amigo de christo
Well-Known Member
I was gonna say jakob ammann , but i dont know enough about him .
I do know for sure the other three were FALSE . And that word is captilized cause , well THEY FALSE .
Tongues
- Thread starter Truman
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
I do know for sure the other three were FALSE . And that word is captilized cause , well THEY FALSE .
amigo de christo
Well-Known Member
Buddist are kind nice people too . are they saved . Just cause folks do good things and are nice , dont make them saved .
The mormons . You really need to investigate that religoin for yourself .
Go to a library and read their own stuff . Some of the most blasphemous things , so bad it could make an onion cry .
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
Nice is not going to get you to Heaven. But there is something to be said about the nature that a denomination projects into the people that follow it. Up to this point I have never met a Mormon I didn't like. And the character and politeness of their young is a pleasant surprise.
Now I am not saying that you believe this....but you come acrossed as someone that believes that there is only one arrangement of beliefs that will get you to Heaven. Lots and lots of denominations out there and I believe many are true enough to the Gospel to get their congregations to Heaven.
Where do people fail....lukewarm social Christians that go through the motions....sinful lifestyles.
Last edited:
Nancy
Well-Known Member
Luke 1:41 " And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:"
'And John T.B. leapt in her womb'.
No laying on of hands here.
Paul Christensen
Well-Known Member
- Mar 2, 2020
- 3,068
- 1,619
- 113
- 76
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- New Zealand
I have read through Calvin's commentaries on Romans, John, 1 John, 1 Corinthians, and just about finished Acts part one. To be honest, I find what he says is totally consistent with the verses he quotes. He is very Gospel oriented, and says that unless Christ works with us, we can achieve nothing. I have read closely what he says about tongues, and find that he totally believes that the tongues the early Christians spoke was true and of the Holy Spirit. He is a man of his time, and believes that tongues ceased, but his reasons are not what some modern folk say. He quotes 1 Corinthians 13:10 that the "perfect" is the final judgment. In fact, it is at death that we leave the gifts behind because they are only there to supplement our weaknesses, and once we are dead in the Lord, we have left our weaknesses behind and along with them, the gifts. He says in his comments about tongues in relation to Cornelius' household, that God put a stop to tongues because too many were using the gift for ostentatious display and He caused it to cease so as to prevent any further disrepute heaped on the Holy Spirit from those who didn't have the gift later on in the 3rd and 4th Centuries ridiculing those who had.
No theologian is perfect and free from error. Calvin was the first systematic theologian of the Reformation. He was a pioneer coming out of Papal dominance. Also, he and his followers risked their lives, and his first two Bible students were murdered by the Papists upon graduation. Therefore, when one's life depends on it, one is much more careful to make sure that the theology is sound.
He is totally different from the Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons, therefore shouldn't be compared to them. I don't know about the Amish. I think they have a very strict Reformed theology, except they reject modern technology. But that doesn't make them heretics like the JWs and Mormons. Just because they are "not like us", it does not mean that they are not true believers in Christ.
Nancy
Well-Known Member
"Where do people fail...."
By not making very clear the ONLY "Name" under heaven and the ONLY Way to The Father is through, Jesus Christ...haven't you read all about those trying to sneak in the back doors, side doors, windows and such? (T/C) Sadly there will be some awesomely 'nice' people in hell
Only God knows who is going to receive His Son.
He never stops trying to get our attention...
1stCenturyLady
Well-Known Member
I actually thought you meant Jacob Arminius, the father of Arminians. He and John Calvin lived at the same time, and though Jacob Arrminius started out a Calvinist, and stayed a Calvinist, he changed his own beliefs a bit. Someone on google wrote what they thought were the differences. I'll post it here. I still like the teachings of John Wesley who leaned towards Arminianism:
1. Depravity
Calvinism says people are so depraved and rebellious that they are unable to trust God without his special work of grace to change their hearts so that they necessarily and willingly — freely — believe.
Arminians say, with regard to depravity, that people are depraved and corrupt, but they are able to provide the decisive impulse to trust God with the general divine assistance that God gives to everybody.
2. Election
Calvinism says that we are chosen. God chooses unconditionally whom he will mercifully bring to faith and whom he will justly leave in their rebellion.
Arminians say God has chosen us — elected to bring to salvation — all those whom he foresaw would believe by bringing about their own faith and providing the decisive impetus themselves. In those, God doesn’t decisively produce the faith that he foresees.
3. Atonement
Calvinism says that in the death of Christ, God provided sufficient atonement for all but designed that it be effective for the elect — meaning that Christ’s death purchased for them the new-covenant promise that God would bring about in his people faith and perseverance.
Arminians say that in the death of Christ, God provided sufficient atonement for all and designed that it would become effective by virtue of faith for which we — not Christ — provide the decisive impetus. Meaning, faith itself is not purchased by the cross, but that it is the human means of obtaining what the cross purchased — namely, forgiveness of sins.
4. New Birth
Calvinists say that the new birth is God’s work of renewal in our hearts that necessarily brings about the act of willing, hearty, saving faith.
Arminians say the new birth is God’s work of renewal in our hearts in response to our act of saving faith.
5. Perseverance
Calvinists say God works infallibly to preserve us in faith — all of us who are truly born again — and that no one is ever lost who was truly born of God.
Arminians say God works to preserve his people, but he does not always prevent some who were born again from falling away to destruction.
1stCenturyLady
Well-Known Member
Do you still have them? What does he say about 1 John 1:8? I like the Weslyan commentary. I discovered that all my commentaries in my library agreed with each other and against what God has taught me, except one. And on every verse that I differ on with most, it agreed with me on all of them. It is called The Abingdon Bible Commentary. c. 1929. That made me speechless I was so excited!
1stCenturyLady
Well-Known Member
I haven't read it yet. I'll have to see what he was referring to. From what you just said it has to do with when we receive the Holy Spirit. I just use the same words that Jesus did.
Acts 1:
4 And being assembled together with them, He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father, “which,” He said, “you have heard from Me; 5 for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”
I'll read his later.
Swaggert repented .....He also disqualified himself from the Ministry......A Teacher of the Word must have a Reputation above reproach......Cavorting with Whores clearly crosses the line of acceptable behavior for a Christian Teacher.....There are several conditions that must be met to be a Preacher .....read all about them in Titus 1:7...
Paul Christensen
Well-Known Member
- Mar 2, 2020
- 3,068
- 1,619
- 113
- 76
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- New Zealand
In a strange way, both are true, believe it or not. It just shows that we can't put God in a box with a theology no matter how knowledgeable or capable the theologian. God is sovereign, and there are parts of His Word that are intentionally obscure about things like predestination, election, how people are enlightened by the Spirit, how people come to Christ by an act of the Spirit, and others are enlightened after they make the choice to receive Christ. It shows that God is not limited in how He gets people saved.
The problem is that it is human nature to think in extremes. Calvin taught according to the light that he had, and a lot of his teaching was the counter the heresies of the Papal system, plus other heresies that were floating around at the time. Luther was still Roman Catholic in many parts of this theology, except Justification by faith in Christ alone. Calvin took one step further and brought out a systematic theology that ditched many of the Papal stuff. We have to realise that in Calvin's time coming away from the Papal system was a pioneering thing, and a lot of Calvin's theology is reactionary. I see that a lot in his commentaries. He is always contrasting Reformed theology with the Papal view. Although much of what he says about the Papal system, there is not the same pitched battle with it as it was in the 16th and 17th Centuries. We have to remember that the early Puritans were still in the Church of England which still retained much of the Papal system, and today, in High Anglicanism, it is still referred to Anglo-Catholiism, and in some English churches, you would think you were in a Catholic church with icons and statues of Jesus and Mary in them. The Puritans wanted Elizabeth I to totally reform the English church and bring it in line with the Scottish Presbyterian system, but she went quite a way with it, but stopped short of a full reformation. This is why there are at least three levels of the English church - High, Middle, and Low, where Low Anglicanism is very close to the Presbyterian.
The thing about Calvin is that he totally opposed the Anabaptists who taught adult baptism and turned away from infant baptism. Calvin quoted Cornelius' household where he believed that they all got baptised, including the children. Because of this, he supported infant baptism. I can see his point, but still believe that believers baptism carries more weight.
Arminius had many fine qualities. He had a holier lifestyle than Calvin, and was much more tolerant of those who did not subscribe to his theology, while Calvin had the attitude of "my way or the highway". Some have equated Arminius with Pelagius, but the former opposed the latter, but rather taught a mixture of the Holy Spirit's influence in conversion, and personal choice, while Pelagius taught that man was in total control and God did nothing until man made his choice. Arminius believed that the Holy Spirit enlightened with the Gospel, and then man made the choice. He believed that the Holy Spirit gave the person the ability and strength to go on for Christ, but could lose his salvation if he chose to go back to a sinful life, and reject Christ. Pelagius believed that once converted the person was on their own, and could be saved one day and lost the next according to their personal choice.
When trying to analyse these things, matters can get quite complicated. All we can do is to consider the pros and cons of each each theologian in the context of the age they lived in. I don't think that Calvin would have a bar of many of our modern churches. He would think they are so lukewarm and full of unsound doctrine. He would say that the lack of real conflict between good and evil in the church systems has made the church "soft and flabby" lack real spiritual strength to make itself believable in the present world. Calvin's theology is underpinned with many of his followers being martyred, and so was a life and death struggle to maintain faith in Christ under very difficult circumstances in many cases. I think that this is why Calvin was very strict in many ways. He believed that true believers had to be very strong in their faith, otherwise, they would crumble, recant and go back to the Papal system, rather than face being burned at the stake, which many of his followers were.
Paul Christensen
Well-Known Member
- Mar 2, 2020
- 3,068
- 1,619
- 113
- 76
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- New Zealand
I think that Aminius came after Calvin. Someone did some research and showed that Arminius was just a small child when Calvin was alive. But I concur with the rest of your post.
After making my rather lengthy reply, I had a few more thoughts about the contentious times that Calvin lived in and that he taught his followers to be strong and single-minded about their faith.
Looking back to the start of the Pentecostal movement at the turn of the 20th Century, a similar contentious situation developed when groups of believers started speaking in tongues, prophesying, and manifested other gifts of the Spirit, including divine healing. These pioneer Pentecostals had to endured intense persecution, and most of them were thrown out of their churches, not because their holiness of life was in any doubt, but that they prayed in tongues. This meant that these early Pentecostals had to be totally sure that what they had discovered was absolutely true and right, because they price they had to pay for their belief in the gift of tongues was immense. They had to be strong to ensure such hateful and unjust treatment from fellow Christians with whom they had fellowshipped most of their adult lives, and to be thrown out of the churches they were brought up in. As a result of their belief in tongues, they were denied church fellowship and had to form their own independent groups in order to have any kind of fellowship with other Christians. Many early Pentecostals had to endure rejection by family members with husbands leaving wives and vice versa, all because one of them started praying in tongues.
This is why the early Pentecostals were strong and single-minded in their faith in the ministry of the Holy Spirit as they came to know it. A A Allen came under persecution when he preached in the Southern States of America because he integrated his congregations with African Americans along with European Americans. This is still when African Americans had to use different facilities than whites, and ride down the back of the bus. Those early Pentecostals who opposed segregation had to be strong and in some cases it meant life or death for them especially in regions dominated by the Ku Klux Klan. In English during the early days of the Salvation Army, the believers in that movement would have pitched battles in the streets when they preached the Gospel. One believing shop owner had to defend himself by firing a revolver at a horse of hooligans who broke down the front door of his shop and tried to get in. Those were the extreme times they lived in, and so believers had to be very strong in their faith.
This was much more than the happy, happy, clap, clap, falling backwards, jerking and shaking that exists today for the power of the Holy Spirit. The modern Pentecostal and Charismatic movements are nothing like what existed in the early to mid 20th Century. We have multitudes filling stadiums and mega churches where Kenneth Copeland, Joyce Meyer and Joel Osteen are preaching. It is all froth and bubble with no real substance. This is what happens when a movement becomes "respectable" and popular. There is nothing to fight for, and something not worth fighting for is not really worth having.
So, we can criticise Calvin, the Puritans, and the early Pentecostals who had to fight every inch of the way to establish a movement that has saved and blessed multitudes of people since the early 20th Century, but until we can show that we are equal to them in the soundness of doctrine, love for Christ, and singleness of mind concerning our faith, our criticism won't carry much weight.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
The History of the charismatic movement is interesting and it has some twist and turns. Charismatic beliefs go back several centuries but was more or less "popularized" became more common with the The Great Awakenings. 1700's when these groups began to show up in congregations an then specific denominations later. As usual nothing happens like a light switch....slow to grow and met resistance. It impacted the religious society....this is another interesting study....It called a new group of people to Christ. People of color were drawn to the Charismatic movement and were happy to build their own churches, and they sprung up coast to coast. "Black Churches" were more or less launched by the Great Awakening movement and was a blessing for the people of color. Historically tracking these two religious movements they almost paralleled each other.
The charismatic movement has been such a blessing to so many people I wonder what took God so long? LOL
It's clear that when we are saved we are indwelled with the Holy Spirit. Gifts of the Holy Spirit (several different ones) are given as the Holy Spirit wills. Some will have the gift of tongues but not all. Paul explains this in 1 Corinthians 12:12-31. I think we tend to make this more complicated than it really is. The plain reading of the scriptures is sufficient.
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
Agreed. But let's bear in mind that Cornelius already had the indwelling of the Holy Spirit before Peter arrived. I don't think Peter meant to deny Paul's clear teaching that everyone who stands to inherit eternal life has been granted the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as an earnest of inheritance. Ephesians 1:13-14 No doubt Cornelius already had the earnest of his inheritance before Peter arrived. But the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is hidden inside a person, not seen by others.
Peter is talking about the manifestation of the Holy Spirit, which God the father could have granted to Cornelius at any time, even without Peter being present. The timing of the manifestation was for Peter's sake, so that Peter might know that the Father was granting the blessing of Abraham (eternal life) to Gentiles as well as Jews.
I agree that much of this was for Peter as it was for Cornelius.
1stCenturyLady
Well-Known Member
Your assumptions that the lack of mentioning tongues is what is false. Mark 16:16-18 shows that all who believe have the authorities listed, whether they use them or not. You cast those verses out of your bible and just pick and choose what you want to believe, even by your assumption that the lack of redundancy is proof they don't exist, or are not necessary, contradicting Mark.
And your saying, "So it seems that you are really confused and trying to confuse others," is absolutely false and maligning. What I'm trying to do is save people from the doctrines of demons being taught in the church that have caused false assurances that you seem to also believe. You want to keep your rose colored glasses, whereas I want unsaved "Christians" to not have Jesus say to them, "I never knew you."
Last edited:
You have FLATLY DENIED what the Bible says about the gift of the Holy Spirit being given to those who believe. That in itself would be a doctrine of demons.
Let's not worry about modern tongues, since those who believe that they are for today will never be convinced otherwise. They even claim that they are not real human languages, even though the Bible calls for an interpreter to be present. Only interpreters interpret foreign languages to other. They could not dream of interpreting any so-called "heavenly" languages.
Paul Christensen
Well-Known Member
- Mar 2, 2020
- 3,068
- 1,619
- 113
- 76
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- New Zealand
I believe that tongues are a language spoken somewhere in the world. It is just that they are not learned by the speaker but is inspired by the Holy Spirit. I don't believe that they are heavenly languages because why have multiple languages in heaven? It is interesting that before the tower of Babel, there was only one language spoken, and the only reason for the institution of multiple languages was to counter the pride of man. It is also believable that the language Adam and Eve spoke was the same one that God and the angels spoke, because before the Fall, Adam and God had fellowship together. Also, the snake spoke the same language as Eve. So, to say that tongues is one of the languages of heaven is pure fantasy. When Paul said, "Though I speak with the tongues of men and angels" he was not talking about the gift of tongues at all. He was saying that even though he was the most eloquent man in heaven and earth, if he didn't have love he would just be an empty noise.
Also, in 1 Corinthians, when Paul was writing about tongues, he implied that tongues was a world language, because he said that there are many languages in the world. That's enough of a clue for me that tongues is a language spoken somewhere in the world. There is enough proof for me that modern tongues is a world language through the actual events that took place in my own church during the 1970s, where a close friend in a prayer meeting of over 20 people, spoke in tongues, and a Ghanaian visitor told him that he was praising God in his own rural village dialect, a language my friend, who had never been outside of New Zealand could never have known. Also, when I was praying in tongues quietly in a church service, a New Zealand Maori lady sitting beside me told me that I spoke encouraging things to her in fluent Maori language. Even when I learned basic Maori some years later and tried to speak it to my 10 year old pupils in class, a bilingual boy just rolled around laughing at my mispronunciations.
Now, the catch 22 situation is this - either one has to acknowledge that modern tongues can be an understandable language in some circumstances where there is a hearer native in that language, but unlearned by the speaker - or that my friend, the Ghanaian visitor, 20 people in that prayer meeting, the Maori lady, and me, were all lying for the sake of supporting the truth of modern tongues.
I put this same question to anti-tongues members on two other forum sites, and they never replied. I suspect they were flummoxed. I think that the honest comment from an anti-tongues person is to say "I don't believe in modern speaking in tongues", rather than teach others that it is false and not for today. That way they are stating their own opinion, and not setting themselves up as an arbiter on what is true or false in modern Christian worship.
Last edited:
Paul Christensen
Well-Known Member
- Mar 2, 2020
- 3,068
- 1,619
- 113
- 76
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- New Zealand
Because we know that the Book of Acts was inspired by the Holy Spirit, not primarily for doctrinal teaching, but to describe how the early church was established and to provide examples of how the Holy Spirit worked with the church and the Apostles. These examples were included by Luke under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to show us how He worked. We have three clear examples of what happened when the Holy Spirit came and filled people - the people spoke in tongues. Three clear examples were enough for the Holy Spirit. In the mouth of two or three witnesses let every word be established, so says the Scripture. So three examples are enough to show that when people are filled with the Holy Spirit they speak in tongues. Although there are other events where people received the Holy Spirit (the Samaritans and Paul) we are not told they spoke in tongues. That did not need to be said, because the Holy Spirit had already given three good examples to show that when people get filled with Him they speak in tongues. The Holy Spirit doesn't have to labour a point to show how He works. If people don't get the message after three examples, then they never will. It's like what a preacher should understand - if he hasn't struck oil after 20 minutes, he should stop boring!
Similar threads
