|
Post by kjammer on Oct 15, 2007 12:49:27 GMT -5
I would like to thank my opponent for this debate. I would like to welcome everyone that is watching and may God bless you all.
Here is the first question that Yodas has asked me to answer.
Is the Oneness Tongues the same Tongues as the First Century Church?
When the disciples and the other 120 received the Holy Ghost on the Day of Pentecost, each person spoke with tongues as the Spirit gave him utterance (Acts 2:4). In response to this unusual event created in Jerusalem, a large number of Jews, many who had come from other nations, crowded around the disciples. Confused, they questioned the apostles as to the meaning of the people speaking in foreign languages about the wonderful works of God. The apostle Peter explained in his sermon that they were witnessing the fulfillment of prophecy: "This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh. . ." (Acts 2:16-17). His answer linked speaking with tongues to the gift of the Holy Ghost.
He made the same association between speaking with tongues and the gift of the Spirit later in his sermon: "Therefore being by the right hand exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he (Jesus Christ) hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear" (Acts 2:33). Peter identified the sign of speaking with tongues as the evidence that the disciples had received the "promise of the Holy Ghost."
Acts 2:4 clearly states that the Spirit gave the disciples the utterance of "other tongues": "And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance." The Spirit gave them utterance--a sign manifesting His indwelling presence.
Since in the early church the sign of speaking with tongues was the only accepted evidence that a person had received the Holy Ghost, we should follow the same teaching. We must remember that the pattern was established by God on the Day of Pentecost, and that the apostles accepted it as the pattern for the church.
If anyone teaches contrary to the pattern established by God and proclaimed by the apostles, he is not building on the foundation of Jesus Christ. No Christian can deviate from the truths established of the Bible by precept and example, including those in the Book of Acts, and be pleasing to God. Other signs and wonders may convince both believers and unbelievers of God's presence among the people, but speaking with tongues is the only initial evidence that the Spirit has come to dwell in a person.
Most people that do not believe in tongues will go to ICorinthians 13: 8-10 saying that tongues was done away with when that which was perfect has come. We know that which is perfect hasnt come. How do we know this? Because not only will tongues be gone but also Knowledge and prophecies. We still have knowledge and prophecy therefore we still have tongues.
Tongues is the initial evidence of the baptism of the holyspirit. Peter said be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and ye shall receive the gift of the holyghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. Are you one of those that God called?
God said he is the same yesterday, today, and forever. I change not.
Are the tongues that Oneness speak today the same as the tongues spoke on the Day of Pentecost? Yes they are. It will not change.
|
|
|
Post by yodasprodigy on Oct 15, 2007 18:38:30 GMT -5
Greetings to All Readers and KJ,
May God bless you as you bless him!!
The Pentecostal/Charismatic movement has fueled an ecumenical movement that was nearly dead just before Azusa Street.
As with any movement, the Word of God must be our standard. 1John 4:1-6 clearly tells us to test all things. And of course, that test is the proper use of scripture.
Acts 2 is the key passage to how tongues should be exhibited.
Tongues was a method to share Christ in a language that was unknown to the speaker, but known to the hearers. Every NT mention of tongues is a known language to men. The NT gift is not an angelic language.
Acts 2 describes tongues as a human language.
See Acts 2:4, filled and spoke; Acts 2:8 “our own tongue”; Acts 2:9-11, a list of nations represented who heard the wonderful works of God in their own language.
The multitude not only heard in their own language, but their own dialect too (Acts 2:6)
Acts 10 and Acts 19 are the same.
Acts 10:45 The house of Cornelias; The Apostles heard God being magnified through tongues (their own dialect) which was the same as Acts 2. Acts 10:47 mentions that they received the Holy Spirit, and then were baptized. And Acts 10:47 say that they had the same experience just as the Apostles had experienced. What was that? It was tongues in known earthly, human languages.
Acts 19:6 tells us that they spoke in tongues and prophesied. Joel is quoted regarding the prophecy. Again, this was known languages. BTW, prophesy is to tell forth the word of God.
Now, 1 Corinthians 14 is Paul trying to persuade them to not use the gift. Finally, he sets out some boundaries to curb the abuse.
This tongue is taught by some to be a different tongue than the others. This is a mistake. It is still an earthly, human language.
A point needs to be made, if Corinth’s experience with tongues was different than the others, why doesn’t it appear in Acts 18? The obvious answer is because they too had tongues of earthly human languages.
Tongues was present in all of the early churches. Corinth had a pride problem. People who got the gift were using it at inappropriate times.
Now if you compare Acts 2:4 with 1 Corinthians 14:21, you will see the same Greek words used. Some like to key in on unknown tongue as something not of this earth, a heavenly language. The “Unknown Language” is meant to describe that the language was unknown to the speaker from any time before. Another question arises, if these are heavenly languages, why, based on Paul’s comments, would they need to cease. They are heavenly, right? The reason Tongues will cease is because they are earthly languages.
1Corinthians 14:23 alludes to these tongues can be learned. The implication is confirmed in 1Corinthians 14:16.
1Corinthians 13:1 is used to prove the tongues can be of Angels. There is no Angel to Angel communication recorded. Every time the Angels speak, it is in a known language. Even when Isaiah got his view of heaven, the Angels were recorded in a human language.
Also, 1Corinthians 13:1 has Paul using the word “If”. “If I speak” is obviously Paul speaking hypothetically. 1Corinthians 13 is obviously about love.
I do disagree with those who hold that BIBLICAL TONGUES completely ceased. Many of us know people who actually spoke in a foreign tongue for telling about God to unbelieving Jews.
Tongues or the second blessing was a sign to unbelievers (Israel).
|
|
|
Post by kjammer on Oct 15, 2007 19:36:10 GMT -5
On the day of Pentecost, the disciples spoke in various languages. Were Tongues Given at Pentecost To Enable the Foreign Jews To Understand What was Spoken? If so, why did not God likewise empower others to speak with tongues before this time, such as John the Baptist, the twelve apostles during the earthly ministry of Jesus, and the seventy whom Jesus sent out? Their messages were also of value for foreign-born Jews residing in Palestine. And why would God want to speak through ALL on the day of Pentecost, all seemingly speaking at once, if He merely wanted the Jews to understand what was said?
Aramaic was the popular language in Palestine at the time, while Old Testament Hebrew was still in use in schools and religion. The Greek language was widely known and used in the world of that day. Perhaps most, if not all, of the foreign Jews present on the day of Pentecost could understand Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. Jerusalem, the location of the temple, was the religious center of the Jews-not like a strange country to them. Therefore, surely no major language problem existed. If an insurmountable language barrier existed, how did the multitude discover that each one recognized his own language being spoken? For example, who informed the crowd that the Jews from Rome heard their language? And who made it known that the Arabian Jews heard their language spoken? And likewise for those who spoke other languages? Yet the fact that each group heard their own language being spoken became common knowledge, so that the people were able to ask, "And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?" Act 2:8.
The Bible says plainly that the multitude spoke "one to another" and the Bible repeats some of their conversation (Acts 2:6- 13). When the disciples were filled with the Spirit, the multitude "were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?" (Acts 2:12) "Others mocking said, These mean are full of new wine." Then Peter preached the notable sermon recorded in the second chapter of Acts. It is altogether reasonable to judge that he preached to the entire multitude in only one language. If he had preached to one language "group at a time, he could rightly address only that one group as he began his sermon to them.
But the apostle Peter addressed the entire multitude all at one time saying, "Ye men of Judaea, and ALL ye that dwell at Jerusalem . . ." (Acts 2:14). Verse 5 had previously disclosed that these people from every nation were dwelling at Jerusalem. If the tongues were given to enable people to understand what was spoke, why did not God cause the disciples to do the necessary explaining in other languages? When the people asked the vital question, "What shall we do?" again it was Peter who gave the answer. The tongues may have been profitable on the day of Pentecost to enable some to better understand part of what was spoken, but it is quite evident that the enabling of people to understand was not the primary purpose of the tongues.
|
|
|
Post by yodasprodigy on Oct 16, 2007 21:59:09 GMT -5
Acts is a book of transitions. The only teachings that the Christian Church should hold to from the book of Acts as absolute are those confirmed elsewhere in scripture. Having said that, the book of Acts is amazingly consistent with its treatment of the Gift of Tongues.
Acts 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. KJV
Yes, they spoke in Tongues.
Acts 2:6
6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. KJV
The Holy Ghost clearly made sure that every one knows that Tongues spoken was a known language.
The Holy Ghost even goes the extra mile to emphasize human languages
Acts 2:7-11
7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? 8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? 9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, 10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. KJV
When you read Acts 11:15, you find the Gentiles got the same gift as the Jews had gotten at Pentecost. That was Tongues in a known human language.
Acts 11:15
15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. KJV
Acts 2 is the standard for what Biblical Tongues should be, a known human language.
Those who believe that Tongues are some kind of angelic language have little to stand on. They like to lean on 1 Corinthians 13:1. Paul uses a little two letter word “If” which is often ignored. This is known as hyperbole.
1 Cor 13:1 13:1 If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am become sounding brass, or a clanging cymbal. ASV
1 Cor 13:1 13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. KJV
To further prove my point, the Holy Ghost does not mention any “Angelic” Tongues in Corinth in Acts 18. The final nail in the “Angelic” Tongues idea comes when the Holy Ghost doesn’t mention them in Acts 19.
Those who hold to the modern version of tongues seem also to over look that Tongues is not present in every example of conversions in Acts. Read Acts 2:38 to 4:4. No Tongues. No Tongues in Acts 4 either
Tongues are not the only way to demonstrate that someone is filled with the Holy Ghost. A more sure way is to see the Holy Ghost in a believer is through fruits of the Spirit:
Gal 5:22-26
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
26 Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another. KJV
I contend that my position is the more accurate explanation regarding Tongues in the Book of Acts. And to rightly divide the word of truth and be a good Berean is scriptural. I encourage all to search out the best hermeneutic and solid presuppositions.
I do believe that Tongues exists as I have described. We cannot put God in a box and say that the Holy Ghost cannot inspire someone to speak in Tongues.
God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. And this explains why salvation is by grace through faith, whether before Pentecost or after Pentecost.
I conclude that the modern use of tongues, if it is not a known human language, it is not the same as those tongues of the first century Church.
|
|
|
Post by yodasprodigy on Oct 18, 2007 22:16:24 GMT -5
Second Constructive
Scripture should always be used to interpret scripture. Clearer passages should be used to explain less clear passages.
The experience of Tongues was a sign of judgment on Israel. The prophets warned Israel that their faithlessness would cause them to be over run by people with strange Tongues. History shows us how they were over run by Syrians, Persians, the Babylonians, the Greeks and the Romans.
(Isaiah 28:11)
New Testament Tongues was also a judgment on Israel. The gift of Tongues appears in primarily three places in the Book of Acts. The Jews on the day of Pentecost experienced Tongues (Acts 2). Those converted from Samaria experienced Tongues. (Acts 8) And finally, the Gentiles experienced Tongues. (Acts 11) This judgment showed Israel that Heaven is now open to all peoples. It also showed to the Jews that believing Jews were no longer God’s only tool to spread his love.
This leads to whether Tongues is necessary to prove someone’s salvation and to prove that they have received the Holy Ghost.
The Book of Acts shows numerous conversions that did not include the Gift of Tongues. (Acts 2:38 - Acts 4, “The Ethiopian eunuch”: Acts 8:26 – 40, Lydia Acts 16:11-15, Even Saul’s conversion doesn’t mention Tongues, he eventually was given the gift by the Holy Ghost as it was needed) History itself shows that Tongues for the most part dropped out of the Christian church by the fourth century. There have been occasional events in history where it was noted. The vast majority of people claiming to be Christian and the large lengths of time between Tongue events are a great proof of its unimportance in the average believer’s life. If the gift of Tongues is so important, why does it not show up in a majority of the NT writings? That is because the only time it does show up (1 Corinthians) is where it was being abused. The gift of Tongues isn’t even mentioned in 2 Corinthians.
The OT and NT examples of salvation include God, grace, repentance, and faith. Anything subtracted or added to this changes Biblical salvation. You can look at the Ethiopian again, a great example of conversion. Everyone in that upper room was already saved and going to Heaven. John 16:7 and John 7:39.
Also see these verses, the Disciples are already saved. Their names are already written in the Book of Life. Luke 10:20 and John 15:3. This is before Acts 2!
With all of this evidence, it is clear that a saved believer in Jesus Christ does not have to have the gift of Tongues.
|
|
|
Post by kjammer on Oct 21, 2007 5:54:39 GMT -5
Most non-believers have a lack of understanding between the Baptism of the Holy Ghost and the divers tongues mentioned in I Corinthians 12:10, more commonly called the gift of tongues. Most tongues movements misconstrue these two entirely different experiences to be the same experience.
If one has spoken in tongues, it does not mean he has the gift of tongues, it means that he has received the Baptism of the Holy Ghost.
The baptism of the Holy Ghost or the gift of the Holy Ghost, is in reality the birth of the Spirit mentioned by Jesus in John 3:1-8, promised and further illustrated by Him in John chapters 14 and 15, and culminating in the actual fulfillment of experience in Acts 2:4. Peter, on the day of Pentecost, boldly declares this experience to the whole world; when he said "...to all that are afar off even as many as the Lord our God shall call" (Acts 2:39).
The divers tongue or so called gift of tongues is one of the nine gifts mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12:8-10, and consequently is an attribute of the indwelling Spirit, or we might say a Product of the indwelling Spirit. The gift of tongues then is only present and operable if one has received the Baptism of the Holy Ghost which makes it possible to qualify for the gifts of the Spirit.
On the other hand, you may have the Baptism of the Holy Ghost speaking with tongues and not have the gift of tongues though you speak with tongues at intervals in your Christian experience.
Here is a comparison of gift tongues and evidence tongues written by L.E. KIDSON
A COMPARISON OF GIFT TONGUES AND EVIDENCE TONGUES
1. Comparison as to the number who speak with tongues. As pointed out, not all receive the gift of tongues, but the facts already presented indicate that all speak with one or more languages when they receive the Holy Ghost. If the Bible regards all tongues as the gift of tongues, and none as evidence tongues, is it not strange that all spoke with tongues at Pentecost, etc., rather than merely part of the disciples? God easily could have given one gift to one, and one to another. 2. Comparison as to the time given. Whether or not individuals speak with tongues any after receiving the Holy Ghost, evidence tongues must come at the time the Holy Ghost is given. The gift tongues need not be given at the time a person receives the Holy Ghost, but may be given at any time thereafter. Paul told the Corinthians, who had already received the Holy Ghost to "covet earnestly the best gifts;" and, also, his instruction to some to pray that they might interpret makes it clear that a gift of the Spirit could be received subsequent to the occasion of one's being baptized with the Holy Ghost. Therefore, since a gift of the Spirit is not always received at the time a person receives the Holy Ghost, is it logical to suppose that at Pentecost, etc. all received the gift of tongues? 3. Comparison as to the number allowed to speak in one service. Paul limits those using the gift of tongues to two or three persons in one service. At Pentecost, etc. all spoke. 4. Comparison as to the order of the speakers. Those using the gift of tongues in a church service are to speak by course (I Cor. 14:27). On the day of Pentecost, at the house of Cornelius, and at Ephesus, those receiving the Holy Ghost apparently all spoke simultaneously. That God sometimes is not adverse to having many speak at once can be shown by His causing the seventy elders of Israel to prophesy at once (Num. 11:24-28). 5. Comparison as to the need for an interpreter. In the use of the gift of tongues in a church service, a person is not to speak unless there is an interpreter. On the day of Pentecost, the disciples began to speak with tongues before the multitude gathered. There is no scriptural proof that what the disciples first spoke was fully understood. Those who received the Holy Ghost at Pentecost, etc. spoke with tongues as a result of the Spirit of God taking control of them. It is extremely improbable that the disciples at Pentecost, or the Gentiles at the house of Cornelius, had any foreknowledge that they would speak with tongues. There is no reason to believe that they gave any forethought as to whether or not the languages would be understood. It was a work of the Spirit of God. In 1 Corinthians, Paul is not giving instruction for receiving the Holy Ghost, but he is instructing Spirit-filled believers in the use of the gift of tongues. A person with the gift of tongues should also speak with tongues when led of God to do so, for God knows when someone present will understand. God can, if He chooses, go beyond the rules given by Paul for the use of the gift of tongues, but the preceding comparisons lend solid support to the conclusion that the evidence tongues differ from the gift tongues.
As we can see, the baptism of the holy spirit with the evidence of speaking in other tongues is totally different than the gift of tongues.
Since in the early church the sign of speaking with tongues was the only accepted evidence that a person had received the Holy Ghost, we should follow the same teaching. We must remember that the pattern was established by God on the Day of Pentecost, and that the apostles accepted it as the pattern for the church. If anyone teaches contrary to the pattern established by God and proclaimed by the apostles, he is not building on the foundation of Jesus Christ. No Christian can deviate from the truths established of the Bible by precept and example, including those in the Book of Acts, and be pleasing to God. Other signs and wonders may convince both believers and unbelievers of God's presence among the people, but speaking with tongues is the only initial evidence that the Spirit has come to dwell in a person.
|
|
|
Post by yodasprodigy on Oct 21, 2007 17:00:19 GMT -5
There are a number of refutations of this position. The Bible never teaches that Tongues is the initial evidence of receiving the Holy Spirit. Oneness adherents base their erroneous teaching on the fact that tongues is mentioned in three of the five instances which speak of the baptism of the Spirit in Acts. But Luke is reporting a historical account not a doctrinal teaching. It is a stretch of his account to draw a doctrine of salvation out of it. A historical narrative is one thing; a church doctrine is quite another. Even if the Oneness adherents pressure the debate and continue using Acts to teach doctrine for the Church, they do so inconsistently. In Oneness churches one usually finds people "seeking for the Holy Ghost" often begging God for salvation, occasionally doing so for years. Can someone point out where this is anything remotely close to this demonstrated in Acts, or the rest of the Bible for that matter? Where is there an example of anyone seeking for tongues as a sign of the Spirit's coming? Where is there even an example of someone receiving this gift alone, a part from a group (in Oneness Churches it almost always happens one at a time)? If the Oneness Pentecostals are going to mistakenly use Acts as a normative book for all of Church history, they should at least be consistent. The Oneness teaching on Baptism of the Holy Spirit is not consistent with the Oneness view of water baptism. If the baptism of the Holy Spirit brings salvation, and water baptism brings forgiveness of sins, how is it possible to have some people receiving the Spirit baptism (salvation) before their sins are forgiven (by water baptism)? And how is it possible for God to forgive someone's sins (by water baptism) and yet not give him or her the Holy Spirit (salvation)? This sort of thing happens all the time in Oneness churches. God gives his Spirit to people he doesn't forgive, and forgives people doesn't give his Spirit to. The Oneness teaching that tongues is the initial sign of receiving the Holy Spirit and therefore salvation, undermines the New Testament doctrine of salvation by grace. This teaching of the Oneness Adherents gives them the unique distinction of being the most unorthodox Pelagian movement in all of Church history. The reason is simple: in the Oneness teaching the only reason why one would not yet have "spoken in tongues' once they've been baptized is because either their faith is not strong enough or their lives are not "pure enough." So one finds "seekers" in Oneness churches pleading with God for the Holy Ghost trying hard to "purify them" and have enough faith in order to merit this "gift" of salvation. Never has a form of works righteousness been so blatant -- and psychologically tormenting! The biblical teaching is that salvation is for free, by grace, and that even our faith is a result of the Holy Spirit's working (Eph. 2:8, Titus 3:5). A source for my response is THE ONENESS PENTECOSTAL VIEW OF SALVATION by Gregory A. Boyd Phd. www.focusonthefaulty.com/Pages/oneness.html
|
|
|
Post by kjammer on Oct 24, 2007 16:11:30 GMT -5
The bible never says that there is a trinity either. When we study the bible about tongues we will find that Paul said that when the gift of tongues is being spoken it must be by two or three and then it must be interpreted. We know that the evidence of tongues and the gift of tongues is different because on the day of pentecost more than three spoke them, 120 to be exact. If 120 spoke in tongues on the day of pentecost and Paul said that the gift of tongues were to be spoken by two or three with an interpreter then how can they not be different. As for Gregory Boyd, please read this. web.archive.org/web/20041016002640/http://www.mikeblume.com/drysd1a.htm
|
|
|
Post by yodasprodigy on Oct 25, 2007 7:06:25 GMT -5
Question 1 YP to KJ
Since Acts does not identify a second kind of Tongues in the Corinthian Church, using the Original Greek, please demonstrate that there are two different kinds of Tongues. Compare the Acts 2 passage with the 1 Corinthians passage. Please explain the context using expert sources such as A.T. Roberts, Dan Wallace, and/or BDAG.
|
|
|
Post by yodasprodigy on Oct 25, 2007 7:06:50 GMT -5
Question 2 YP to KJ
Please use Early Church Fathers’ writings to prove that Tongues was the ONLY sign to prove the filling of the Spirit. If this is true, you should be able to find writings all the way up to the point that the so-called apostasy took place.
|
|
|
Post by yodasprodigy on Oct 25, 2007 7:07:40 GMT -5
Question 3 YP to KJ
Scripture says, “The gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church”, it would seem that people would regularly be filled with the Spirit after conversion. Tongues would have not nearly disappeared for most of the last 1600 years. Either, there were very little conversions to the true Christ for the last 1600 years, and/or Tongues is not necessary to prove one’s salvation.
Please demonstrate that Tongues consistently moved across Christendom for the past 1600 years or prove that there were very few salvations.
|
|
|
Post by kjammer on Oct 31, 2007 10:30:27 GMT -5
Question 1 YP to KJ Since Acts does not identify a second kind of Tongues in the Corinthian Church, using the Original Greek, please demonstrate that there are two different kinds of Tongues. Compare the Acts 2 passage with the 1 Corinthians passage. Please explain the context using expert sources such as A.T. Roberts, Dan Wallace, and/or BDAG. First of all, Roberts, Wallace, and BDAG are experts in your eyes. In my eyes they are nothing. You have the right to believe who are experts as well as I do. Therefore I cannot and will not use the so-called expert sources you have named. I only need one document to tell me that the evidence of tongues is different then the gift of tongues and its the bible. You must prove that the tongues spoken on the day of pentecost is the same as the gift of tongues. My bible tells me that the gift of tongues must be spoken by two or three with an interpretation. On the day of pentecost 120 people spoke in tongues, thats way more than 2 or 3 and there was no interpretation. Please explain why this is.
|
|
|
Post by kjammer on Oct 31, 2007 10:34:34 GMT -5
Question 2 YP to KJ Please use Early Church Fathers’ writings to prove that Tongues was the ONLY sign to prove the filling of the Spirit. If this is true, you should be able to find writings all the way up to the point that the so-called apostasy took place. Let me save alot of time here. Those that you call early church fathers, I do not call early church fathers. Not one early church father was a trinitarian. I can post alot of material from the real early church fathers but you would just deny it.
|
|
|
Post by kjammer on Oct 31, 2007 10:41:36 GMT -5
Question 3 YP to KJ Scripture says, “The gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church”, it would seem that people would regularly be filled with the Spirit after conversion. Tongues would have not nearly disappeared for most of the last 1600 years. Either, there were very little conversions to the true Christ for the last 1600 years, and/or Tongues is not necessary to prove one’s salvation. Please demonstrate that Tongues consistently moved across Christendom for the past 1600 years or prove that there were very few salvations. There was very little conversions. The catholic church killed anyone who held to the true teachings of christ. Writings were destroyed because the catholic church changed the truth to a lie. There were still oneness believers but not many. If you were caught teaching anythin g but what the catholic church taught then you were killed. I have books upon books about the early church and how the catholic church destroyed everything, but you will refuse to listen. You will not believe it.
|
|
|
Post by kjammer on Nov 10, 2007 10:29:09 GMT -5
Question 1.
Amonst trinitarian churches there is so many differences on doctrinal teaching of tongues. Some believe it and amongst many denominational churches few believe in tongues at all. Some say that one can get it today, some say it is gibberish and others say it is of the devil. Who amongst all you false teachers are right?
|
|