need to know what you really believe and what your concerns are. If your mind is already made up and you are defending a position I am not really interested in such a conversation. I honestly don't have time to bicker. But if you really want to know I am more than willing to try to help. I am a person like anyone else.


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2010/5/19 9:55Profile









 Re:

So what`s this latest rue Robert?

My views have been fully expressed over this thread - if you don`t have time to read it then why join in the debate? And why accuse me of something - ie cutting and pasting if you have not been following the thread enough to know I did it once?

Nice to meet you.

 2010/5/19 10:02
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

So what I said was true? The thread began degenerate into a cut and paste session? I answered early on as the subject was on John M's teaching. I have dropped in from time to time. When things escalated to tongues being linked to the pythonian spirit (Delphi) I came online. What else was I to do? I have no thirst for debate. As you can see I have answered many posts in these forums and most of them are of reasonable length. One of the reasons why I have been absent for a few years is this type of attacking of the things of God. I simply don't need it in my life. As I recall you did not receive tongues and then assumed it was not of God. If that is the basis of your position then we will not get far. I knew it then and I know it now, but I am still willing to discuss the issues if the desire is genuine and the mind is open. Otherwise I will only appear when necessary and that to defend against such things as I mentioned. I cannot allow those things to go unanswered if noone else will respond.


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2010/5/19 10:12Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy