Rejection of the Charasmatics and Biblical Literalism

Jazzns, just curious to see where you are coming from, do you believe someone can experience the presence of God, or should people always assume that they are merely having an emotional reaction to their own thoughts?I think most of the Bible writers would say experiencing the anointing and presence of God is a real phenomenon. Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Personally, I agree, but I think others would argue the basis for your belief is entirely subjective and perhaps even irrational. I bring this up because you seem to have a problem with Charismatic and Pentecostal testimonies of their experiences in God, and yet you yourself claim to have experienced God as well. Are you saying their experiences are not real or not inspired by God, and if so, on what basis?Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Faith, most Charismatics don't teach that tongues is the primary evidence you have the Holy Spirit, nor that if you don't speak in tongues, that you don't have the Holy Spirit. The bottom line here though is all of the disputed Charismatic experiences are things the early apostles engaged in. I think a rule of thumb is that something that either Jesus did, or his immediate followers taught and practiced as standard Christianity is something that no one should be afraid of today, and certainly the gifts of the Spirit qualify as valid in that regard. It is only be reading something into scripture that isn't there, assuming that the gifts must have passed, can you hold to cessasionist theology.The simple fact is signs and wonders have always been part and parcel of the move of the Spirit of God, Old Testament, New Testament, Church history and today.

I think the Bible suggests an old earth, but it's not conclusive, and a young earth could be correct. I don't think the Bible is sufficiently detailed on the age of the earth to say one way or another conclusively.

Not sure if I understand.....Some people experience a touch of God in one way and you seem to discount it? Or not?I think this is an important question. What I am trying to get at is the standard you use for determining if an experience is God or not?Is it the Bible?Is it your social sensitivity?Is it your sense of morality?I think this is an important issue because if you say the Bible is not reliable, then what guide do you use to gauge spiritual phenomenon? You seem to think some things, maybe tongues?, are not of God, and so you have to have some standard in your mind.By the way, I have noticed as well that there are errors and abuses within Pentecostalism. No one should feel compelled to fake experiences to feel they are real Christians, but at the same time, this sort of fakery is evidence in almost all social settings of sufficient size, right?Edited by randman, : No reason given.

I know people spoke in tongues in the Bible, and have my own subjective experience with God to draw from. I can't say that fakery isn't present either, and think certainly in some circles people feel compelled to fake experiences to be included in the group. But I see that in secular settings as well where people put on airs for whatever reasons.

The first time I spoke in tongues I had no idea what speaking in tongues was, and was walking down Wrightsville Beach, NC when the moon was rising as or after the sun was setting, and I just felt like singing and sang in a different language, very fluent-sounding to me, and I felt the Lord in a strong way, but even afterwards, didn't know it was speaking or singing in tongues.It's a real thing. Pentecostals just overemphasized it, hence the pressure for everyone to experience it to be accepted. The Pentecostals, of course, were persecuted, sometimes tarred and feathered by others such as Baptists, and over time it seems they got off-course. It's a regrettable pattern in Church history.

When Paul says he will "pray with the spirit", is he referring to praying in front of people to impress them with his gift?No. The Bible doesn't just record tongues as something to be a sign to others.Here is a clue. The Bible speaks of the gift of faith, as if only some have it, but all have a gift of faith if they are believers. The gifts are just extraordinary giftings for everyday things in the believers lives.

Exactly, Paul says that if someone unlearned in these things comes in and sees everyone speaking in tongues, he would say they are mad. Now, if tongues was always understandable to the minds of the hearers, why would he say that?There is praying in tongues which is not a gift of the Spirit per se anymore than faith is a gift of the Spirit, and there is the faith which is given to every man, and there is the gift of the Spirit called the gift of faith. I don't know if you see the difference, but this is technical language by Paul to describe certain operations in the spiritual arena.The gift of tongues is meant for the hearers and comes with the interpretation. Praying and worshipping on tongues is for the edification of the person doing the praying and worshipping. Gp back and read Corinthians with that perspective in mind and see if it doesn't fit exactly what Paul was saying.

No, Paul is not saying that tongues should be intelligible to anyone, and here are the verses. I Corinthians 14:2Note the phrase: "for no man understands him." Clearly, no man could understand this sort of speaking in tongues, right? Verse 6. Obviously, Paul is saying speaking on tongues, unless someone has the gift of interpretation (not translation) says nothing to the people nearby. Why pray in tongues then? I Cor 14:4Did you get that? He that prays or speaks in tongues edifies himself, but to edify the church, one must prophesy which interpreting the tongue is equivalent too, as pointed out elsewhere. Of course, most of the folks that dismiss tongues don't prophesy either.

No, I grew up occasionally attending the Episcopal church, and had started attending one again, but quit when I realized how very liberal this particular church's theology was, at least with some of the pastoral leadership. But basically I got very little from that church. This was very soon after coming to the Lord.

I don't know. I studied 2 languages, Russian and Spanish, besides my own. It sounded very different from them and from English. It seemed to me more like ancient Aaramaic, but who knows. I just know it sounded very fluent, and had definite meaning, and that I was exalting the things of God or I sensed that was the case.Nevertheless, I didn't understand it's usefulness until much later.

You don't need to be in fear and keep in mind that it only is against your current understanding of the Bible. Love replaces fear and will give you a greater discernment in this area.

I know all the arguments of cessasanionists and can tell you whatever argument you want from those quarters, but none are based on hard and fast scriptures stating the gifts will cease, and all misunderstand that signs and wonders accompanied God at various seasons throughout history, not just at the beginning of the preaching of the gospel, and note did not accompany John the Baptist's ministry.Also, the idea that tongues ceased is unfounded. Keep in mind that those that say the Church quit speaking in tongues also call the Church the same people that torturing people to death. Well, no kidding if those people didn't speak in tongues. All the tongues-speakers were either running for their lives or becoming martyrs for the kingdom.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Faith, church history unfortunately has been a weak discipline. You are gonna have to really seek and search to get the to the truth here.If you want to follow St Augustine, etc,....I hope you accept that people are saved for all eternity via infant baptism and the procedures of blessing from the Catholic priesthood.Edited by randman, : No reason given.