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.

Speaking in Uknown Tongues


Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I've heard many Baptist pastors, including some IFBs, when addressing the topic of speaking in unknown tongues, say that the use of "unknown tongues" is a mistranslation. (1 Corinthians 14:2) They argue that the translators of the KJB were wrong to add the word "unknown". Some even argue this mistranslation (what they call it) in the KJB is the reason the speaking in tongues movement got started.

I understand the point of their argument, but if they insist this is an error in the KJB on the translators part wouldn't that have to mean the KJB isn't entirely accurate? Admittedly, some of the Baptist pastors aren't KJO, but some of them are, which makes the use of this argument even more confusing (how can they claim the KJB is the perfect Word of God yet claim there is a mistranslation in it?).

My question is, how do we best address what they say about this matter?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Perhaps I look at it too simply...I don't know.

I know there are folks who believe the translators were inspired to include the extra words that they did; however, I personally don't believe that. Like all italicized words in the KJB, the word "unknown" was added by the translators to help clarify what was being said when there wasn't an actual (or adequate) English word to translate with from the Greek/Hebrew. Otherwise, it would have just been speaking in a tongue (language)...and everyone speaks a language. This was obviously referencing a supernatural ability to speak in a language previously unknown and unlearned by the speaker, and since the translators included "unknown", the meaning is clear. 

In their effort to translate God's word as accurately as possible, they added the italicized words...MAKING IT KNOWN...that those certain words were added by them and weren't part of the manuscripts they translated from. 

I think it's a far reach to try and bring down the KJB by attacking an italicized word for that very reason (in my view).

I also think it's a far reach to attack the KJB because certain denominations twist the meaning of scripture. Blame the Bible instead of the people who twist it? Blame the Bible instead of the people who didn't study the Bible to see what it actually means?

By the way, there's plenty of "tongue-speakers" who don't use the KJB today...but I guess it's still the KJB's fault.  :nuts:  I guess the MVs get a pass even though they're still speaking in "unknown" tongues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

This is how the error of modern day unknown tongues has always been explained from the pulpit of any IFB Baptist church I have ever attended.

1 Corinthians 13:8-10 (KJV)
8  Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
9  For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10  But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. 

The "That which is perfect is come" is NOT Jesus.  He had already of course come and was now siting at the right hand of God.  What only other perfect thing did they NOT have yet in the Corinthian church?  A complete perfect word of God in translatable print, they could only preach that which is in part from what parchments they had or from Paul's preaching.  Once the perfect and preserved printed word was made available, which could then be translated into all languages, then the need for prophesiers to speak in unknown tongues would pass away. 

If someone were marooned in a area completely cut off from all civilization and populated solely by people who spoke in a tongue unknown to him (sounds like a reality show plot) I believe that God could and would according to His will, give that preacher the REAL unknown tongues gift to be able to preach to those peoples. 

Bro. Garry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

NN,

Thank you for your response. My main concern was with regards to the tongues issue, in how we can better address the tongues issue without going about it the way these preachers are, but also to the points you addressed as well.

The preachers I was speaking of were not attempting to attack the KJB, they were attempting to address the matter of tongues being human languages the speakers didn't know rather than an "unknown tongue", as in speaking an unknown language (not English, Russian, Korean, etc.).

I'll have to give more thought on the italics aspect you brought up. In many cases I've wondered why they added the italic word since the sentence would have flowed well and with the same meaning without the italic word. At the same time, there are places where something did need to be added. Be that as it may, there are enough italic words in the KJB that if a person could argue the italic words are not a part of the perfect preserved Word of God, they could claim the KJB to be full of extraneous stuff or error. That would call into question the validity of the KJB since in many cases the italic words have a direct impact upon our understanding and interpretation.

These preachers refer to the Greek and claim it's obvious the KJB translators should have wrote something along the lines of speaking another language (I can't recall their actual wording) rather than saying "unknown" which they contend confuses people into believing the language they spoke was not a known human language, but some unknown to humans language. Which, they say, is where some get the idea of a "heavenly language" or a "prayer language" and such.

To be clear, as far as I can tell, none of the ones I've heard speak on this were in any way attempting to denounce or discredit the KJB. As I pointed out above, some of them are KJO pastors. Even so, it would seem to me their attempt to deal with the "unknown tongues" matter in the way they do does open the door for others to question, or worse, the KJB.

Back to what I intended the main question to be, how do we properly address the "unknown tongues" matter and also address the way these pastors have chosen to address it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

 

Word Origin and History for un-known

adj. c.1300, "strange, unfamiliar" (of persons, places), from un- (1) "not" + past participle of know. Cf. Old English ungecnawen. In reference to facts, attested from early 14c. The noun meaning "unknown person" is recorded from 1590s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Word Origin and History for tongue

n. Old English tunge "organ of speech, speech, language," from Proto-Germanic *tungon (cf. Old Saxon and Old Norse tunga, Old Frisian tunge, Middle Dutch tonghe, Dutch tong, Old High German zunga, German Zunge, Gothic tuggo), from PIE *dnghwa- (cf. Latin lingua "tongue, speech, language," from Old Latin dingua ; Old Irish tenge, Welsh tafod, Lithuanian liezuvis, Old Church Slavonic jezyku). For substitution of -o- for -u-, see come. The spelling of the ending of the word apparently is a 14c. attempt to indicate proper pronunciation, but the result is "neither etymological nor phonetic, and is only in a very small degree historical" [OED]. Meaning "foreign language" is from 1530s. Tongue-tied is first recorded 1520s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

This is how the error of modern day unknown tongues has always been explained from the pulpit of any IFB Baptist church I have ever attended.

1 Corinthians 13:8-10 (KJV)
8  Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
9  For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10  But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. 

The "That which is perfect is come" is NOT Jesus.  He had already of course come and was now siting at the right hand of God.  What only other perfect thing did they NOT have yet in the Corinthian church?  A complete perfect word of God in translatable print, they could only preach that which is in part from what parchments they had or from Paul's preaching.  Once the perfect and preserved printed word was made available, which could then be translated into all languages, then the need for prophesiers to speak in unknown tongues would pass away. 

If someone were marooned in a area completely cut off from all civilization and populated solely by people who spoke in a tongue unknown to him (sounds like a reality show plot) I believe that God could and would according to His will, give that preacher the REAL unknown tongues gift to be able to preach to those peoples. 

Bro. Garry

​I've heard several IFB pastors preach this too. However, I've also heard just as many preach that these verses are referring to the return of Christ and the establishment of His Kingdom on earth.

There was a missionary in China who spent years there and couldn't learn the language. He was about to give up when there was some disturbance and as he went forward to speak to the crowd he suddenly realized he was speaking fluent Chinese (I don't recall the specific dialect). If I recall correctly, this was in the 19th or early 20th century. I read this in a Baptist publication many years ago but have been unable to find out anything about this since. If anyone knows of this, please fill in the details.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The King James says that God's word is "very pure", and that He will "preserve them", I just believe He did what He said He did: He gave us the perfect, pure, preserved and accurate word in the King James. I don't believe that he INSPIRED the KJ translators, but I believe that His providence made sure they translated it accurately, italics and all. BTW, I know a lot of Pentecostal folks who use the King James. I wish all Baptists did too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

John,

As heartstrings pointed out, "tongue" meant "language" when the KJB was translated. The word "language" is only used one time in the New Testament, and it's a completely different Greek word than what "tongue" is translated from. The translators were correct to add "unknown" under the circumstances in which it was used. Why didn't they use the word "language"? As I said, it's a completely different word. Both Greek words are referring to a language, but the word "tongue" carries the meaning of an unknown "language". The translators were only being as exact as possible. 

Why are these preachers not studying their Bibles to see why the word was included instead of attacking why it was included? If the translators had used the word "language" instead of "tongue", it wouldn't have been an accurate translation. There's an obvious difference between the two words. The one time that the word "language" is used, the Greek word just means "dialect". Where "tongue" is used, the Greek word means "other-tongued, i.e. a foreigner". Big difference. Everyone has a dialect. Not everyone can speak in a foreign language. 

It's not that hard to study a little and find out what words meant when the KJB was translated...it might open their eyes to the superiority of the KJB instead of wanting to be lazy and be spoon-fed a MV:coverlaugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

My question is, how do we best address what they say about this matter?

 

Use the argument you believe to be the truth and address them directly, one on one, by letter or email if face to face isn't available. Then you share the real or perceived concern with a brother. After that you have to present your evidence before the church (in this case us). This is the proper way for you to respond to a brother who is in error or you believe to be in error, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

John,

As heartstrings pointed out, "tongue" meant "language" when the KJB was translated. The word "language" is only used one time in the New Testament, and it's a completely different Greek word than what "tongue" is translated from. The translators were correct to add "unknown" under the circumstances in which it was used. Why didn't they use the word "language"? As I said, it's a completely different word. Both Greek words are referring to a language, but the word "tongue" carries the meaning of an unknown "language". The translators were only being as exact as possible. 

Why are these preachers not studying their Bibles to see why the word was included instead of attacking why it was included? If the translators had used the word "language" instead of "tongue", it wouldn't have been an accurate translation. There's an obvious difference between the two words. The one time that the word "language" is used, the Greek word just means "dialect". Where "tongue" is used, the Greek word means "other-tongued, i.e. a foreigner". Big difference. Everyone has a dialect. Not everyone can speak in a foreign language. 

It's not that hard to study a little and find out what words meant when the KJB was translated...it might open their eyes to the superiority of the KJB instead of wanting to be lazy and be spoon-fed a MV:coverlaugh:

In the 1560 Geneva they used "strange", and "diverse", where the KJB uses "unknown"; and different forms of the word 'language' instead of forms of 'tongue', (amongst using the word "tongues" also).

Now, using that may point out to some here the errors of the 1560, yet it does point out the accuracy of what some of you here believe about the meanings discussed.

I hope no offense taken. Just wanting to show support from other men of God who happened to be translators.

By the way, the word "strange" means "of another country; foreign; alien."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Witnessing to others I sometimes feel as if I'm speaking in an unknown tongue.

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

"Unknown" from the point of view of the speaker.  The context was uneducated Jews speaking a language that they were never taught.  In context, it was a (partial) fulfillment of Joel's prophecy.  Complete fulfillment takes place during the Tribulation, when the entire earth (all dialects/languages) will be preached the Gospel in their own dialect/language, down to the smallest tribe,,, by Jewish (Hebrew) evangelists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators

Isn't it interesting to realize that there was no real question of what "unknown tongue" meant until the Charismatic movement became so popular?

We've always taught that it simply means a language not known by most people present.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

My wife has accused me of this in the past. From another room, she has said words to the effect of, "What did you say, I couldn't understand you?" Granted their was no profanity but, if she couldn't interpret it I was not about to translate for her...not on my life ;)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

John,

If I may attempt to shed a little more light on the "unknown" aspect of your question. As NN said, the word used for tongue here (glossa) referred axiomatically to a language but also carried the connotation speaking in a language that was not one's native language. Culturally, "unknown" is bound up in the word itself. When you rewind to Acts 2 where the first instance of speaking in tongues is found, a different word is used--dialektos, from which we get dialect--that was usually accompanied by a region or ethnic group that specified the origin of the language. Thus, dialektos implied a language of known origin whereas glossa implied a language of unknown origin from the perspective of the speaker/writer. That is to say, they refer to actual language spoken by existing people/people groups.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I've heard many Baptist pastors, including some IFBs, when addressing the topic of speaking in unknown tongues, say that the use of "unknown tongues" is a mistranslation. (1 Corinthians 14:2) They argue that the translators of the KJB were wrong to add the word "unknown". Some even argue this mistranslation (what they call it) in the KJB is the reason the speaking in tongues movement got started.

I understand the point of their argument, but if they insist this is an error in the KJB on the translators part wouldn't that have to mean the KJB isn't entirely accurate? Admittedly, some of the Baptist pastors aren't KJO, but some of them are, which makes the use of this argument even more confusing (how can they claim the KJB is the perfect Word of God yet claim there is a mistranslation in it?).

My question is, how do we best address what they say about this matter?

 

​The context within  2 Corinthians confirms that unknown is accurate.  Look at verses 5 through 20.  there are words and phrases such as interpret, uncertain, easy to be understood, distinction, how shall it be known, signification, know not meaning of  the voice, barbarian, understanding, edify, unfruitful etc, that backs up the word unknown.

1 Corinthians 14 :5  I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

1 Corinthians 14 :6  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?

1 Corinthians 14 :7 And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped?

1 Corinthians 14 :8 For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?

1 Corinthians 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.

1 Corinthians 14 :10  There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification.

1 Corinthians 14 :11 Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.

1 Corinthians 14 :12 Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.

1 Corinthians 14 :13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.

1 Corinthians 14 :14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

1 Corinthians 14 :15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

1 Corinthians 14 :16 Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?

1 Corinthians 14 :17 For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.

1 Corinthians 14 :18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:

1 Corinthians 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.

1 Corinthians 14 :20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Baptist, by and large, have abandoned any proper teaching about the Holy Spirit due to the over-reaction against the Charismatics (beginning with the "Foursquare").  I learned to proper teaching concerning the Holy Spirit through the ministry of Campus Crusade for Christ.  Baptists, by and large, consider teaching about the H.S. to be somewhat "spooky" due to the "tongues" issue.  "Tongues" were for a sign to the Sect of the Nazarenes, headed by Peter, and in fulfillment of Joel's prophecy.  Consider the many references that the Apostle to the Gentiles (Paul) makes concerning "walking in the Spirit" and being "spiritually minded".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

That's incredibly unbiblical. 

  1. Acts 2:5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. 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. This was so they could hear the preaching and be born again. Men couldn't learn all of those languages in the 50 days from Passover to Shavuot. 
  2. Acts 24:2 For we have found this man (Saul/Paul) a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes: 3 Who also hath gone about to profane the temple: whom we took, and would have judged according to our law. John 19:19 And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS. That's not Peter that is Paul. Christianity isn't a sect. Tertullus was lost and the devil was using him to accuse Paul of being evil, by preaching Jesus to Jews. That's why they had him in Jewish Court.  
  3. This is replacement theology. That the gentiles have replaced the Jews. The Church was established for the Jews. Gentiles have not replaced the Jews, we are only allowed to join in.  
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...