Members phkrause Posted December 1, 2011 Members Posted December 1, 2011 I can answer your objections, but I have a hunch that you won't stop after that. That you will still find something wrong. I think that you could figure out the answers for yourself if you made up your mind, but you give the impression that you are not really searching for answers. It is amazing isn't it Lysimachus. And I agree with you, I get the same impression. Reminds me of another poster that posted a month or so ago, saying that he came to learn about SDAs, but than it started coming out that all he was there for was to bust on EGW, etc. phkrause When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; But when a wicked man rules, the people groan. Proverbs 29;2
BibleOnly Posted December 1, 2011 Posted December 1, 2011 Well, again, this room is full of SDAs, so I knew you'd back each other up in stuff like this. I've never pretended to be weak in my faith or my experience, but I would like to know what the SDA position is on these scriptures, that's why I pay to be here (!). I am not pretending I don't understand these scriptures, I am asking if you have any understanding of them. Of course when I post the same verse over and over, and you refuse to address it, and tell me I have a demon, I'm going to get a little more belligerent in trying to push you towards having some sort of credibility in what you believe.
Twilight II Posted December 1, 2011 Posted December 1, 2011 Okay, bring the proof text your whole theory rests on. Show us where Tongues is an "unknown" language, only known to God. From the Bible and Bible alone.
BibleOnly Posted December 1, 2011 Posted December 1, 2011 1Cr 14:2 For he that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth [him]; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries. 1Cr 14:4 He that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church. 1Cr 14:14 For if I pray in an [unknown] tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. 1Cr 14:15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also. Someone who speaks in tongues speaks not to men, but God. They do not edify anyone else. They do not understand what they are saying. No man does. 1 Cor 14:2 is really enough to prove this, the other verses just expand on it.
Members phkrause Posted December 1, 2011 Members Posted December 1, 2011 Bibleonly, personally when reading those verses in context with the rest of the chapter, it seems to me what he's saying, is that those that speak in tongues and speak so no one understands is really not speaking to anyone, and the onlyone that can understand them is God. So that there speaking in tongues is really worthless. Again what I read in Acts 2 is Peter speaking in a language he didn't speak, or you could say the people listening to Peter who didn't speak his language were able to understand what he was saying. Now that to me is speaking in tongues that the Bible means when it talks about tongues. phkrause When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; But when a wicked man rules, the people groan. Proverbs 29;2
Administrators Gail Posted December 1, 2011 Administrators Posted December 1, 2011 In the denomination I've only heard of two tongue experiences and they involved real languages that helped people understand what was being said. It happened the same as at that Acts Pentecost. Isaiah 32:17 And the work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness quietness and assurance for ever.
Administrators Gail Posted December 1, 2011 Administrators Posted December 1, 2011 I would consider someone gifted in languages to have that gift as well. Isaiah 32:17 And the work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness quietness and assurance for ever.
BibleOnly Posted December 1, 2011 Posted December 1, 2011 Bibleonly, personally when reading those verses in context with the rest of the chapter, it seems to me what he's saying, is that those that speak in tongues and speak so no one understands is really not speaking to anyone, and the onlyone that can understand them is God. So that there speaking in tongues is really worthless. Again what I read in Acts 2 is Peter speaking in a language he didn't speak, or you could say the people listening to Peter who didn't speak his language were able to understand what he was saying. Now that to me is speaking in tongues that the Bible means when it talks about tongues. But, that is not what it says. Paul says: 1Cr 14:14 For if I pray in an [unknown] tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. 1Cr 14:15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also. He is talking about use of tongues in private worship. 'Praying in an unknown tongue' makes no sense as a concept, if the purpose of it is to preach the Gospel. And remember, Peter got up and preached in the known language, so even in Acts 2, this is what was required, tongues was not used to preach the Gospel, this can only be inferred via an assumption, the Bible does not say it. 1Cr 14:17 For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified. Tongues is used to give thanks, not to preach to strangers. 1Cr 14:1 ¶ Follow after charity, and desire spiritual [gifts], but rather that ye may prophesy. 1Cr 14:2 For he that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth [him]; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries. 1Cr 14:3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men [to] edification, and exhortation, and comfort. 1Cr 14:4 He that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church. 1Cr 14:5 I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater [is] he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying. This indicates that if someone speaks in tongues in the church, they need to interpret, so the church can understand. There is no suggestion anywhere that tongues is ever understood by anyone apart from God, verse 2 clearly states that. It makes no caveats. Nowhere does it say 'only speak in tongues if you have a visitor who requires this to understand what you're saying'. 1Cr 14:18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all: 1Cr 14:19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that [by my voice] I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an [unknown] tongue. As Paul is telling them to speak in tongues LESS in meetings, he's not saying he's glad to DO it more, he's saying he's glad to have the gift. Again, the specific context is use of the gift in a meeting. He won't teach anyone anything, speaking in tongues. 1Cr 14:22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying [serveth] not for them that believe not, but for them which believe. This is the only verse I can see that could be expected to suggest that tongues preached to the unsaved and prophecy to the saved. But, in that case, tongues would be a sign to those who don't speak your language, not everyone who does not believe. Tongues are a sign to all unbelievers, because they will know, if they are in a church meeting, that believers speak in tongues. Prophecy is a message of encouragement from God, which is of no use to the unbeliever, because it is going to tell believers how to walk in the Spirit, and unbelievers need first to have the Spirit. You can choose, we can go as deep in to these chapters as you like, I have considered them all, and how they all fit in to what I am saying. Or we can focus on one or two verses and I'll only bring in others where I feel your interpretation contradicts them.
Lysimachus Posted December 2, 2011 Posted December 2, 2011 Originally Posted By: pkrause Bibleonly, personally when reading those verses in context with the rest of the chapter, it seems to me what he's saying, is that those that speak in tongues and speak so no one understands is really not speaking to anyone, and the onlyone that can understand them is God. So that there speaking in tongues is really worthless. Again what I read in Acts 2 is Peter speaking in a language he didn't speak, or you could say the people listening to Peter who didn't speak his language were able to understand what he was saying. Now that to me is speaking in tongues that the Bible means when it talks about tongues. But, that is not what it says. Paul says: 1Cr 14:14 For if I pray in an [unknown] tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. 1Cr 14:15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also. He is talking about use of tongues in private worship. 'Praying in an unknown tongue' makes no sense as a concept, if the purpose of it is to preach the Gospel. And remember, Peter got up and preached in the known language, so even in Acts 2, this is what was required, tongues was not used to preach the Gospel, this can only be inferred via an assumption, the Bible does not say it. ~Lysimachus (Marcos S.) Author of article, Vindicating the Year-Day Principle of Prophetic Interpretation (see attachment for article) Currently writing a book, Vindicating the Historical School of Prophetic Interpretation Founder of the largest and fastest SDA Apologetics Group on Facebook, Seventh-Day Adventism - Defending the Pillars of the Faith Writer and apologetics contributor at Adventist Defense League Vindicating the Year-Day Principle of Prophetic Interpretation.pdf
BibleOnly Posted December 2, 2011 Posted December 2, 2011 Alright, here's the test. I'm going to give it a shot, and if you keep going on and on and on after this, I'm done in this thread. This passage I believe is indicating that this "unknown tongue" is something the Corinthians were doing that they shouldn't be doing. They were emanating gibberish from their mouths, and only God knows what the person is meaning to say in his heart, but the language itself edifies no one. Thus, it must terminate. The purpose of tongues was to preach the gospel. Peter got up and preached in the known tongue because he KNEW the language. This is a form of tongues. There is "tongues", and there is the "gift of tongues". The "gift of tongues" only kicks into gear when someone does not know the language. Nonetheless, both are tongues.
Lysimachus Posted December 2, 2011 Posted December 2, 2011 I told you already BibleOnly, I'm done! :) ~Lysimachus (Marcos S.) Author of article, Vindicating the Year-Day Principle of Prophetic Interpretation (see attachment for article) Currently writing a book, Vindicating the Historical School of Prophetic Interpretation Founder of the largest and fastest SDA Apologetics Group on Facebook, Seventh-Day Adventism - Defending the Pillars of the Faith Writer and apologetics contributor at Adventist Defense League Vindicating the Year-Day Principle of Prophetic Interpretation.pdf
BibleOnly Posted December 2, 2011 Posted December 2, 2011 Fair enough. I appreciate you trying to share your views with me. I'm sorry that I can't accept something that contradicts scripture, no matter what Ellen White may have written.
Lysimachus Posted December 2, 2011 Posted December 2, 2011 I'm also sorry BibleOnly that you choose to make what we have said contradict scriptures. It is you who contradicts the scriptures. We have showed you the correct interpretation, but you have chosen to pick and dissect and manipulate everything we have said. What we have said does not contradict scriptures. Period. That is final. I will let the others continue to deal with you in here. But I do feel sorry for what they are going to have to put up with, for your true colors are beginning to show. You are not here to learn. You are here to justify your erroneous interpretations of scripture. ~Lysimachus (Marcos S.) Author of article, Vindicating the Year-Day Principle of Prophetic Interpretation (see attachment for article) Currently writing a book, Vindicating the Historical School of Prophetic Interpretation Founder of the largest and fastest SDA Apologetics Group on Facebook, Seventh-Day Adventism - Defending the Pillars of the Faith Writer and apologetics contributor at Adventist Defense League Vindicating the Year-Day Principle of Prophetic Interpretation.pdf
BibleOnly Posted December 2, 2011 Posted December 2, 2011 *grin* well, I'm sorry that I'm causing you consternation. But, you said it yourself. Ellen White is beyond reproach, therefore I can't be right. I don't have that mindset, so I come at this from a different angle. 'BibleOnly', remember ? I doubt that any native English speaker could read 1 Cor 12-14 and, using only English comprehension as a tool, conclude there are 'real' and 'fake' tongues. It just plain does not say that.
Lysimachus Posted December 2, 2011 Posted December 2, 2011 John MacArthur, a famous evangelical preacher, does not have Ellen White, and he interprets the "tongues" of 1 Cor 12-14 exactly the same as Adventists. In fact, many many evangelical Christians do. Ellen White only happens to be an added bonus to confirm this interpretation for the Adventist Church. ~Lysimachus (Marcos S.) Author of article, Vindicating the Year-Day Principle of Prophetic Interpretation (see attachment for article) Currently writing a book, Vindicating the Historical School of Prophetic Interpretation Founder of the largest and fastest SDA Apologetics Group on Facebook, Seventh-Day Adventism - Defending the Pillars of the Faith Writer and apologetics contributor at Adventist Defense League Vindicating the Year-Day Principle of Prophetic Interpretation.pdf
BibleOnly Posted December 2, 2011 Posted December 2, 2011 I have no doubt that is true. But, you know, I still find it disturbing that Ellen White has a status equal to scripture in your eyes. I don't accept anything on the basis that my pastor tells me, I check it all out for myself. I am also not surprised she is not alone. It's really simple. The people who think they are saved in a church where no-one speaks in tongues, read 1 Cor 12-14 expecting it to be about how tongues are not needed. The people who come from a church where some speak in tongues, all find that it says that tongues is one of many gifts in the church. That gets back to the idea of cognitive dissonance. Surely you can see that everyone finds the doctrine that supports their position ? The same applies to me. I have the Holy Spirit and so does every one in my church, we all can speak in tongues. We are the only church I know of that actively obeys 1 Cor 12 - 14 ( no tongues all at once, 2-3 with interpretation ), but, that does not let me off the hook. Only what the Bible says, matters. If there is one verse in there that says they had fake tongues, show it to me. I am certain that the only people who can find that in there, are those who feel their salvation depends on it.
Kountzer Posted December 2, 2011 Posted December 2, 2011 I listen to John McArthur quite a bit. He is famous and, IMO, often wrong. I prayed for twenty years but received no answer until I prayed with my legs. Frederick Douglass
Moderators John317 Posted December 2, 2011 Moderators Posted December 2, 2011 Is he the one who made the "McArthur Study Bible"? I have it and like it a lot. Not that all of his comments are correct, though. John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
BibleOnly Posted December 2, 2011 Posted December 2, 2011 Any 'study bible' needs to be taken with a grain of salt, it's the rare person who agrees with everything written in the margins. But still valuable to have, I have several.
Moderators John317 Posted December 2, 2011 Moderators Posted December 2, 2011 I have no doubt that is true. But, you know, I still find it disturbing that Ellen White has a status equal to scripture in your eyes. I don't accept anything on the basis that my pastor tells me, I check it all out for myself. Ellen White must also be judged by Scripture. She is not equal to the Bible in terms of authority. She never even sought for such authority, and in fact, she rejected it. If alive today, she would tell you that if after prayful study you honestly and sincerely believe that something she wrote contradicts Scripture, you should accept Scripture. John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
BibleOnly Posted December 2, 2011 Posted December 2, 2011 That is usually the case with people such as her. If she'd said otherwise, no-one would hold her in high regard. Really, the core point is, the Bible contradicts the interpretation that was offered, and it doesn't matter how many people agree with that point of view, the Bible still has authority over them all.
Moderators John317 Posted December 2, 2011 Moderators Posted December 2, 2011 That is usually the case with people such as her. If she'd said otherwise, no-one would hold her in high regard. That's not quite true. Millions hold Joseph Smith in very high regard, and he claimed to have "corrected" the Bible. The same with Mary Baker Eddy. Ellen White said exactly what any true prophet would say: Go to the Bible, God's Word. It is THE authority. John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
BibleOnly Posted December 2, 2011 Posted December 2, 2011 I thought he just added to it with the book of Mormon ? I guess if you want to be out there to the degree of placing yourself above the Bible, you need to do it in style and with gusto to make an impact :-)
Moderators John317 Posted December 2, 2011 Moderators Posted December 2, 2011 Any 'study bible' needs to be taken with a grain of salt... Sure. I wouldn't say with a grain of salt but I know what you mean and agree-- except for the Study Bible with EGW Comments. One of my favorite Bibles is the Matthew Henry Study Bible. I don't accept everything he says but much of it I do. There are many other very good ones. John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted December 2, 2011 Moderators Posted December 2, 2011 Joseph Smith wrote what is called "The Inspired Version." He added many things to the Bible, and Mormons accept as the true Bible. He claimed God showed him all the errors in the Bible. John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Recommended Posts