Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

    • By Jim_Alaska in Jim_Alaska's Sermons & Devotionals
         14
      Closed Communion
      James Foley
       
      I Corinthians 11:17-34: "Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come."

      INTRODUCTION

      Historic Baptists, true Baptists, have believed in and still believe in closed communion. Baptists impose upon themselves the same restrictions that they impose on others concerning the Lord’s Supper. Baptists have always insisted that it is the Lord’s Table, not theirs; and He alone has the right to say who shall sit at His table. No amount of so called brotherly love, or ecumenical spirit, should cause us to invite to His table those who have not complied with the requirements laid down plainly in His inspired Word. With respect to Bible doctrines we must always use the scripture as our guide and practice. For Baptists, two of the most important doctrines are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper. These are the only two doctrines we recognize as Church Ordinances. The Bible is very clear in teaching how these doctrines are to be practiced and by whom.

      We only have two ordinances that we must never compromise or we risk our very existence, they are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper.

      The moment we deviate from the precise method God has prescribed we have started down the slippery slope of error. True Baptists have held fast to the original doctrine of The Lord’s Supper from the time of Christ and the Apostles.

      Unfortunately, in this day of what the Bible describes as the age of luke warmness, Baptists are becoming careless in regard to strictly following the pattern laid out for us in Scripture. Many of our Bible colleges are graduating otherwise sincere, Godly and dedicated pastors and teachers who have not been taught the very strict, biblical requirements that surround the Lord’s Supper. Any Bible college that neglects to teach its students the differences surrounding Closed Communion, Close Communion and Open Communion is not simply short changing its students; it is also not equipping their students to carry on sound Bible traditions. The result is men of God and churches that fall into error. And as we will see, this is serious error.

      Should we as Baptists ignore the restrictions made by our Lord and Master? NO! When we hold to the restrictions placed upon the Lord’s Supper by our Master, we are defending the "faith which was once delivered to the saints" Jude 3.

      The Lord’s Supper is rigidly restricted and I will show this in the following facts:

      IT IS RESTRICTED AS TO PLACE

      A. I Corinthians 11:18 says, "When ye come together in the church." This does not mean the church building; they had none. In other words, when the church assembles. The supper is to be observed by the church, in church capacity. Again this does not mean the church house. Ekklesia, the Greek word for church, means assembly. "When ye come together in the church," is when the church assembles.

      B. When we say church we mean an assembly of properly baptized believers. Acts 2:41-42: "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."

      The church is made up of saved people who are baptized by immersion. In the Bible, belief precedes baptism. That’s the Bible way.

      Acts 8:12-13, "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done."

      When we say properly baptized, we mean immersed. No unbeliever should take the Lord’s supper, and no non-immersed believer should take the supper. Those who are sprinkled are not baptized and cannot receive the supper. The Greek word for baptize is baptizo, and it always means to immerse.

      "In every case where communion is referred to, or where it may possibly have been administered, the believers had been baptized Acts 2:42; 8:12; 8:38; 10:47; 6:14-15; 18:8; 20:7. Baptism comes before communion, just as repentance and faith precede baptism".

      C. The Lord’s Supper is for baptized believers in church capacity: "When ye come together in the church," again not a building, but the assembly of the properly baptized believers.

      D. The fact that the Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, to be observed in church capacity, is pointed out by the fact that it is for those who have been immersed and added to the fellowship of the church.

      E. The Lord’s Supper is never spoken of in connection with individuals. When it is referred to, it is only referred to in reference to baptized believers in local church capacity I Cor. 11:20-26).

      I want to quote Dr. W.W. Hamilton,

      "The individual administration of the ordinance has no Bible warrant and is a relic of Romanism. The Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, and anything which goes beyond or comes short of this fails for want of scriptural example or command".

      “The practice of taking a little communion kit to hospitals, nursing homes, etc. is unscriptural and does not follow the scriptural example.”

      IT IS RESTRICTED TO A UNITED CHURCH

      A. The Bible in I Cor. 11:18 is very strong in condemning divisions around the Lord’s table. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
      19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
      20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

      There were no less than four divisions in the Corinthian church.
      I Cor. 1:12: "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ."

      Because of these divisions, it was impossible for them to scripturally eat the Lord’s Supper. Division in the local church is reason to hold off observing the Lord’s Supper. But there are also other reasons to forego taking the Lord’s Supper. If there is gross sin in the membership we do not take it. Here is scriptural evidence for this: 1Co 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us:
      8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
      10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

      B. At this point, I want to ask these questions: Are there not doctrinal divisions among the many denominations? Is it not our doctrinal differences that cause us to be separate religious bodies?

      IT IS RESTRICTED BY DOCTRINE

      A. Those in the early church at Jerusalem who partook "continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine" Acts 2:42. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

      B. Those that do not hold to apostolic truth are not to partake. This means there is to be discipline in the local body. How can you discipline those who do not belong to the local body? You can’t. The clear command of scripture is to withdraw fellowship from those who are not doctrinally sound.

      II Thes 3:6: "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."
      Rom. 16:17: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."
      To commune together means to have the same doctrine.
      II Thes. 2:15: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."
      II John 10-11: "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."

      C. Some Baptists in our day have watered down this doctrine by practicing what they call “Close Communion.” By this they mean that they believe that members of another Baptist church may take communion with us because they are of the same beliefs. Once again, this is unscriptural.

      The welcome to the Lord's Table should not be extended beyond the discipline of the local church. When we take the Lord’s Supper there is supposed to be no gross sin among us and no divisions among us. We have no idea of the spiritual condition of another church’s members. If there is sin or division in the case of this other church’s members, we have no way of knowing it. We cannot discipline them because they are not members of our church. This is why we practice “Closed” communion, meaning it is restricted solely to our church membership. 
      So then, in closing I would like to reiterate the three different ideas concerning the Lord’s Supper and who is to take it. 
      Closed Communion = Only members of a single local church. 
      Close Communion = Members of like faith and order may partake. 
      Open Communion = If you claim to be a Christian, or simply attending the service, you may partake. 
      It is no small thing to attempt to change that which was implemented by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 
      Mt. 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. 
      Many of our Baptist churches have a real need to consider the gravity of the act of observing The Lord’s Supper. It is not a light thing that is to be taken casually or without regard to the spiritual condition of ourselves or our church.
      1Co. 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

       28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

       29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

       30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

Gift Of Tongues


Left the Bldg

Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

One of the biggest things about this subject is that there is NO BIBLICAL EXAMPLE of universal tongues.
That means that anyone who says tongues is a sign of salvation (that is probably 95% or more that I have met) is clearly adding to salvation or security.
At most, those promoting tongue speaking could allow a few only that gift, and only if they ignore all other arguments here already.

But there is no Biblical way every Christian could have this gift.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

 

 

 

Face to face is just a rhetorical expression to express clarity. I can a general idea of what you look like from your picture, but I wouldn't really know all the details unless we were talking face to face. I know in part what you look like, but if we were face to face I would know what you looked like as much as you know what I looked like. Without Scripture we only know about God in part, but with His Word before we can know Him the same as people can know us. That's the general idea behind it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Sometimes I choose not to discuss this issue with charismatics unless they specifically ask me.

 

That's a good strategy. It's such a personal thing for them because they define their faith by experience and they are certain that their experience of ecstatic utterance is evidence of the Holy Spirit.  It'd be like walking up to a Catholic and tell him/her that praying to Mary is wrong. They have to be open to listening first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

I dated a girl from a Pentecostal church, who insisted that, if I spent two weeks sincerely asking the Lord for tongues, I would speak them. So I took her up on her challenge, and for two weeks, every day, I prayed sincerely and honestly for the Lord to give me the gift of tongues IF it was His will for me to have them, and that I might be able to better glorify Him through their use.

 

Guess what happened? Nothing. No tongues. She said I just didn't have faith-the standard reply. She just never thought to seek it according to God's will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Face to face is just a rhetorical expression to express clarity. I can a general idea of what you look like from your picture, but I wouldn't really know all the details unless we were talking face to face. I know in part what you look like, but if we were face to face I would know what you looked like as much as you know what I looked like. Without Scripture we only know about God in part, but with His Word before we can know Him the same as people can know us. That's the general idea behind it.

I look as good face to face as I do in my pic.  Bwahahah!  Just a joke. Tee hee hee...ha ha ha.  ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I dated a girl from a Pentecostal church, who insisted that, if I spent two weeks sincerely asking the Lord for tongues, I would speak them. So I took her up on her challenge, and for two weeks, every day, I prayed sincerely and honestly for the Lord to give me the gift of tongues IF it was His will for me to have them, and that I might be able to better glorify Him through their use.

 

Guess what happened? Nothing. No tongues. She said I just didn't have faith-the standard reply. She just never thought to seek it according to God's will.

I went to AOG for 20 yrs and spoke in tongues.  Of course, I don't practice that now and haven't for years.  I also thought it was evidence of having the HS. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I look as good face to face as I do in my pic. Bwahahah! Just a joke. Tee hee hee...ha ha ha. ;-)


Well, I don't look any worse face to face, but then it is hard to get worse than this.... :lol:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

 

Plus, there's also the problem with the fact that the Bible is clear that the gift of tongues wasn't given to every member of the body.

 

1 Corinthians 12:4-11
4   Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
5   And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.
6   And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.
7   But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
8   For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;
9   To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;
10    To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:
11   But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.
 
 
1 Corinthians 12:28-31
28   And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
29   Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?
30   Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?
31   But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.
 
However, the Pentecostals/Charismatics seem to believe that ALL can and should speak in tongues...a direct contradiction to God's word.  Some even take it to the point that speaking in tongues is proof of salvation; thereby, implying that if you're truly saved, you will speak in tongues...which would mean that God would violate his holy word in giving that one particular gift to every member.

 

Most do seem to hold to such an idea though I've known some Pentecostals who don't.

 

Two friends many years ago adopted the belief that speaking in tongues was a proof of salvation. They became so dogmatic about that, and so accusing of all who didn't speak in tongues that it led to separation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

John, I agree that there are these exceptional instances from time to time, but they are not the norm, and we are never told to seek after these miraculous gifts.  I think that is what separates the Bible Believer from the Charismatic.

 

It is not that we don't believe God could not empower somebody to "speak in another tongue" (i.e. a known language that somebody else present understands), or that God could not empower us to pray over a sick person and then they miraculously recover.  It is that we make the Bible our final authority, and fully trust in God's power to help us in the present moment, crisis, or situation. 

The Charismatic purposefully goes out of his way to try to get these "gifts" and then they abuse these "gifts" (if they truly have them at all.)  They boast of their "gifts" and do not use them for the edification of others. 

The Bible Believer relies upon the power of God through the preaching of the word.  The man in China is a great example - he did not try to speak in tongues, he did what he needed to in the moment, and God did something greater than he imagined.

Agreed, and very well stated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I dated a girl from a Pentecostal church, who insisted that, if I spent two weeks sincerely asking the Lord for tongues, I would speak them. So I took her up on her challenge, and for two weeks, every day, I prayed sincerely and honestly for the Lord to give me the gift of tongues IF it was His will for me to have them, and that I might be able to better glorify Him through their use.

 

Guess what happened? Nothing. No tongues. She said I just didn't have faith-the standard reply. She just never thought to seek it according to God's will.

Went down that road many years ago too, minus the dating of a Pentecostal girl!

 

In my situation, afterwards and there being no tongues speaking, those who had asked me to pray about it said that I had showed a lack of faith by say "if" when I had prayed. Like you, I prayed that IF it was His will for me to speak in tongues to His glory and honour then I was willing.

 

At least these Pentecostals still accepted me as a brother in Christ and didn't demand speaking in tongues as a proof of salvation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I want give you a long drawn out post. only some quick thoughts to think on, I think that tongues was real languages, & real languages only.

 

1Co 9:26 I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air:

 

Paul stated he was not as one that beateth the air. That he did not speak into the air. Sad, many are air beaters, & speak only into the air & that's about all their gibberish talking is good for, beating the air, & no one knowing what has been said.

 

Some verses to meditate on.

 

1Co 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.
 
1Co 14:4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
 
1Co 14:9 So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.
 
1Co 14:14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
 
1Co 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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Acts 2:

Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?

And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

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.

12 And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?

13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.

 

When I have heard so-called "speaking in tongues" I have heard meaningless gibberish. And the occasional attempts at interpretation have fallen short of Scriptural admonition. In fact I have felt in my spirit that this is NOT the Holy Spirit of God, & that I do not belong in that company.

 

At Pentecost, the hearers either heard in our tongues the wonderful works of God or drunken babbling - that the mockers heard.

 

If the believers present today only hear what sounds meaningless babbling. how can the Holy Spirit be speaking, & how can the hearers judge what is being said?

 

The point was made early on that tongues were particularly a sign for the unbelieving Jews. 1 Cor. 14:21 quoting Isaiah 28:11 ff. The natural understanding of Isaiah is a foreign, Gentile language, because the Jews refuse the clear word of the LORD. God's dealings with the rebellious Jews was coming to an end - before the passing of the generation that rejected its Messiah. (Mat. 24) That is dated at AD 70. "Tongues" as a Pentecostal gift then ceased - the Apostolic age was ended, though I think no-one would deny the possibility of extraordinary communication between people who could not normally understand each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I am looking for advice and explanations on these verses from a Baptist perspective.  Please no articles or sermons.  I would like dialogue and discussion.  These are the verses charismatics use as explanation for speaking in tongues today.  

 

1 Corinthians 13

 

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.  What language does angels speak?  

 

10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.  When was it done away?

 

1 Corinthians 14

 

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.  Why speak in an unknown tongue to God?  Why not speak in your own language?

 

He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; How does this edify oneself if they don't know what they are saying? 

 

Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?  Why come speaking in tongues rather than a known language?

 

14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.  Why pray in an unknown tongue?  What does it mean his spirit is praying?

 

22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, if tongues are a sign to unbelievers, why pray in tongues other than in church with interpretation?  Why does v2 say that he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men but yet this verse says it is a sign for unbelievers? but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

 

Thanks in advance for any replies.

 

1) Perhaps Hebrew (Rev. 19:4).

 

2) The common teaching is that which is perfect is the word of God (some say it's the resurrection) but in the context of what Paul was writing and also Colossians 3:14 I believe that which is perfect is "charity". The Corinthians had all the sign gifts but no charity. Paul basically was saying that once charity came they wouldn't need tongues and prophesy to edify one another.

 

3) Praying or speaking in an unknown tongue was a sign primarily to the Jews (I Cor. 1:22) that it was a work of God (Isaiah 28:11; I Cor. 14:21; Acts 2:4-11) though apparently it could be for any unbeliever (I Cor. 14:22-25). Verses 11 and 14 should make it clear that unknown tongues in this chapter are human languages not known to the hearers.

 

4) They're understanding is edified only if there is an interpreter but apparently their spirit could be edified even if there wasn't an interpreter because their spirit is praying to God. 

 

5) Again, praying or speaking in tongues (i.e. and unknown language) was a sign to unbelievers, particularly the Jew (Acts 2:4-11).

 

6) A person's spirit praying probably has something to do with the intercessory work of the Holy Spirit as mentioned in Romans 8:26.

 

7) He that speaks in an unknown tongue speaks not to men if there is no one to interpret what they are saying. If there is an interpreter than he is speaking to men, i.e unbelievers, and thus it would be a sign to unbelievers as in Acts 2 (though those folks didn't need an interpreter). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

I went to AOG for 20 yrs and spoke in tongues.  Of course, I don't practice that now and haven't for years.  I also thought it was evidence of having the HS. 

I'm curious: what caused you to turn? After all, the big stumbling block for many is that they have experienced it, thus, it MUST be real, they believe. It must be difficult to have to admit to having been duped for so long. I applaud your willingness to break away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I'm curious: what caused you to turn? After all, the big stumbling block for many is that they have experienced it, thus, it MUST be real, they believe. It must be difficult to have to admit to having been duped for so long. I applaud your willingness to break away.

I guess I realized that not everything we experience is from God.  So rather than base my belief on that experience, I put my belief in what the Bible says about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I guess I realized that not everything we experience is from God.  So rather than base my belief on that experience, I put my belief in what the Bible says about it.

:amen:  :amen:  :amen:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I guess I realized that not everything we experience is from God. So rather than base my belief on that experience, I put my belief in what the Bible says about it.


Amen!
We have a more sure word..... ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I guess I realized that not everything we experience is from God.  So rather than base my belief on that experience, I put my belief in what the Bible says about it.

 

Experiences can be good & helpful, yet the Bible is the truth, & as your doing, we should follow the Bible not our experiences.

 

I fear many follow their emotions more than they do the Bible truths.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I think I have mentioned this before, but it may have bearing on the subject.

 

We were at an open air meal at a Church in France.  They were celebrating the departure of their pastor and the arrival of the new pastor.  

 

There was a lady speaking in a language I didn't understand.  I asked a man who spoke English what language it was and he said "German."  I replied "It doesn't quite sound like German to me."  He said "It is Alsacienne."  I found out later it was his wife.  He said "I have a confession to make, I am German."  Then his wife started singing How Great Thou Art in Alsacienne, he sang it in German, the French sang it in French and my wife and I in English.  

 

To me, the other languages were unknown tongues.  To most of the others English was an unknown tongue.  I believe that tongues were actual languages.  Corinth was a seaport and  would have had mariners from many countries.  Someone speaking in his language would be unknown to his hearers, so he would be edifying himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I think I have mentioned this before, but it may have bearing on the subject.

 

We were at an open air meal at a Church in France.  They were celebrating the departure of their pastor and the arrival of the new pastor.  

 

There was a lady speaking in a language I didn't understand.  I asked a man who spoke English what language it was and he said "German."  I replied "It doesn't quite sound like German to me."  He said "It is Alsacienne."  I found out later it was his wife.  He said "I have a confession to make, I am German."  Then his wife started singing How Great Thou Art in Alsacienne, he sang it in German, the French sang it in French and my wife and I in English.  

 

To me, the other languages were unknown tongues.  To most of the others English was an unknown tongue.  I believe that tongues were actual languages.  Corinth was a seaport and  would have had mariners from many countries.  Someone speaking in his language would be unknown to his hearers, so he would be edifying himself.

 

Well said, Invicta.  When my mom was being spiritually drawn, we spoke about tongues in the Book of Acts.  She said the same thing.  She said they were actual languages, at that time, and do not exist now.  I thought this was very perceptive coming from a woman who was born and raised in the RCC.  She was a very wise woman.  She understood many scriptual passages without questioning them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 10 Guests (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
×
×
  • Create New...