The Administration Of Tongues

[jane paul]

The currency in the Kingdom of Light is faith. There fore I believe you will have the working of miracles in your ministry. I have seen people shun the gifts there by never receiving them and I have seen people's eyes grow wide with awe and they received them right away. Faith being the currency in the Kingdom of Light. The Lord bless your ministry in Jesus name. Open Hearts!!!

 

[Butch5]

Butch5,

You wrote: 'The word that translated perfect means maturity'. I said that this was your assertion and I was accurate because you provided no exegesis of the word in that sentence.

When Paul called the Corinthians (remember it's a church he's writing to), he called them 'carnal'. Does that apply to all Christians? Please remember that Paul is not writing to all members of the Corinthian church individually. He's writing to a church. He's telling the church it is carnal.

Have a guess what? In 54 years of being a Christian, I've never been a member of any Christian church that did not fit Paul's description like a hand in a glove - being carnal.

Now please get down to the exegesis of the text rather than giving your assertion.

Oz

You still didn't answer the question, would apply Paul's statement about being carnal to all Christians?


Guess what, when he told them about tongues he was writing to the church too. Anyone can easily find out what the word "teleios" means.

 

[OzSpen]

You still didn't answer the question, would apply Paul's statement about being carnal to all Christians?

Guess what, when he told them about tongues he was writing to the church too. Anyone can easily find out what the word "teleios" means.

Butch,

Seems like I'm wasting my time seeking your exegesis of I Cor 13:10 and in context for the meaning of 'teleios'. In fact, 'anyone can easily found out' the meaning of 'teleios' (your view) - and the parsing of 'teleion' (1 Cor 13:10) - are nonsense. Most Christians I know would not even know that it is 'teleiov', let alone know how to find the etymology and meaning of the word. Most wouldn't have access to the Arndt & Gingrich Greek lexicon or another Greek lexicon to find the meaning. Your hyperbole is noted.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Well, in respect to the OP, I see some of the tongues language as problematic because it becomes a litmus test for some manifestation of a form of second baptism. In many circles it's a sort of faith test that distinguishes "the real" (mature) Christians from lesser Christians and I find this problematic given that it was discussed a handful of times in the Bible. It also becomes a bar of faith to be reached in that if it does not occur in areas, then the implication is that the church or other gathering lacks sufficient Spirit power or faith.

I am very sympathetic to some arguments about tongues, but I have found this quasi-requirement status to be a real hangup. It begins to border on the Pharisaical.

Hammer,

Thank you for raising this issue of the 'initial evidence' doctrine of the baptism with the Holy Spirit. I used to believe this at one point but when I studied the Scriptures further, I came to reject it because I could not find it as generally supported in Scripture.

I have written this short article to address this situation, to try to gain a biblical balance; Tongues and the Baptism with the Holy Spirit.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Therein lies the rub.

Those that are milk feed crave miracles and physical manifestations of spirit. They require signs and proof of God.

pom,

That is not the evidence that I find with a more comprehensive understanding of Scripture. John 14:12 (ESV) refutes this view.

Oz

 

[Butch5]

Butch,

Seems like I'm wasting my time seeking your exegesis of I Cor 13:10 and in context for the meaning of 'teleios'. In fact, 'anyone can easily found out' the meaning of 'teleios' (your view) - and the parsing of 'teleion' (1 Cor 13:10) - are nonsense. Most Christians I know would not even know that it is 'teleiov', let alone know how to find the etymology and meaning of the word. Most wouldn't have access to the Arndt & Gingrich Greek lexicon or another Greek lexicon to find the meaning. Your hyperbole is noted.

Oz

Interesting that you say that when you've still not answered my question. I don't really think you need an exegesis. I suspect you already know what the passage says. You see I typically get this kind of response when people don't have an argument. It's pretty clear from Paul's examples that he is not referring to the return of Jesus. He doesn't even mention Jesus in the passage.

With the resources that are available on the internet its not hard to study Greek words. One only needs to invest a little time.

 

[OzSpen]

Interesting that you say that when you've still not answered my question. I don't really think you need an exegesis. I suspect you already know what the passage says. You see I typically get this kind of response when people don't have an argument. It's pretty clear from Paul's examples that he is not referring to the return of Jesus. He doesn't even mention Jesus in the passage.

With the resources that are available on the internet its not hard to study Greek words. One only needs to invest a little time.

Since you didn't reply to the details of what I wrote, your response is a red herring fallacy.

 

[Butch5]

Since you didn't reply to the details of what I wrote, your response is a red herring fallacy.

Should I assume that you're not going to answer the question?

 

[OzSpen]

Should I assume that you're not going to answer the question?

Another red herring. Should I assume that you are not going to give up using red herring fallacies?

 

[Butch5]

Another red herring. Should I assume that you are not going to give up using red herring fallacies?

Do you know what a logical fallacy is? I guess since you're not answering the question there is no point in continuing.

 

[OzSpen]

Do you know what a logical fallacy is? I guess since you're not answering the question there is no point in continuing.

Of course I know what logical fallacies are. I've been calling you on your use of them. This is what happens when logical fallacies are used. They amount to fallacious reasoning, thus making logical discussion impossible.

 

[Butch5]

Of course I know what logical fallacies are. I've been calling you on your use of them. This is what happens when logical fallacies are used. They amount to fallacious reasoning, thus making logical discussion impossible.

The key there is reasoning. Saying, "you didn't answer my question" is not a line of reasoning and thus not a logical fallacy.

 

[OzSpen]

The key there is reasoning. Saying, "you didn't answer my question" is not a line of reasoning and thus not a logical fallacy.

Butch5,

Please go back through your responses to me that I've labelled as red herring fallacies and see what you do. For a description of a red herring fallacy, see HERE.

I'm very happy to answer your questions, but not when you continue to use logical fallacies in your reasoning. Why? Their use prevents a reasonable conversation.

Oz

 

[Butch5]

Butch5,

Please go back through your responses to me that I've labelled as red herring fallacies and see what you do. For a description of a red herring fallacy, see HERE.

I'm very happy to answer your questions, but not when you continue to use logical fallacies in your reasoning. Why? Their use prevents a reasonable conversation.

Oz

There are no fallacies in my posts. I know how to reason. A fallacy is an error in reasoning. Therefore to commit a fallacy one must be reasoning. Saying,"you didn't answer my question" is not a line of reasoning it is simply a statement and thus cannot be a fallacy. A sentence may or may not be a fallacy depending on how it is used. Just because a sentence used one way is a fallacy, using it another way doesn't automatically mean the same sentence is a fallacy. The statement, "evolution is true because professor Smith teaches it," is fallacious because it is an appeal to authority attempting to prove evolution. However, the statement, "I believe evolution is true because professor Smith teaches it," is not fallacious because it's not a statement used to prove evolution is true, but rather is stating why someone believes that evolution is true.

 

[OzSpen]

There are no fallacies in my posts. I know how to reason. A fallacy is an error in reasoning. Therefore to commit a fallacy one must be reasoning. Saying,"you didn't answer my question" is not a line of reasoning it is simply a statement and thus cannot be a fallacy....

Butch,

At #53, I asked you, 'Please go back through your responses to me that I've labelled as red herring fallacies and see what you do'. You didn't do what I asked, so you gave me another red herring fallacy since you went on with your argumentation that did not deal with the 'red herrings' you have committed in your reasoning with me.

Go back to #47 where I wrote, 'Since you didn't reply to the details of what I wrote, your response is a red herring fallacy.' I told you exactly what a red herring fallacy was. When you don't address the issues that I write about and you're off and running with your own topic, you have committed a red herring. I showed you what you had done.

Now you have the audacity to say you don't commit logical fallacies. The fact is that you clearly DO!

Dr. Michael C. Labossiere, the author of a Macintosh tutorial named Fallacy Tutorial Pro 3.0, provides this

Description of Red Herring

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. 
   Topic A is under discussion.
   
2. 
   Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
   
3. 
   Topic A is abandoned.
   

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.

When you avoid dealing with my topic and give your own spin on another topic, you commit a red herring fallacy. Yes, you DO use logical fallacies. In fact, in this last post, you are building a straw man argument, which is a false understanding of how you claim you don't use fallacies.

Oz

 

[Butch5]

Butch,

At #53, I asked you, 'Please go back through your responses to me that I've labelled as red herring fallacies and see what you do'. You didn't do what I asked, so you gave me another red herring fallacy since you went on with your argumentation that did not deal with the 'red herrings' you have committed in your reasoning with me.

Go back to #47 where I wrote, 'Since you didn't reply to the details of what I wrote, your response is a red herring fallacy.' I told you exactly what a red herring fallacy was. When you don't address the issues that I write about and you're off and running with your own topic, you have committed a red herring. I showed you what you had done.

Now you have the audacity to say you don't commit logical fallacies. The fact is that you clearly DO!

Dr. Michael C. Labossiere, the author of a Macintosh tutorial named Fallacy Tutorial Pro 3.0, provides this

Description of Red Herring

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. 
   Topic A is under discussion.
   
2. 
   Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
   
3. 
   Topic A is abandoned.
   

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.

When you avoid dealing with my topic and give your own spin on another topic, you commit a red herring fallacy. Yes, you DO use logical fallacies. In fact, in this last post, you are building a straw man argument, which is a false understanding of how you claim you don't use fallacies.

Oz

What argument have I made?


I don't think you understand what a fallacy is. As I stated it is a flaw in reasoning. If one isn't reasoning there is no fallacy. However, your refuse to answer my question is a fallacy.

Avoiding the Issue/question

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/58-avoiding-the-issue


From Post 34


"Oz,

Paul doesn't say all Christians If we're going to talk about exegesis let's do it correctly. Paul also says to the Corinthians, "you are carnal" would you that apply to all Christians? He says to them, "you are puffed up" prideful, would you apply that to all Christians? He tells them they are not spiritual, would you would you apply that to all Christians. We can't just take a broad brush and say everything written to Christians applies to every Christian.

You say ever Christian will "fully know" when Christ returns, what will they fully know? When"


We're at post 55 and still no answer. Notice I've been asking for an answer long before post 47

 

[OzSpen]

What argument have I made?


I don't think you understand what a fallacy is. As I stated it is a flaw in reasoning. If one isn't reasoning there is no fallacy. However, your refuse to answer my question is a fallacy.

Avoiding the Issue/question

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/58-avoiding-the-issue


From Post 34


"Oz,

Paul doesn't say all Christians If we're going to talk about exegesis let's do it correctly. Paul also says to the Corinthians, "you are carnal" would you that apply to all Christians? He says to them, "you are puffed up" prideful, would you apply that to all Christians? He tells them they are not spiritual, would you would you apply that to all Christians. We can't just take a broad brush and say everything written to Christians applies to every Christian.

You say ever Christian will "fully know" when Christ returns, what will they fully know? When"


We're at post 55 and still no answer. Notice I've been asking for an answer long before post 47

Butch,

Another red herring. You've demonstrated when you use a logical fallacy, we can't have a logical discussion.

Bye,
Oz

 

[Wormwood]

Wormwood,

Who are you to say that the miracles taking place in Nigeria today do not have anything to do with spiritual maturity? You seem to be inferring that the Nigerian church is immature and that miracles are happening there because of Christian immaturity. Is that what you are affirming?

Who said the fruit of the Spirit is a sign of spiritual maturity and the gifts of the Spirit are not for the spiritually mature? You seem to be going against what Scripture teaches in your view on tongues: 'Now I want you all to speak in tongues....' (1 Cor 14:5 ESV) and 'Do not forbid speaking in tongues' (1 Cor 14:39 ESV).

Oz

Oz, sorry for the slow reply. I have been out of town. It was not my intention to say that miracles indicate poor spiritual maturity. It is my intention to say that miracles or tongues are not a test of strong spiritual maturity. My point is that there is nothing in the Scriptures that indicate these gifts have anything to do with maturity. If anything, Paul says these gifts do not aid in the maturity or building up of others. This is why he encouraged prophesy. So again, I am not saying these gifts are a sign of immaturity (if they are legitimately taking place today), but I just don't see any evidence that they have anything to do with maturity. That is the claim many Charismatics often make and I find it to be entirely baseless. This brings me to a couple thoughts about these gifts:

1. There is no indication in the NT that miracles or tongues were gifts that were given for those who sought them passionately enough. In fact, we see tongues simply falling on people without any coaching, expectation or desire for this gift. To say that someone does not have the gift because they don't seek it enough tor because they do not have enough faith (which is a constant theme in charismatic circles I am aware of) finds no validation in Scripture whatsoever. Yes, Paul wished that they all spoke in tongues, but he preferred they all prophesy. So why are we so focused on tongues as such a meaningful gift when Paul not only indicates that not all would have this gift, but that there are other gifts to be much preferred. Again, Paul makes it clear that not all have the gift of tongues. And we see from the issues in the Corinthian church, that tongues is certainly not a barometer for one's spiritual maturity. If anything, it has nothing to do whatsoever with maturity or faith. I find no basis in the argument that all Christians should have a "prayer language" or should seek to speak in tongues.

2. You still did not answer the question about your view on tongues and miracles. If these gifts exist for the purpose of building up the local body, as you assert, why do we not see them in every local body? Does God not want most churches to be edified? Isn't it the Spirit who gives these gifts freely? Why is it that only those congregations that are coached to expect and desire these manifestations have them when this is not what we see in the NT? Again, I am not going to try to discount any supposed prophet and his miracles. I don't know the man and I am not in a position to claim you or this prophet are being false. I just simply think that if these gifts are for the purpose of the body being built up and not functional (they have a very specific function and should not be expected as a regular part of the Christian experience) then we should see them in most churches...and not just hear about them in remote places as very unusual circumstances.

3. You also did not answer my question as to your Scriptural validation that tongues is merely an ecstatic utterance and not a miraculous speaking in another human language. If tongues does exist today, I am still not convinced that what is happening in most charismatic circles meets the NT definition of this gift.

 

[emekrus]

Oz, sorry for the slow reply. I have been out of town. It was not my intention to say that miracles indicate poor spiritual maturity. It is my intention to say that miracles or tongues are not a test of strong spiritual maturity. My point is that there is nothing in the Scriptures that indicate these gifts have anything to do with maturity. If anything, Paul says these gifts do not aid in the maturity or building up of others. This is why he encouraged prophesy. So again, I am not saying these gifts are a sign of immaturity (if they are legitimately taking place today), but I just don't see any evidence that they have anything to do with maturity. That is the claim many Charismatics often make and I find it to be entirely baseless. This brings me to a couple thoughts about these gifts:

1. There is no indication in the NT that miracles or tongues were gifts that were given for those who sought them passionately enough. In fact, we see tongues simply falling on people without any coaching, expectation or desire for this gift. To say that someone does not have the gift because they don't seek it enough tor because they do not have enough faith (which is a constant theme in charismatic circles I am aware of) finds no validation in Scripture whatsoever. Yes, Paul wished that they all spoke in tongues, but he preferred they all prophesy. So why are we so focused on tongues as such a meaningful gift when Paul not only indicates that not all would have this gift, but that there are other gifts to be much preferred. Again, Paul makes it clear that not all have the gift of tongues. And we see from the issues in the Corinthian church, that tongues is certainly not a barometer for one's spiritual maturity. If anything, it has nothing to do whatsoever with maturity or faith. I find no basis in the argument that all Christians should have a "prayer language" or should seek to speak in tongues.

2. You still did not answer the question about your view on tongues and miracles. If these gifts exist for the purpose of building up the local body, as you assert, why do we not see them in every local body? Does God not want most churches to be edified? Isn't it the Spirit who gives these gifts freely? Why is it that only those congregations that are coached to expect and desire these manifestations have them when this is not what we see in the NT? Again, I am not going to try to discount any supposed prophet and his miracles. I don't know the man and I am not in a position to claim you or this prophet are being false. I just simply think that if these gifts are for the purpose of the body being built up and not functional (they have a very specific function and should not be expected as a regular part of the Christian experience) then we should see them in most churches...and not just hear about them in remote places as very unusual circumstances.

3. You also did not answer my question as to your Scriptural validation that tongues is merely an ecstatic utterance and not a miraculous speaking in another human language. If tongues does exist today, I am still not convinced that what is happening in most charismatic circles meets the NT definition of this gift.

I make bold to say that the people without spiritual gifts- especially the gift of tongue, do not believe enough and that is the reason they don't have it and other spiritual gifts as well. Now about tongues and other spiritual gifts not being for everyone, have you never read, Mark 16:15-18? Jesus says everyone that believes on him, will lay hand on the sick they will recover, they shall eat poison and it won't harm them, then they shall all speak with TONGUES... All these he says, are the signs that will follow everyone that believes and not some.

 

[Wormwood]

I make bold to say that the people without spiritual gifts- especially the gift of tongue, do not believe enough and that is the reason they don't have it and other spiritual gifts as well. Now about tongues and other spiritual gifts not being for everyone, have you never read, Mark 16:15-18? Jesus says everyone that believes on him, will lay hand on the sick they will recover, they shall eat poison and it won't harm them, then they shall all speak with TONGUES... All these he says, are the signs that will follow everyone that believes and not some.

Yes, that is the perception of most charismatics. However, I find no evidence that tongues is a gauge of faith or maturity anywhere in the NT. So, while I appreciate your personal view on the matter, I don't think the Word of God substantiates it.

Yes, Mark 16 does say that these "signs" would accompany believers. A "sign" is simply that...as sign. So, if we were to say that this section of Mark 16 is part of the actual letter Mark wrote (which more likely than not this section was added later), then it proves my point that these gifts were functional and were signs to point to something bigger. These gifts were not for edification of the church, but were signs to validate the early message. Should Christians drink poison to prove they are legitimate followers of Jesus? No, but early attempts to poison Christians because of their faith were sometimes (not always) unsuccessful and testified to the fact that something quite supernatural was at work among these believers. I think the same is true with being bitten by venomous snakes or speaking in tongues. These early signs validated to onlookers that this new, small group of people were, in fact, different and special. I am sure you likely do not have people handling venomous snakes or drinking poison in your congregation weekly to prove your faith, why should tongues be viewed differently and expected to take place continually and used as a proof for someone's spiritual maturity? These gifts were "signs to the unbelievers" and were not tests of maturity or means by which the body was edified. Therefore, it had a function and should not be a focal point of our attention. As Paul says, (my paraphrase), "If you want to focus on a gift, focus on one that builds other believers up for goodness sake!"