Hierdie is die eerste keer dat hierstaanek ‘n oorspronklike Engelse artikel pos. Die rede is omdat ek die artikel in Engels geskryf het vir ‘n Engelse vriend. Die betoog: Moderne “Spreek in Tale” is sonde omdat dit nie in die Bybel is nie, daarom nie van die Heilige Gees is nie, en dus in die vlees is.
Basic principles.
The first is the pillar of the Reformation: Sola Scriptura. This means that the Bible is the infallible and inerrant word of God, it is authoritative, necessary, sufficient and clear. The Bible is therefore the only source of objective truth and the only standard of truth. God speaks to us through His Word, incarnated in Christ and written in the Bible. Since we believe that the canon of the Bible is closed, no “new revelation” may be added to the Bible and nothing may be subtracted from the Bible.
The Holy Spirit speaks to us through the text of the Bible. (1 Corinthians 1:22-24) We cannot fully understand and believe the text without the Spirit, and the Spirit never moves outside the bounds of the text. (Romans 10:17)
The second principle is the total depravity of man. In Romans 7 Paul states: “For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.” Please note that Paul refers to himself as a born again person, since somebody who is not born again does not want to abide by the law or please God. He states in Romans 3:10 “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands, no one seeks for God.”
In Jeremiah 17 we read: 7 “Blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord, whose trust is the Lord. 8 He is like a tree planted by water, that sends out its roots by the stream, and does not fear when heat comes, for its leaves remain green, and is not anxious in the year of drought, for it does not cease to bear fruit.” 9The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?”
What Jeremiah says here is that we cannot trusts our hearts, that is our emotions or experience. We have to trust God instead!
So what does this mean? Simply this: Our experience cannot be the standard of truth. While it is not unimportant, our experience has to be placed under the authority of Scriptures. Our experience has to be interpreted through the lens of Scriptures.
I have been in this debate many times before, and people who practise tongue speaking invariably come back to this argument: “I experience it, therefore it is true.” The Bible says that our experience cannot be trusted. Our interpretation of our experience cannot be trusted. The only trustworthy source of truth is the Holy Spirit as He reveals Christ to us in the Bible.
Therefore, if it is not in the Bible it is not of the Holy Spirit but of the flesh.
So what does the Bible teach?
My contention is that the Bible does not teach that the gift of languages has anything to do with unintelligible ecstatic utterances but that that it consists of real human languages, spoken by people who never learnt those languages before. Because they are real languages, they can be understood by real people, and can be translated into other, known languages.
Firstly, the dictionary meaning of the Greek word “glossa” (I do not know Greek, but Google does 🙂 ) According to the NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon :
- the tongue, a member of the body, an organ of speech
- The language or dialect used by a particular people distinct from that of other nations
Note that the Greek word “glossa” simply means “languages” when it does not refer to the physical tongue in your mouth. Nothing more, nothing less. The reason why translators still use the word “tongue” is out of reverence for the original King James translation, when the word “tongue” still meant “language” in the commonly spoken English language. Language changes, unfortunately Bible translators are often bound by tradition.
So now let us go to the Bible, verse by verse, and see what God says about it.
Mark 16:17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues [languages]
No conclusion can made be about what languages (or “glossa”) the disciples would speak, except that it would be “new”, that is, languages that they did not know before.
Acts 2:5 Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. 6And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language. 7And they were amazed and astonished, saying, “Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language?9Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia,10Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, 11both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians—we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God.” 12And all were amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, “What does this mean?” 13But others mocking said, “They are filled with new wine.”
It is clear that the disciples did not make funny speech-like sounds, but spoke in real languages that they did not know before, so that people present heard the gospel in their own “tongues”.
Acts 10:44While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. 45And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. 46For they were hearing them speaking in tongues [languages] and extolling God. Then Peter declared, 47“Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”
Acts11:15 As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning. 16And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?”
Peter says that Cornelius and his family received the same gift they did: In other words the gift of speaking in foreign languages they did not know before.
Acts19:1 And it happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the inland country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples. 2And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” 3And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John’s baptism.” 4And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” 5On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying. 7 There were about twelve men in all.
This is the only passage in the Bible where people spoke in languages where it is not specified that it was the same gift as what was given to the apostles at Pentecost. But there is no mention of any different type of language or “tongue” other than existing human languages here or anywhere in the book of Acts. It is therefore completely inappropriate to say that they did not speak real, existing human languages. To assume it is to add to the text of the Bible, and to say that it says what it simply does not.
With this in mind, one has to assume that when Paul uses the same word for languages, “glossa” in the book of 1 Corinthians, he means the same thing Luke did when he wrote Acts. Remember that Luke was a disciple of Paul, and wrote the book of Acts under Paul’s apostolic authority about 5 years after Paul wrote 1 Corinthians.
The burden of proof is therefore on the party who states that it was non-human languages to prove that Paul did not mean human languages in 1 Corinthians.
1 Corinthains 12:8 For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, 9to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, 10to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues [languages], to another the interpretation of tongues.
“Various kinds of languages”. Does this mean that Paul speaks here of unintelligible utterances? The text definitely does not say that, it simply says “various kinds of languages” Look again at the text in Acts 2:
Acts 2:8And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language?9Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia,10Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, 11both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians—we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God.”
Can you say with any degree of honesty that Acts 2:8-11 does not qualify as a list of “various kinds of languages”?
1 Corinthians 12:28 And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. 29Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?
It is often said that all believers should speak in tongues. Paul asks the rhetorical question here: “Do all speak with foreign languages?” The answer from the context is obviously “No.”
1 Corinthians 12:31 But earnestly desire the higher gifts. And I will show you a still more excellent way. 13:1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.
What are the tongues of angels?
To find out, we must first look at the point Paul wants to make: He will show us a better way, that of love. Love is better than speaking foreign languages, prophecy, understanding, knowledge and sacrifice. In fact, Paul says, love is so much better than these things that even if we could imagine the absolute perfect instances of them, love would still be better.
- “Understand all mysteries.” It is obvious that man who is finite cannot understand all mysteries. Understanding all mysteries is a non-transferable attribute of God. Only God who is infinite can understand all mysteries. Paul implies hypothetical perfection that is clearly beyond human capabilities in this life or the next.
- “All knowledge.” Again this is a non-transferable attribute of God. Only God has all knowledge.
- “All faith, to move mountains” Again the word “all” points to a hypothetical perfect faith.
- “If I deliver up my body to be burnt” presents the ultimate perfect sacrifice we can make in this life.
So what Paul here says is that even if, in the hypothetical situation, that we had God-like attributes in terms of knowledge, understanding, faith and sacrifice, but we had no love, we would still be nothing. Love is superior to all these things. Even if they were absolutely perfect, love would still be better.
So with that in mind, does Paul say here that there are people who speak with the languages of angels? Does he say that there are people with all understanding or knowledge? Obviously not!
But let’s say, for arguments sake, that some people do in fact speak the languages of angels. Would angels speak in real languages that communicate information or in a senseless repetition of sounds? There are many instances in the Bible where angels spoke to people, and they always used intelligible language!
Now read the rest of 1 Corinthians 13 to hear why Paul says that about love!
So, what was Paul’s problem with the Corinthians? He had quite a few problems with them, in fact, but the main problem was that they did not have love. They practised spiritual gifts in order to build their own egos, instead of to build up the body of Christ.
1 Corinthians 14:1 Pursue love, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy. 2For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit.
Who speaks in an unknown language does not speak to men but to God. So far in the Bible there has not been the slightest insinuation that “glossa” means anything but human languages. In the context of spiritual gifts, real human languages that people spoke but have not learnt before. That is, unknown, foreign but existing human languages. So what Paul say here is: If somebody speaks in a language that the congregation does not understand, he does not speak to other men, for only God understands what he says. What he says remains an absolute mystery to his hearers.
So why do these people speak in foreign languages that no one in the congregation understands?
3 On the other hand, the one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation.4The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophesies builds up the church.
“The one who speaks in languages builds himself up.” Paul does not speak here of people who speak languages in the privacy of their own homes, because he says “no one understands him”, so there is obviously an audience. So this is not some private spiritual edification that Paul speaks of here. Paul is reprimanding people who speak in foreign languages in order to show off. People who want other people to know they are special because they have received gifts others have not. People who “Build themselves up.”
Remember what Paul said in verse 1? “Pursue love!” Remember what Paul preaches in the previous chapter? You must have love! Now he says why he hammers so much on love: People use their spiritual gifts not for love, but to selfishly show off, instead of building up the church.
5Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be built up.
“I want you all to speak in languages” Does this mean everybody in the church should speak in languages? See what he says about being single:
1 Corinthians 7:6 Now as a concession, not a command, I say this. 7I wish that all were as I myself am. [Single] But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.
Does Paul say everybody in the church must be celibate? Obviously not. Some, like him, have received the gift of celibacy, others have received other gifts. The same goes for the gift of languages. Even though Paul would like all to speak in languages in an abstract way, the truth is that each one has his own gift of God. Paul says explicitly in the previous chapter that not everyone has the gift of languages!
And then he says that, when someone does speak in another language, it should be interpreted, so that the congregation may be edified, instead f the individual.
6 Now, brothers, if I come to you speaking in tongues, how will I benefit you unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching?
Paul says that if he speaks to them in languages they do not understand, he will be of no benefit to them, unless he also brings them a word from God they can understand.
7If even lifeless instruments, such as the flute or the harp, do not give distinct notes, how will anyone know what is played? 8And if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle? 9So with yourselves, if with your tongue you utter speech that is not intelligible, how will anyone know what is said? For you will be speaking into the air.
Even lifeless instruments should impart information, so what makes the Corinthians think that they can speak in languages no one understands and think it is useful? It is as useful as speaking to the air!
Paul really lays it on the Corinthians here, he does not mince his words!
10There are doubtless many different languages in the world, and none is without meaning, 11but if I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me.
“There are many different languages in the world, none is without meaning.” This is conclusive proof that Paul has been speaking about real, existing human languages all along. If you speak in one of these languages that I do not understand, you are like a foreigner to me, we cannot communicate!
12 So with yourselves, since you are eager for manifestations of the Spirit, strive to excel in building up the church.
Look at the word “So”. It means “Therefore!” The conclusion is, stop showing off! If you really want the gifts of the Spirit, start building up the church in love! (Read the previous chapter about love again!)
13Therefore, one who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret.
So if you speak in a foreign language, pray that you may interpret it also, so that you may build up the congregation.
14For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful.15What am I to do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will pray with my mind also; I will sing praise with my spirit, but I will sing with my mind also. 16 Otherwise, if you give thanks with your spirit, how can anyone in the position of an outsider say “Amen” to your thanksgiving when he does not know what you are saying?
This is one of the most misunderstood passages in the debate over the gift of languages. What exactly does he mean with “my mind is unfruitful?”
A few things must be kept in mind when explaining this text.
The first is that Paul says in two places clearly and explicitly that he is talking of existing human languages, and not meaningless utterances here. The first is in verse 10: “There are doubtless many different languages in the world, and none is without meaning, 11but if I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me.” The second is in verse 21: “In the Law it is written, “By people of strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners will I speak to this people, and even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord.” This rules out the idea that Paul means that the speaker does not know what he is saying. Paul’s whole discourse here is that the gift of languages is given by God for the purpose of communicating the gospel, not to make people look spiritual! How can I communicate in words that I do not understand?
The second thing that is important to note is that Paul is saying that “my mind is unfruitful” is not necessarily a good thing! If the “mind is unfruitful”, something has to be done about it! “What am I to do?” he asks. If it were a good thing if the mind was unfruitful, would he ask it?
Paul gives the answer to his own rhetorical question: “I will pray with my spirit, but I will pray with my mind also; I will sing praise with my spirit, but I will sing with my mind also.” We should not turn off our minds when we pray. We should pray with our spirits AND our minds. We should not turn off our minds when we worship in song. We should sing with our spirits AND our minds. This is part of what Jesus meant when he said to the woman at the well that we should worship God in spirit and in truth. Truth is knowledge, and can only be accessed through the mind. How can we worship in spirit AND truth if our minds are switched off?
The last thing that is important is that Paul is not talking about some personal devotional prayers here, he is talking about shared prayer in the congregation. “Otherwise, if you give thanks with your spirit, how can anyone in the position of an outsider say “Amen” to your thanksgiving when he does not know what you are saying?”
Please note the word “otherwise!”
Paul says that his mind must be fruitful “otherwise” the hearer will have no benefit of his prayer. So Paul says the “fruitfulness” of his mind is for the benefit of the hearer.
The meaning of “fruitful” according to the dictionary is:
fruitful (ˈfruːtfʊl) adj
- bearing fruit in abundance
- productive or prolific, esp in bearing offspring
- causing or assisting prolific growth
- producing results or profits: a fruitful discussion.
I highlighted the last meaning from the dictionary, since it is relevant here: Paul wants his mind to “produce results or profits.” What are the “results or profits” he wants his mind to produce? “Otherwise, if you give thanks with your spirit, how can anyone in the position of an outsider say “Amen” to your thanksgiving when he does not know what you are saying?” He answers this question very clearly: The results he wants his mind to produce is the participation of his hearer in his prayer!
Let me say this again for emphasis: The “fruit” he wants his mind to produce is the participation of his hearer in his prayer so that his hearer may be built up!
When Paul prays in a foreign language his hearers do not understand, his mind does not produce the necessary result in his audience, because they cannot say “Amen to his prayer.”
17 For you may be giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not being built up.
So when the speaker speaks in a language his hearers do not understand, his prayer makes perfect sense to himself (“For you may be giving thanks well enough”) but the congregation is not built up.
18 I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. 19 Nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue.
This text is seen by many as proof that Paul used the gift of languages as a “private prayer language”. So it is said that all Christians should have a “private prayer language” The text actually says absolutely nothing of the sort. All Paul says is that he seldom uses the gift when he speaks in church. He does not say he uses it as a private prayer language at home!
So where does he use it? He gives the answer explicitly in verse 22: “Thus tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers”
Now tell me honestly: What good is “a sign for unbelievers” if it is used exclusively in the private inner prayer room? Or did Paul do all his private praying in the presence of unbelievers so that his “private prayer language” could be a sign to them? Unfortunately poor exegesis often ends in such absurdity.
Paul used the gift of languages in order to evangelize people across language barriers. He preached on the highways and byways of the most linguistically diverse empire in the history of mankind, up to that point in history.
20 Brothers, do not be children in your thinking. Be infants in evil, but in your thinking be mature. 21In the Law it is written, “By people of strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners will I speak to this people, and even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord.”
Paul quotes Isaiah 28:11 here, where it is prophesied that God would take the gospel to the gentiles, people who spoke foreign languages, and who would then in turn evangelize the Jews. The gift of languages was supernatural proof that God was doing just that: Taking the gospel to all the languages of the earth. This is the second time in this passage that Paul explicitly states that the gift of languages is a gift of real, existing human languages.
22 Thus tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is a sign not for unbelievers but for believers.
As said before; If languages is a sign for unbelievers, then how is it supposed to be a “private prayer language?” See how this is described in Acts 2:
Acts 2:6 And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language. 7And they were amazed and astonished, saying, “Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language?
Unbelievers heard the gospel in their own languages in a miraculous way, and were saved.
23 If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your minds?
But if unbeliever who did not understand the foreign languages came to a meeting, they would think the people were crazy. This is exactly what happened in Acts 2:
Acts 2:12And all were amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, “What does this mean?” 13But others mocking said, “They are filled with new wine.”
So this is exactly what Paul says: For some it will be a sign. Others will scoff and say they are drunk or mad.
24But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, 25 the secrets of his heart are disclosed, and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you.
To prophesy is to proclaim the gospel. If an unbeliever comes in and hears the gospel in a language he understands, he may be saved.
Romans 10:13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” 14How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?
1 Corinthians 14:26 What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. 27If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. 28But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God.
I would like to refer you to this academic article by Samarin: http://philosophyreligion.net/handouts/pdfs/Samarin-Pages_48-75.pdf
I quote:
Glossas, by this standard, are not human languages, primarily because they really are not systems of communication. They are not characterized by semanticity (7), arbitrariness (8), displacement (10), prevarication (14), and reflexiveness (15). This list is probably incomplete, but the absence of these features is sufficient to demonstrate the nonlinguisticality of glossas.
The scientific study of charismatic tongue speaking results in the conclusion that it does not have the structure of language and therefore does not generally carry meaning. It is not language. Period. Paul says that if someone speaks in a language, it has to be translated (interpreted). Since, according to this scientific study, modern tongue speaking does not have the structure of language, it cannot be interpreted. My own experience of tongue speaking is definitely in line with this: The speech is mostly a repetition of a few words and sounds. Some tongue speakers obviously have a wider range of sounds and available words than others.
The most that an “interpreter” can do is to create new meaning for sounds that are essentially meaningless. But this would emphatically not be an act of “interpretation”. It would be an act of assigning meaning.
It is clear that modern day charismatic tongue speaking does not fit the criteria of the gift of languages.
From the Bible it is clear that:
- People spoke true human languages that they have not learnt before.
- The purpose of the gift was to demonstrate with supernatural power that God was spreading salvation to the nations of the world, and that it was not restricted to Israel any more.
- In practise Christians used the gift to evangelize foreigners, as is amply demonstrated in Acts 2.
- The result of the gift was that foreigners who heard Christians proclaim the gospel in their own languages were amazed, while others said they were mad (2 Corinthians 14), or drunk (Acts 2).
- The Corinthians abused the gift of languages to selfishly “build themselves up”, where God intended all the spiritual gifts to build up the congregation in love.
- The gift of languages was not meant as a “private prayer language” but as a sign to the unbelievers.
- The so called textual proofs for modern day charismatic tongue speaking al collapse with careful exegesis.
As discussed in the introduction, we simply cannot use our experience to prove doctrine. Our experience always has to be placed under the authority of Scripture.
Since modern day tongue speaking bears no resemblance to the spiritual gift of languages, I have to come to the conclusion that it is not a supernatural working of the Holy Spirit but a phenomenon produced by the flesh. It a well known fact that some of the worst heretics today practice tongue speaking, (for example the Word of Faith televangelists) in a way that is indistinguishable from that practised by born again children of God. I personally know people who speak in similar ways when trying to sound stupid or when goofing off.
There is nothing Biblical or miraculous about charismatic tongue speaking. Anybody can learn to do it, Christian or not.
Jaco de Beer said:
Uitstekend. Stem heeltemal saam.
John Khwezi said:
Very good article with which I wholeheartedly agree.
alleman said:
Spreek in tale is nie “sonde”, dis bloot aansitterigheid.
hierstaanek said:
Hallo Alleman
Ek sou sê dat as mens iets uit die vlees doen en beweer dan dit is van die Gees van God is dit mos laster!
Jozua Marais said:
Jammer, Wynand, maar jy verloor my hier!
Waarom so ‘n lang betoog om die verskil tussen “bekende” en “onbekende” tale uit die Bybel te bewys en dan die oortuigings en moontlik persoonlike belewenisse van Christene uit ander genootskappe summier tot sonde te verklaar?
Julle sit rondom die maer geraamte van ‘n afgedwaalde, sondige NGK wat bykans daagliks meer irrelevant raak – soos roomys in die son smelt sodat net die “cones” (geboue) agterbly – en vind nog tyd vir sulke argumente en oordeel?
Die NGK het immers nog heeltyd sedert LES 75 (“Gawe van Tale” in my katkisasie-boek van 1957), die moontlikheid van spraak in “onbekende” tale verwerp, as sou dit iets wees wat kenmerkend van “wederdopers” is. Net soos hulle die moontlikheid van wonderwerke wat hul eie lidmate in geloof op hul eie buite die kerk mag ondervind het, skepties bejeen het.
Vir my egter vreemd dat die werklike Christen-gelowiges wat ek teëgekom het – mense wat wonderwerke beleef EN gedoen het (sommiges sendelinge uit die NGK) – self ook later nie anders kon as om uiteindelik “wederdopers” te word nie!
Miskien moet ons maar eers voor ons eie deur vee.
hierstaanek said:
Hallo Jozua
Die vraag is: Interpreteer ek die Bybel reg of nie? DIe vraag is nie wat die persoonlike geloofsbelewenis van ander Christene is nie. Menslike ervaring kan, as gevolg van die sondeval, nooit ‘n standaard vir die waarheid wees nie.
So ek wag angstig op jou verduideliking waarom ek die Bybel verkeerd interpreteer, en waarom jy glo dat vandag se babbeltaal wel in die Bybel is.
As jy oortuigend uit die Bybel kan bewys dat vandag se babbeltaal wel in die Bybel is, sal ek verplig wees om hierdie artikel te verwyder.
Die probleem wat ons hier het is dit: Mense sê dat dit wat hulle doen van God af kom. As dit nie van GOd af kom nie laster hulle mos teen God!
Jozua Marais said:
Wynand, my kommentaar het nie gegaan oor of jy die Bybel reg vertolk nie, maar oor die veralgemening / gevolgtrekking / oordeel daarna (veral in die opskrif), “Dit is sonde om in ‘tale te praat’”.
Ek en jy mag dit nie persoonlik ondervind het nie en mag reg of verkeerd wees oor die sg “babbeltaal” wat ons teëkom en waarna jy verwys. Maar nie alles wat nou of in die toekoms o l v die HEILIGE GEES in die lewens van gelowiges van alle denominasies plaasvind, staan noodwendig geskrewe in die Bybel nie.
Gaan ons al sulke moontlikhede wat geloof in JESUS CHRISTUS bied, ook nou voor die tyd wetties afskryf as “sonde”? Soos die skrifgeleerdes destyds?
Miskien het Kobus van der Merwe dit die beste hieronder vir my saamgevat: “Maar dit is God wat die hart ken en wat die reddings genade skenk”.
hierstaanek said:
LEVÍTIKUS 10:1-3, 5 AFR53
EN die seuns van Aäron, Nadab en Abíhu, het elkeen sy vuurpan geneem en vuur daarin gegooi en reukwerk daarop gesit en vreemde vuur voor die aangesig van die Here gebring, wat Hy hulle nie beveel het nie. Daarop het daar vuur van die aangesig van die Here uitgegaan en hulle verteer, en hulle het gesterwe voor die aangesig van die Here . Toe sê Moses vir Aäron: Dit is dit wat die Here gespreek het deur te sê: In die wat naby My is, wil Ek My as die Heilige laat ken, en voor die oë van die hele volk wil Ek My verheerlik. Maar Aäron het stilgebly. Toe het hulle nader gekom en hulle in hul rokke buitekant die laer uitgedra soos Moses gesê het.
Om God op n manier te aanbid wat Hy nie beveel het nie is sonde. Doodsonde volgens Levitikus 10.
Hoekom? Want God is heilig en Hy sal as heilig beskou word.
As vandag se talepraat nie in die Bybel is nie veroordeel mense hulleself elke keer dat hulle dit doen.
Jaco de Beer said:
Die vraag is werklik eenvoudig.
Het enige mens, engel of God in die hele Bybel ooit in ‘n onaardse “taal” gepraat? Waar kom so fenomeen vandaan in die Bybel. Wys dit asb. aan my.
Daar is slegs drie voorbeelde van die gawe van tale in die hele Bybel en dit was mense tale. Op grond van wat kan mense nou die hedendaagse praktyk regverdig.
Volgens kerkgeskiedenis het die fenomeen eers in die laat 1800’s en begin 1900’s begin met die Azusa Street revival en Toronto blessing – wat gelei het tot die geboorte van die charismatiese beweging. In die tweede eeue was daar heretics onder leiding van Montanis wat wel sogenaamde “tale” en profesie gepraktiseer het. Dit was soortgelyk as vandag – babbel en onbekende klanke. Hulle is egter deur die kerk as heretics verklaar weens hul ontkenning van Jesus as Here en Verlosser. Dit is egter algemeen onder heidense godsdienste om in die onaardse klanke te praat soos deur demone gelei.
Jaco de Beer said:
Daar is geen mens, engel of God self wat in die hele Bybel ooit enige ander taal gepraat het as mense tale nie. Dis nêrens in die hele Bybel te vind nie. Om te beweer die gawe van tale is die vermoë om in een of ander onaardse klanke te praat is sonde as dit nie in die Bybel is nie. As dit wel is wat die gawe bedoel het, waar sien ons geen teken van enige so manifestasie in die Bybel nie. Die enigste voorbeelde van die gawe is in Handelinge wat mense tale was.
hierstaanek said:
Jaco jy is reg. Waar is die voorbeeld in die Bybel?
Daar is wel baie voorbeelde van “slain in the Spirit” in die Bybel: Al die eersgebore Egiptenaars in Eksodus, en natuurlik Annanias en Safira…
Grace said:
Hahaha…goed gese Jozua Marais
hierstaanek said:
OK hier is ‘n belangrike vraag:
Deut 18:20 But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak, […] that prophet shall die.
Geld hierdie teks net vir profete of kan ons die beginsel toepas op mense wat sê God laat hulle in babbeltaal praat terwyl God die persoon nie in babbeltaal laat praat nie?
Ek wonder…
Kobus van der Merwe said:
Dit is gewoonlik moeilik om hier kommentaar te lewer. Die stellings word so volledig gemaak dat nog kommentaar oorbodig mag wees.
Moontlik is die grootste vraag wat ‘n gevalle mens kan vra “Is ek gered?” Redding is ‘n genade wat geskenk word, en nie ‘n geskenk wat gegryp kan word nie. Sonder redding is al die redenasies en sieninge sinneloos.
Baie se worsteling is juis of hulle gered is. Sommige het ‘n baie maklike verklaring, as jy twyfel beteken dit dat jy omgee oor jou verlossing en daarom is jy verlos. Die Bybel dui aan dat die vrugte van elkeen hom sal ontbloot as geredde of nie. Maar dit is die toepassing van hierdie Bybelse beginsel wat baie laat gis oor watter vrugte en hoe blink die vrugte moet wees.
Geen mens kan sy geredde status voorhou nie, want faal sal hy faal. Geen mens kan ‘n ander se geredde status aflei nie, want, statisties, faal sal hy faal. Die beste wat ons kan doen is wat die mens nou al vir eeue doen, deurlopend ondersoek en rekenskap gee, en worstel.
God sal Sy beloftes nakom volgens die Evangelie wat Hy bekend gemaak het.
Die gratis digitale TV kanaal Kruis Kyk (of so iets) het op ‘n stadium (miskien nog) heelwat charismatiese inhoud gehad. Wat opvallend was, was die getuienisse van baie van die pastore die storie van ‘n “duiwel tot geredde mens”. Dit wou voorkom asof jy in alles tot die laagste vlak moet daal voor jy weet jy gered is. Die “nerd” blyk geen kans te he in vergelyking met die pastore nie, maar volgens die Bybel en God is die “nerd” net so bevlek van sonde as die grootste dwelmverslaafde kriminele skobbejak. Tog kan enige mens gered word na God se genade.
Dan bly net die tergende vraag hoe jy sal weet of jy gered is. Weereens, daar is baie benaderinge en elkeen is seker van sy storie. Sommige glo jy kan redding wegwys en ander glo dat jy dit nie kan doen nie, totdat hulle jarelange goeie vriend en medegelowige op ‘n dag so twyfel dat hy nie meer as gelowige kan mee maak nie. Dan is die eenvoudige antwoord, “Hy was toe nooit regtig gered nie.”. Hierdie beginsel kan tot sy logiese uiteinde geneem word deurdat niemand regtig gered is tot die teendeel bewys is met ‘n goeie lewe tot sterwe. Dan en eers dan kan daar bepaal word of iemand regtig gered is, en of dit nie ‘n valse belydenis was al die jare nie. In hierdie redenasies word God uitgeskuif.
(Ek vermoed) Baie mense, uit die nood om te weet of jy gered is, sal ywerig begin deelneem in die aktiwiteite wat as vrug beskou word, sodat die gemeenskap, asook hyself, oortuig mag word. Maar dit is God wat die hart ken en wat die reddings genade skenk.
‘n Ander manier om sekerheid oor die vraag te kry, is om voort te gaan om aan te neem dat jy gered is en dan sodanig (tot so ver jy kan leer uit die Bybel) te lewe, sonder om veel bekommernis te he oor of dit werklik so is. Die logika hier is waar en eenvoudig, of jy gered is of nie, jy moet volgens sekere beginsels lewe, hoekom nie die mees logiese beginsels wat daar is nie? As jy wel gered is, is dit die vrug daarvan, as jy nie gered is nie, kon jy tog niks daaraan gedoen het nie, maar het jy maar die beste van ‘n slegte saak gemaak.
Dan is daar die geredde mense. Nog steeds met sondige natuur.
Dit is (so dink ek) ook moontlik om jouself van ‘n gawe te oortuig en dan bekend te maak sodat ander jou redding kan vier. Dit kan enige gawe wees wat mense sal oortuig, en soveel meer ‘n gewilde gawe in ‘n sekere kerklike omgewing. Dan word daar meer mense van ‘n sekere oortuiging gevind wat hier of daaraan glo. En is dit dan nie so vertroostend dat daar ‘n gemeenskap om jou is wat jou ondersteun en aanmoedig nie.
Die ware gawe van tale kan aan mense gegee word, selfs na die sluiting van die openbaring. Die logika hier is ook waar en eenvoudig. Die sondeval het Adam en alle nageslagte verdoem tot die dood. Tog is Henog, 7de van Adam (en ander) lewend opgeneem. Gebeur dit as ‘n reël? Nee. Kan dit weer gebeur? Ja. Het dit weer gebeur sedertdien die sluiting van die openbaring? Nee. Kan dit in die toekoms gebeur? Weet nie, net God sal weet. (Behalwe vir die algemene opstanding en die lewendes wat dan opgeneem word)
Netso kan daar moontlik ‘n gawe van tale gegee word. Hoe sal ons weet of dit is? Die toets is die Bybel. Hierbo gee hierstaanek ‘n allesomvattende eksegese van die Bybel in hierdie verband. Dit is duidelik dat ‘n gebrabbel nie Bybels is nie. Dit wil blyk dat meeste die gebrabbel as ‘n persoonlike kommunikasie sien, en daarom nie oop vir kritiek deur ander nie. Hoekom dan nie sommer jou Moedertaal nie? God het dit tog geskape.
Dit laat ‘n mens ook aan die “Hebreeus-alleen as Bybelse taal” beweging dink. Wat hulle heeltemal uit die prentjie verloor is dat God aanvanklik met Adam en tot by Noag in ‘n taal gepraat het wat hulle nog nooit gehoor het nie. Dit is God wat (eers) by Babel Hebreeus geskep het (of die voorloper daarvan). Toe God met Abram gepraat het, as die in Hebreeus, iets wat Adam nie sou verstaan het nie.
En in die plek van hierdie paragraaf kan daar ‘n tesis geplaas word wat skynbaar vanuit die Bybel redeneer om ‘n gebrabbel Bybels te maak. Wat uitstaan is “Is dit tot opbouing?”, “Kan dit lei tot eksoteriese godsdiens?”, “Hoekom, as dit ‘n privaat ding is, moet dit ‘n onverklaarbare gebrabbel wees?”
Dit bly ‘n lewenslange worsteling vir sommige om vanuit die Bybels gelei te word. Vir ander is dit baie eenvoudig, wat hulle se is wat die antwoord is. Hierdie arbitrere manier om die Evangelie voor te stel is vyandig tot die Godgegewe Evangelie.
En netso is daar mense tradisies in die Gereformeerde geloof wat ook maar onder die loep geneem kan word.
Die belangrikste hiervan is die kwessie van redding, en nie hoe jy ander daarvan kan oortuig nie.
Wat verstommend is, is dat baie Kerkrade hulle rûe eers reguit gemaak het nav die homoseksuele kwessie (en ek stem), maar hoekom nie alreeds toe daar twyfel oor die hel, die duiwel, die maagdelike geboorte en (belangrikste van almal) die opstanding, gesaai is nie. (Ek glo dat hierstaanek dit wel tydens voorkoms aangespreek het)
Christian Gerhardt said:
Hiermee my repliek:
ghla dgrhat htgdbtrrrtahahahahaha fhrybmuanstresy btinnd ghalala bala bala ghalala lala la la.
Skuus weet nie wat nou gebeur het nie 🙂
Theuns said:
Dankie vir die breedvoerige bespreking oor hierdie onderwerp asook alle kommentare daarop.
Vir sover dit myself betref, kan ek maar net in alle eenvoud, nederigheid en afhanklikheid, bid vir een enkele gawe, naamlik die gawe om te glo in die een en enigste Verlosser en Saligmaker Wie die volle prys vir al my oortrtedinge reeds aan die kruishout betaal het.
En dan steeds, met die oortuiging dat ook hierdie gawe van geloof, en die verlossing wat volg as geskenk van God, alleen uit genade is en nie uit myself of enige van my eie pogings of werke nie.
Niks vanuit myself kan my ooit red nie, ook geeneen van die geestelike gawes nie, maar alleen die Here Jesus Christus. Daarom getuig ek “Here, wees my, arme sondaar, genadig”
Somerset (Sommie) Morkel said:
Die opskrif van hierdie artikel neem ‘n nuwe hoek waaraan ek nog nie gedink het nie maar wat ek heelhartig onderskryf.
Vier elemente wat nie in die artikel genoem word nie, moet net bygevoeg word (na my mening)
1. In charismatiese kringe word beweer & geleer dat die spreek in tale ‘n bewys (of teken) is vd ‘Doop met die Heilige Gees’. Dit is sonder skriftuurlike fundering & is ‘n erge dwaling – soos uit die tekste in die artikel aangedui kan word.
2. Spreke in tale is hoofsaaklik demonies, nie net vleeslik nie, hoewel die vlees aan die Satan behoort & in sy diens is.
3. Nerens sover ek weet, word die skriftuurlike opdrag uitgevoer deur die mense wat spreke in tale verkondig, dat die geste getoets moet word nie. Dit word net summier aanvaar dat as iemand in ‘n taal ‘praat’ dit die Heilige Gees is.
4. Hindoes, Moslems, New Agers, Buddhiste, Toordokters e.d.m. praat ook in tale, & dis ‘obviously’ nie die Heilige Gees nie.
Ek verwys na hierdie nota wat ek op Facebook geplaas het waar bg punte ook behandel word:
.
https://www.facebook.com/notes/somerset-morkel/disaster-area-in-the-church-tongues/10152962276042132
Somerset (Sommie) Morkel said:
Ter wille van ‘easy access’ haal ek die artikel hieornder volledig aan:
.
DISASTER AREA IN THE CHURCH: ‘TONGUES’…
SOMERSET MORKEL·WEDNESDAY, 30 SEPTEMBER 2015 (facebook)
[Deception galore…]
A man told me the other day at a regional Christian men’s gathering in Pretoria when i told him i had been baptized in March this year [2015]: “Now you just need to speak in tongues”.
My response was that it was a gift – and according to Scripture, it is a ‘lesser gift’, not to be pursued above the other gifts of the Holy Spirit.
He eventually became upset with me, especially when i told him that it is an area of great deception in the church.
We did not even get to the point where i could say that the gift had ceased, and that modern speaking in tongues is demonic.
Before we left, his last words, in half-irritation, to me were: “You WILL speak in tongues”.
(It might have been a prophecy, i do not know, but anyway, i do not believe in modern prophecy or modern ‘prophets’ & ‘Apostles’ either…)
My response was: “God gives His gifts as He wills & every gift is not for everybody.”
In the article hereunder, the author is concerned that speaking in tongues is not generally practiced anymore: http://www.charismamag.com/spirit/s…
He is out on a limb that will soon break & leave him destitute in his delusion & i hope it will bring him back to the truth of Scripture.
Dr Peter Masters aptly stated in an article recently:
“…huge numbers of Catholics, who depend on Mary, the Mass, and works for salvation, are also able to speak in tongues and prophesy. Many also worship in exactly the same way as charismatic Protestants. Charismatic doubters may also hear that non-Christian cults also speak in tongues. You do not need to be a saved Christian to speak in charismatic-style tongues, because it is not a true gift of the Spirit.”
He did not mention that Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists & Africa witchdoctors (sangomas) also speak in tongues.
That is obviously not from the Holy Spirit, but is of demonic origin.
How do these Pentecostals & charismatics know that their ‘tongue’ is not demonic?
They don’t.
They just automatically accept that it is of the Holy Spirit.
Yet the Scripture teaches us to “test the spirits whether they are from God”.
i still have to meet one charismatic that is prepared to have it done concerning his ‘heavenly tongue’.
They even teach & insist that if you do not speak in a tongue, you do not have the Baptism with the Holy Spirit.
That is delusional & unscriptural nonsense-theology which opens one up for influence by demons.
That is why Satanists visit these churches, lay hands on people, and they start speaking in tongues, which is then regarded as “Hallelujah… It’s the Holy Spirit”.
But it is indeed blasphemy as the demon spirit is anti-Christ & is cursing God.
The charismatic movement is infected with this.
John Khwezi recently wrote:
“The issue of tongues is a contentious one in these days. There is great deception in the churches & groups where tongues are practised. The reason for this is that a modern theology has developed that is not biblical & goes beyond Scripture. Going beyond Scripture always, yes always, leads to deception. A clear reading of Scripture shows that tongues is a lesser gift, not a primary one. It is to be pursued as all other gifts, i.e. as a GIFT, not as a right or necessity for everyone. God gives as He wills, to whom He wills. He knows best what the body of Christ needs & He gives gifts as He knows it to fit into His sovereign plan. There is no way anyone can claim a gift from God. You can ask Him for it, but He does not give if He knows it is not necessary. He in His infinite wisdom never gives what is not necessary. Holding on to & prioritising a clearly lesser gift is foolishness which can best be described as naive but rather as prideful so as to say ‘I have the gift’ or ‘I have the Baptism with the Holy Spirit’. Be careful of such things. Lifting out & lifting up something which God has declared as to be of lesser extent, is going against the will of God. That is where Satan is at his most crafty. He, Satan, can then easily deceive you. He can give you a demonic language, which e.g. Muslims have & Hindus have. Calling such a demonic gift as a gift from God is blasphemous, as a demon will not praise God & will curse the Name of Christ, our Lord. When people summarily call a tongue as the work of the Holy Spirit, I cringe.. The spirit has to be tested, but who of these proudful tongue speakers will subject themselves to that? And if there is no interpretation, be bold & silence such a person, as David Wilkerson did in his church in New York where a friend of mine was present. Better that he leaves you than you be deceived.”
He further wrote:
“…. what about Matthew 7:21-22? The devil also does miracles. That is how he will deceive the world, as stated in the scripture in Revelation. Miracle doers & miracle seekers & devil binders are not NECESSARILY saved. Witch doctors do miracles, I can assure you. My father was one. He also spoke in tongues as a witch doctor (Sangoma) when he was in spiritual mode. When he came to the Lord Jesus Christ after my mother & grandmother (who taught me about the Lord Jesus) prayed for him for many years, he denounced miracles. He said that when the demons left him, he saw that he had always thought as light within him, to be darkness. He could not speak in tongues anymore. Neither could he prophesy, as he previously did. He denounced the charismatic movement as witchcraft under the guise of Christianity. I tend to think he knew what he was talking about. He taught us about the full grace of God in Christ Jesus but warned us to stay out of the charismatic movement as it was according to him full of demon-deception, including false tongues that curse God whilst being ascribed to the Holy Spirit, which is blasphemy. So he was a cessationist, clinging to a false doctrine, according to some people. Seriously, you need to seek the Lord earnestly in this. You do not want to hear those words of Jesus on Judgement Day. Calling the truth a lie is the most serious deception and you are right there. Conrad Mbewe of Zambia recently also referred to the false charismatic revivalism (health, wealth, prophesying, miracles) as modernised witchcraft. He also knows what he is talking about, and he also is cessationist. Pray about it.”
John Khwezi said:
I fully support the content of Somerset’s input.
Somerset (Sommie) Morkel said:
Hier is ‘n nota oor ‘n boodskap wat die moeite werd is om na te luister aangesien dit addisionele aspekte na vore bring wat nie hierbo genoem word nie:
.
“From a man who formerly spoke in tongues but let it be after he let the Bible speak:
He clearly points out the modern heresy & deception that this is.
An excellent exposition with sound exegesis, with perspectives & biblical references (eg. the judgment of God on Babel) that i have not heard applied in this manner before:
.
http://pulpitandpen.org/…/06/sermon-to-speak-in-tongues/
Bruce said:
Ek lees met belangstelling al die voorafgaande en die erge sonde van “spreek in tale”. Ek merk dat al die aanhalings uit die OT kom.
Gaan lees bietjie 1 Kor.14. Kyk na die konteks waarin die spreek in tale voorgehou
word. Indien dit Handelinge tale was, waarom sou Paulus verwys na die stigting van die individu eerder as die gemeente ?? Waarom sal hy na homself verwys dat hy dit eerder in sy “binnekamer” gebruik as in die gemeente ??
1Kor.12:2: “Want hy wat in ’n taal spreek, spreek nie tot mense nie, maar tot God; want niemand verstaan dit nie, maar deur die Gees spreek hy verborgenhede”. Wat is hier te verstane anders as dit wat hier staan.
Natuurlik, soos met al die ander gawes, is dit nie ‘n voorvereiste van redding nie, maar eerder ‘n gevolg van. Dit het ook soos die doop en ander bakleipunte, niks met my saligheid te doen nie – eerder ‘n verryking van my verhouding met my Saligmaker.
Ek dink die groot kwessie hier is dat die mens, per se, bang is vir die “vreemde” en bang is om nie in beheer te wees nie.
Dan verder, dat een van die vorige kommentators, “worstel” oor of hy gered is al dan nie. Weereens gaan lees 1 Joh.15:13: ” Dit het ek geskrywe aan julle wat glo in die Naam van die Seun van God, sodat julle kan WEET dat julle die ewige lewe het en kan glo in die Naam van die Seun van God. Vereenvoudig ek die Skrif ??
Ek ween vir julle !!!
NS.: Die afgelope Pinkstertyd was ek by ‘n gemeente waar die tema was:”Doen God vandag nog wonders” en profesie en tale was aan die orde vandie dag en geensins negatief nie. Dit in ‘n konserwatiewe klein dorp NG gemeente !!
hierstaanek said:
Hallo Bruce
Sommige mense het die eienaardige gewoonte om internet artikels TE LEES voordat hulle daarop kommentaar lewer.
Snaaks… Maar ons moet sulke afwykende mense ook maar lief hê, of hoe?
Wynand
🙂
Bruce said:
Jy is heeltemal reg, Wynand. Ek het nie jou stuk KLAAR gelees nie. Ek het jare gelede jou oortuiging gedeel en ken die retoriek – het dit self gebruik. Die dag wanneer jy hierdie ondervinding beleef en jy so verdiep is in gebed dat dit nie meer voel of jy woorde het nie, is dit ‘n spontane reaksie en dan verander jou uitkyk. Jy kan dit nie aan iemand verduidelik nie.
Natuurlik is daar die wat dit misbruik vir watter rede ookal, want Satan bly ‘n “copy cat”. Dit is egter nie ‘n rede om dit summier af te skryf nie. Dink maar aan al die dinge binne die NGK op die oomblik wat jy met alle geweld teenstaan, maar het jy die Kerk afgeskryf ?? Is die Kerk nou euwel ??
Ek waardeer dit wat jy poog om te doen, al verskil ek van jou in baie opsigte, maar ek daal nie na die vlak van sarkasme om my punt te probeer maak nie.
hierstaanek said:
Bruce, ek hoop jy het nou die artikel gelees.
Let op wat ek sê: Indien jy jou ervaring bo die gesag van die Bybel plaas gaan jy in diep moeilikheid kom, omdat jy steeds ‘n verdorwe natuur het soos Paulus duidelik in Romeine 7 verklaar.
Ons het slegs een standaard vir die waarheid, en dit is God se openbaring aan ons in sy Woord. Om jou ervaring as standaard vir die waarheid te stel bo God se Woord is rebellie teen God. Dit kan net in katastrofe eindig.
Paulus was ook sarkasties. In Galasiers sê hy hy hoop die besnydenisiste wil sommer alles afsny…
Bruce said:
Wynand, ek belowe jou dis my laaste woord hieroor !!
Ek stem een honderd persent met jou saam dat die Woord die “lamp vir my voet is” en dat die “sambreel” van die Woord absoluut noodsaaklik is. Ek kan egter nie emosie uit my verhouding met God haal nie. Sy hele wese is LIEFDE en alles draai daarom. Dis hoekom ek nie van die woorde van die liedjie “From a distance” hou nie.
Ons emosies is juis die rede waarom Satan kan inglip waar hy nie hoort nie, maar dit maak emosie/ervaring/ondervinding nie verkeerd nie. Ek was al by byeenkomste waar mense gelag en gepraat het en waar die Gees in my nie aanklank kon vind met die gees wat daar geheers het nie, maar ook visa versa.
Daar word vandag te veel gelet op liturgiese ordes, eksposisies, eksegeses, ens. dat die emosie van my verhouding met my Saligmaker afgewater raak. Wat is die gawes van die Gees anders as emosie ??
Vir baie van ons pastors (ek se spesifiek nie predikante nie) het hulle verhouding met Christus “werk” geword. Ek ken ‘n hele paar wat na aftrede eers werklik “tot bekering gekom het”.
Soli Deo gloria !!
hierstaanek said:
Bruce
Jou ervaring en emosie is bitter belangrik maar die vraag is watter prioriteit dit het in jou lewe. As jy jou ervaring en emosie as standaard van waarheid aanneem bo die gesag van die Bybel (soos meeste mense wat in tale praat doen) is dit ‘n afgod en is jy in rebellie teen God.
Die Woord van God moet jou hoogste standaard van waarheid wees. Mense wat sê “Spreek in tale is waar want ek doen dit” en dan nie bereid is om dit met verantwoordelike eksegese uit die Bybel te bewys nie is in rebellie teen God want hulle verwerp God se Woord as hoogste standaard van waarheid.
“Eksegese” beteken eenvoudig om n teks uit te lê, om te verstaan en te verduidelik wat God in ‘n teks sê. So as God se Woord jou hoogste standaard vir waarheid en lewe is sal eksegese een van die balangrikste dinge in jou lewe wees.
‘n Man wat beweer hy het sy vrou lief maar lees nie haar liefdesbriewe nie lieg. Net so is dit vir my onversyasnbaar dat mense beweer hulle het God lief maar hulle eie ervaring en emosie dra vir hulle meer gewig as God se liefdesbrief aann hulle en die uitlê (eksegese) van daardie liefdesbrief.
Ek moet nog die Charismaat vind wat kan uitwys wasr my Bybeluitleg in hierdie artikwl verkeerd is. Die waarheid is, meeste stel nie belang oor wat God, wie hulle kammakastig lief het, regtig daaroor sê nie.
Bruce said:
Ek het belowe !!
Seen vir jou
hierstaanek said:
Bruce, wys my asb vers vir vers waar my Bybeluitleg in die artikel hierbo verkeerd is, anders moet ek aanneem jy stel ook nie REGTIG belang in wat God sê nie.
Ek wag…
Bruce said:
Wynand, ek het geensins vir jou probeer se dat jy verkeerd is nie. Inteendeel, ek het self jou oortuiging gedeel jare gelede.
As jy luister na wat ek geskryf het, bly die Woord vir my die absolute waarheid en het ek al baie aangespreek oor interpretasies, maar interpretasies bly interpretasies. Elke kerk, sekte, of wat jy dit ookal wil noem, het hul eie interpretasie van die Woord en dit sluit die NGK in, maar dit maak nie noodwendig dat ‘n interpretasie wat verskil van myne sonde of kettery nie. Ek sluit hierby eerlike eksegese in. Kyk maar na hoog aangeskrewenes se verskillende interpretasies binne dieslfde geloofsoortuig- ing. Ek praat nie van blatante afwykings soos maagdelike geboorte, opstanding, bekering, ens. nie.
Ek glo dat dit ‘n kwessie is van die bril waardeur ‘n mens kyk en om te luister na ‘n ander opinie. Vir my is die begrip van tale in Handelinge en die van o.a. 1 Kor.14 nie dieselfde nie, omdat ek glo dat ek die 1Kor.14 tale ervaar het. Nie ‘n “gebrabbel”, soos sommige dit noem, in die openbaar nie, maar skielik sonder enige vooraf- gaande “prompting” rol daar eenvoudig woorde uit jou mond wat jy nie verstaan nie en wat jou laat met ‘n absolute gevoel van harmonie met jou Skepper. Demonies; ek glo nie, maar dat dit wel misbruik word, beslis.
Jare gelede (en dis waar die jare gelede hierbo vandaan kom) was ons met ‘n groep kinders by ‘n byeenkoms waar vooraf gesing was en daar ‘n sendeling spreker was – heel konserwatief; geen opswepery nie, maar iemand wat die Outeur van die Woord geken het. Mens kon egter nie die wonderlike atmosfeer (ek kan nie aan ‘n ander woord dink nie) ignoreer nie. Hierdie was hoerskool kinders van die NGK wat nog nooit voorheen aan enige vorm van “spreek in tale” blootgestel was nie.
Toe ons terugklim in die bussie om huis toe te gaan, begin die kinders spontaan sing en die volgende oomblik hoor ek net hoe van hulle in “tale” begin praat. Nie onordelik nie, maar in absolute harmonie met mekaar, was my indruk. Onthou, op daardie stadium van my lewe was ek nog self nooit daaraan blootgestel nie, maar dit het so ‘n ongelooflike indruk op my gelaat.
Sedertdien was ek by menige byeenkomste waar tale, profesie en ander kontrovewersiele gawes aan die orde van die dag was. My argument is baie eenvoudig. Indien hierdie gawes van die Heilige Gees en Hy daar teenwoordig is, sal Jesus Christus verheerlik word – die Woord se so, nie waar nie. Indien nie, sal jy baie vinnig besef dat dit wat aangebied word uit die mens is en derhalwe, demonies. Ek loop dan vinniger uit as wat ek ingekom het !!
Nou het ek myself hier in die publiek aan jou ontbloot en dis nie my natuur nie !! Ek se soos Paulus dat ek eerder ‘n woord sal spreek wat tot stigting van ander sal lei as om in tale te praat, maar my hele doel hier was net om te reageer oor die feit dat die “spreek in tale” summier afgemaak word as sonde, terwyl die wat die stelling maak dit nog self nooit beleef het nie.
Mag ons in Jesus naam saamstem om te verskil, maar sonder die angel van “sonde” in die “spreek in tale”.
hierstaanek said:
Bruce jy het nou geen Bybeluitleg aangebied nie maar weereens net jou ervaring. So ongelukkig versterk jy die indruk dat jy jou ervaring stel as standaard van Waarheid bo die Woord van God.
Ek stel regtig belang in ‘n teksvers op teksvers kritiek op my Bybeluitleg sodat ek kan weet waar ek verkeerd is. Ons opinies is nie maar genoeg nie Bruce, ons moet onsself uit God se Woord kan verantwoord. Beide ek en jy kan nie reg wees nie. Die taak lê nou op jou om uit te Bybel te bewys ek is verkeerd.
Jou opinie oor die Bybel is niks werd as jy dit nie uit die Bybel kan bewys nie.
Jesus sê as ons Hom liefhet sal ons Sy gebooie onderhou. Ons kan nie Sy gebooie onderhou as ons nie weet wat dit is nie, ons eie opinies is nie genoeg nie.
Ons bewys ons liefde vir Jesus deur agting vir sy Woord.
Bruce said:
Ek sal by ‘n bietjie later geleentheid
Bruce said:
IS SPREEK IN TALE SONDE ?
Die term “spreek in tale” is sekerlik een van die groot struikelblokke tussen die meer gereformeerde siening en die van die sg. Charismate.
Laat ons eerstens dieselfde uitgangspunte neem as die voorafgaande en dit duidelik stel dat die pilaar waarop ons bou sekerlik “Sola Scriptura” is, maar dis nodig om dit duidelik te stel dat alhoewel Jesus self gesê het dat hy nie gekom het om enige jota of tittel in die Woord te verander nie, die Handelinge van die Apostels nie ‘n afgehandelde boek is nie. Dit is die enigste boek in die Nuwe Testament wat nie eindig met AMEN nie. Dit lei daarom dat die verskeie bedieninge vandag nog bestaan en dat die gawes, soos in 1Kor.12 en 14 uiteengesit, nie “uitgesoek” kan word nie. Hier veral met betrekking tot die gawes van profesie en tale – beide spreek en uitlê; die s.g. “teken gawes” wat die “apostoliese outoriteit” bevestig het. Met respek, die Heilige Gees is nie vasgevang in die bladsye van my Bybel nie.
Die geloofsbeleidenis van die NGK sê: “Ek glo in die Heilige Gees” – een sinnetjie, maar die vraag is: “Glo ek in die werking van die Heilige Gees ?”. Glo my, die dag as jy dít glo en beleef is daar nie brieke nie !!
Ten tweede, dat ons in ‘n vervalle staat is, word ook nie betwis nie. Dat ons nie in onsself in staat is om as mens sinvolle geloofsbesluite te neem, word ook nie betwis nie, maar die dag toe ek tot bekering gekom en toegelaat het dat ek vervul (gevul) word met die Heilige Gees, het my status verander. Kyk wat sê 1Joh.2:27: “ En die salwing wat julle van Hom ontvang het, bly in julle, en julle het nie nodig dat iemand julle leer nie; maar soos dieselfde salwing julle aangaande alles leer, so is dit ook waar en geen leuen nie; en soos dié julle geleer het, so moet julle in Hom bly.” Hierdie “salwing”, as ek dit reg verstaan, is die inwerking van die Heilige Gees.
Nog ‘n stukkie: 1Kor.2:11-15(NAV): “11Watter mens ken die verborge dinge van ‘n mens behalwe die gees van die mens wat in hom is? So ook ken niemand die verborge dinge van God nie, behalwe die Gees van God. 12Die Gees wat ons ontvang het, is nie die gees van die wêreld nie, maar die Gees wat van God kom. So weet ons wat God ons uit genade geskenk het. 13Dit verkondig ons ook, nie met geleerde woorde wat die menslike wysheid ons leer nie, maar met woorde wat die Gees ons leer.So verklaar ons geestelike dinge aan mense wat die Gees het. 14Die mens wat nie die Gees van God het nie, aanvaar nie die dinge van die Gees van God nie. Vir hom is dit onsin. Hy kan dit ook nie verstaan nie, omdat dit geestelik beoordeel moet word. 15Die mens wat die Gees van God het, kan die waarde van alle dinge beoordeel, maar self kan hy deur geen mens beoordeel word nie.”
Dit beteken dus dat indien ek voldoen aan die voorvereistes, soos gestel, ek in staat is om te kan onderskei tussen dit wat reg en verkeerd is, met die Woord as verwysingsraamwerk en biddend onder leiding van die Heilige Gees, mits, en dis ‘n groot mits,ek die Heilige Gees in my het en sy werking toelaat. Dit wat nie inpas in hierdie raamwerk nie, is sekerlik uit die vlees.
So wat sê die Bybel ? My argument is baie eenvoudig. Daar is ‘n groot verskil tussen dit wat in Handelinge aangeteken is en dit wat ons lees in 1Kor.12 en 14. Die Griekse woord “glossa” word in albei gevalle gebruik, maar dan word “glossa” ook gebruik om die “tonge van vuur” te beskryf met die uitstorting van die Heilige Gees. Ons gebruik ook, nes die Grieke, die woord “tonge”, maar jy sal met my saamstem dat ons dit in konteks moet lees. Tonge = tale, miskien ietwat van ‘n verouderde gebruik, maar tonge van vuur en tonge in die mond is vandag nog in algemene gebruik.
Laat ons kyk wat mense sê wat baie slimmer as ek is !!
Strong’s 1100 “glossa” se eerste punt is presies dieselfde as joune, maar dan gaan hy verder met wat jou verwysing nie insluit nie:
“a tongue, i. e. the language used by a particular people in distinction from that of other nations: Acts 2:11; hence, in later Jewish usage (Isaiah 66:18; Daniel 3:4; Daniel 5:19 Theod.; Theod.; Judges 3:8) joined with φυλή, λαός, ἔθνος, it serves to designate people of various languages (cf. Winer’s Grammar, 32), Revelation 5:9; Revelation 7:9; Revelation 10:11; Revelation 11:9; Revelation 13:7; Revelation 14:6; Revelation 17:15. λαλεῖν ἑτέραις γλώσσαις to speak with other than their native i. e. in foreign tongues, Acts 2:4, cf. Acts 2:6-11; γλώσσαις λαλεῖν καιναῖς to speak with new tongues which the speaker has not learned previously, Mark 16:17 (but Tr text WH text omit; Tr marginal reading brackets καιναῖς); cf. DeWette on Acts, p. 27ff (correct and supplement his references by Meyer on 1 Corinthians 12:10; cf. also B. D. under the word Tongues, Gift of). From both these expressions must be carefully distinguished the simple phrases λαλεῖν γλώσσαις, γλώσσαις λαλεῖν, λαλεῖν γλώσσῃ, γλώσσῃ λαλεῖν (and προσεύχεσθαι γλώσσῃ, 1 Corinthians 14:14), to speak with (in) a tongue (the organ of speech), to speak with tongues; this, as appears from 1 Corinthians 14:7ff, is the gift of men who, rapt in an ecstasy and no longer quite masters of their own reason and consciousness, pour forth their glowing spiritual emotions in strange utterances, rugged, dark, disconnected, quite unfitted to instruct or to influence the minds of others: Acts 10:46; Acts 19:6; 1 Corinthians 12:30; 1 Corinthians 13:1; 1 Corinthians 14:2, 4-6, 13, 18, 23, 27, 39. The origin of the expression is apparently to be found in the fact, that in Hebrew the tongue is spoken of as the leading instrument by which the praises of God are proclaimed (ἡ τῶν θείων ὕμνων μελῳδός, 4 Macc. 10:21, cf.”
Die Groot Griekse Leksikon van Danker, Bauer, Arndt en Gingrich (2000), of tewel “BDAG”, word beskou as een van die mees gesaghebbende Griekse Leksikons vir Nuwe Testamentiese Grieks vandag. Dit verteenwoordig letterlik dekades se navorsing. Dit gee drie betekenisse met teksverwysings vir glōssa. Let veral op die derde:
“1. organ of speech, tongue… James 3:5-6… 2. a body of words and systems that makes up a distinctive language, language, tongue… Ro 14:11; Phil 2:11… 3. an utterance outside the normal patterns of intelligible speech and therefore requiring special interpretation, ecstatic language, ecstatic speech, tongue… 1 Cor 14:1-27, 39; 12:10, 28, 30; 13:1, 8; Ac 10:46; 19:6. Always without the article… There is no doubt about the thing referred to, namely the strange speech of persons in religious ecstasy”
Dieselfde geld vir die Grieks-Engelse leksikon van Louw en Nida (1988). By die derde betekenis van glōssa:
“γλω̂σσα (3) ης f: an utterance having the form of language but requiring an inspired interpreter for an understanding of the content – ecstatic language, tongue, ecstatic speech. ὁ γὰρ λαλω̂ν γλώσσω οὐκ ἀνθρώποις λαλει̂ ἀλλὰ θεῳ̂ he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God 1CO.14:2. Most scholars assume that the phenomena described in ACT.2:4 (see 33.2) and in 1CO.14:2 are significantly different in that in one instance people understood in their own regional language or dialect and in the other instance an interpreter was required. It is for that reason that many interpret γλω̂σσα in 1CO.14:2 as ecstatic speech, which was also an element in Hellenistic religions and constituted a symbol of divine inspiration”
Daar is dus twee begrippe wat hier ter sprake is: (i) Xenoglossie = die Handelinge tale en (ii) glossolalie, die 1 Korintiërs tale.
Ek dink Markus 16:17 word reeds in die voorafgaande verklaring uitgewys en dit stem ooreen met wat jy sê. Vir my is dit ‘n heenwysing na dit wat sal gebeur na die uitstorting van die Heilige Gees – Xenoglossie. In soverre dit jou aanhalings uit Handelinge aangaan, stem ek met meeste saam. In Hand.19:6 is dit egter ‘n ander saak. Deur hierdie afleiding te maak “it does not add to the text of the Bible”, om jou woorde te gebruik.
Wanneer ons egter by 1 Korintiërs kom, dink ek begin ons verskil van mekaar. Nie in die letter van die Woord nie, maar wel in die konteks van die interpretasie. Laat my toe om sekere verse uit te lig:
1Kor.14:2: “Want hy wat in ‘n taal spreek, spreek nie tot mense nie, maar tot God; want niemand verstaan dit nie, maar deur die Gees spreek hy verborgenhede.” Ek dink nie daar is iets misterieus omtrent die vers nie – uit en uit “glossolalie”. Indien dit, volgens jou, ‘n “xenoglossie” is wat net God kan verstaan, waarom “deur die Gees” en dan “verborgenhede” ? Dit maak net nie sin nie.
1Kor.14:14: “Want as ek in ‘n taal bid, dan bid my gees, maar my verstand is onvrugbaar.” My verstand kan tog nie onvrugbaar wees as die doel van my “spreek in tale” is om ander in te lig nie. Dan gaan ek brabbel. Ek glo nie dat die gemeente so kosmopolities van aard sou gewees het dat hulle nie mekaar sou verstaan nie. Kultuur gewys miskien wel, maar dit is net nie normale menslike handeling om jou te assosieer met mense wat in ‘n, vir jou, onverstaanbare taal praat nie. Die Handelinge tale was ‘n ander saak, want Petrus en die ander was in die publiek besig. Ons moet miskien die aksent van wat Paulus prober oorkry net so effe verskuiwe.
Daar gelaat. Miskien moet Paulus my ook aanspreek oor die feit dat ek teveel “spreek”, terwyl daar baie wyser woorde is as myne. Hier is Gordon Fee (1987) se kommentaar oor 1Kor.14:2-5 in New International Commentary of the New Testament – beskou as een van die beste kommentare op 1 Korintiërs: (As jy al sy verwysings wil hê, kan ek dit vir jou afsonderlik aanstuur – dis lywig):
The First Epistle to the Corinthians
Paul’s emphasis – and concern – is unmistakable, the edification of the church. The one activity, tongues, edifies the speaker but not the church, because it is addressed to God and “no one understands him”. The other activity, prophecy, edifies the church, because it is addressed to the people and speaks “edification, encouragement and comfort” to them.
Although trying to cool their ardour for congregational tongue-speaking, Paul does not disparage the gift itself; rather, he seeks to put it in its rightful place. Positively, he says three things about speaking in tongues, which are best understood in light of the further discussion on prayer and praise in vv.13-17: (1) Such a person is “speaking to God”, that is, he or she is communing with God by the Spirit. Although it is quite common in Pentecostal groups to refer to a “message in tongues”, there seems to be no evidence in Paul for such terminology. The tongue-speaker is not addressing fellow believers but God (cf.vv.13-14, 28), meaning therefore that Paul understands the phenomenon basically to be prayer and praise.
(2) The content of such utterances is “mysteries” spoken “by the Spirit”. It is possible that “mysteries” means something similar to its usage in 13:2; more likely it carries here the sense of that which lies outside the understanding, both for the speaker and the hearer. After all, “mysteries” in 13:2 refers to the ways of God that are being revealed by the Spirit to his people; such “mysteries” would scarcely need to be spoken back to God.
(3) Such speech by the Spirit is further described in v.4 as edifying to the speaker. This has sometimes been called “self-edification” and therefore viewed with pejorative. But Paul intended no such thing. The edifying of oneself is not self-centredness, but the personal edifying of the believer that comes through private prayer and praise. Although one may wonder how “mysteries” that are not understood by the speaker can edify, the answer lies in vv.14-15. Contrary to the opinion of many, spiritual edification can take place in ways other than through the cortex of the brain. Paul believed in an immediate communing with God by means of the S/spirit that sometimes bypassed the mind; and in vv.14-15 he argues that for his own edification he will have both. But in church he will have only what can also communicate to other believers through their minds.
But despite these favourable words about tongues, Paul’s present concern is not with private devotion, but with public worship. Therefore, he urges by implication that they not speak in tongues in worship ( unless it be interpreted, vv.5, 13, 27), but rather that they seek to prophesy(or in light of v.6 bring forth any form of intelligible utterance). The reason for prophecy is that it speaks “edification, exhortation and comfort” to the rest of the people. These three words set forth the parameters of the divine intent of prophecy, and probably indicate that in Paul’s view the primary focus of a prophetic utterance is not the future, but the present situations of the people of God.
The first word “edification” controls the thought of the entire chapter. In 8:1 Paul had said, “love builds up”; now the sequence runs, “Pursue love, and in that framework seek the things of the Spirit, especially prophecy, because prophecy builds up”, thus the reason for the preceding chapter. Since love builds up, in their zeal for gifts they are to seek prophecy because it is intelligible and thus builds up the body. The second word is more ambiguous, meaning alternatively “encouragement” “comfort” or “exhortation (appeal)”. It is joined in this instance by its companion “comfort”. The question is whether these two words are, as in other instances, near synonyms meaning to encourage or comfort, or whether they embrace the broader categories of exhorting or comforting. In either case, the aim of prophecy is the growth of the church corporately, which also involves the growth of the individual members.
5 This verse summarises vv.1-4 by making explicit Paul’s preference for prophecy over tongues in the assembly. As in vv.2-4, he begins with tongues: “I would like every one of you to speak in tongues”. This sentence is often viewed as “merely conciliatory”, especially in light of 12:28-30 where he argues that all will not speak in tongues. But that is not quite precise. Paul has already indicated that tongues have value for the individual, meaning in private, personal prayer (cf.vv.14-15 and 18-19). Now he says of that dimension of spiritual life that he could wish all experienced the edification that came from such a gift of the Spirit. But that of course is not his present point; thus he quickly qualifies that “wish” by repeating of v.1: “but rather that you prophecy”.
Ter afsluiting wil ek net stel dat die onderwerp van “spreek in tale” ‘n bron van groot misverstand is by baie Christene. Die misbruik daarvan in sommige kringe (jou woorde: “It a well known fact that some of the worst heretics today practice tongue speaking, …..”) het beslis die oortuiging gelaat by sessasioniste dat die gawe nie aktief nóg nodig is nie. Sommige noem dit selfs demonies van aard of emosionele histerie, indien dit wel voorkom.
In reaksie daarop wil ek net daarop wys dat toe Paulus en Silas gepla is deur ‘n besete meisie met die “gawe” van profesie (Hand.16:16), het hulle haar stil gemaak en die demon uitgedryf. Dit het egter nie gemaak dat hulle die gawe van profesie beskou het as uit die Bose nie. Wat wel hier ter sprake kom is die gawe van onderskeiding !!
Wat probeer ek sê ? Jou verkeerd bewys ? NEE. Ek het dit reeds vroeër in een van my geskriffies gesê, dat al wat ek vra is dat omdat jy nie met my saamstem, dit noodwendig sonde is nie. Verander asseblief jou tema na my opskrif hierbo.
SOLI DEO GLORIA
(Alle Afrikaanse tekse is uit die 1953 vertaling, tensy ander aangetoon)
Jaco de Beer said:
Hallo Bruce. Eerstens, die Griekse leksikon verduidelik al die moontlike betekenisse van die woord “glossa” wat die derde moontlikheid insluit. Ek kan vir jou hordes woorde in die Grieks gee waar die woord meer as een betekenis het en soms baie snaaks. Wanneer vertalers ‘n woord dan vertaal dan lees hulle die konteks en gebruik die woord wat by die sin konstruksie en en konteks pas om dit te vertaal. Maw die derde betekenis is ‘n moontlike betekenis van die woord, want so tipe gedrag bestaan. Heidene, veral dan die Grieke, praktiseer al jare ekstatiese “tale.” Die betekenis van die woord is dus nie onbekend om te verwys na ekstatiese onmenslike tale nie. Die vraag is wat sê die konteks en wat se die res van die Bybel, want dit bepaal hoe ons die woord moet gebruik. Omdat die woord wel meer as een betekenis het beteken nie dis wat die Bybel probeer se nie. Ons leef in ‘n heidense wêreld wat baie ander betekenisse aan woorde het wat nie eie aan Christenskap is nie.
So kom ons kyk baie kortliks wat se die Bybel oor watter vorm van tale was gespreek sodat ons daaruit ‘n betekenis vir die woord kan gee. Eerstens, is daar slegs drie voorbeelde van tale in die HELE Bybel. Al drie was mense tale. Selfs charismatiese teoloë is dit eens dat die Handelinge gebeurtenisse mense tale was. Buiten dit is daar GEEN voorbeeld in die HELE Bybel van ENIGE mens, engel, Jesus of God wat OOIT in enige ander taal as mense tale gepraat het nie. So waarop wil ons nou “gibberish” baseer. Bloot omdat heidene so gedrag praktiseer wil ons nou beweer dit kan ook met Christene gebeur. As die gebeurtenis so algemeen is soos wat Charismate beweer, hoekom sien ons geen voorbeeld daarvan in die Bybel BUITEN die drie in Handelinge nie? Verwag God nou van Sy kerk om dinge te praktiseer wat nie eers in die Bybel voorgekom het nie. Tweedens, 1 Korintiërs 14 se konteks spreek baie duidelik van mense tale. Paulus verduidelik baie mooi die aard van die taal wat hy van praat. Dis nie lewelose klanke sonder betekenis nie (1 Kor. 14:6-9) en verder se hy daar is baie mense tale in die wêreld en nie een is sonder betekenis nie (1 Kor. 14:10-11). So wil ons nou op grond van 1 Korintiërs 14:4 beweer Paulus was besig om van ekstatiese onmenslike “tale” te praat terwyl die grootste gedeelte van 1 Korintiërs 14 verwys na mense tale. Derdens, die woord wat gebruik word in Korintiërs word regdeur die NT gebruik ook in Handelinge wanneer dit verwys na mense tale of na die fisiese tong. Dit word nooit gebruik met verwysing na ekstatiese onmenslike “tale” nie en word slegs gebruik om te verwys na mense tale mits die konteks aandui nou praat dit van die fisiese tong in die mond. Op grond van wat wil ons nou beweer die woord in 1 Korintiërs 14 verwys na babbel tale as dit nêrens in die HELE Bybel voorkom of so gebruik word nie. Vierdens, kerkgeskiedenis wys dat werklike tale (nie babbel), toenemend minder geword het vanaf die 100 AD en later verdwyn het. So by so dat van die kerkvaders in hul geskrifte skryf hoe hulle nie meer die gawe sien nie en dit slegs hier en daar nog voorkom. Chrysostom skryf rondom 380 AD hoe hulle nie meer die gawe in die kerk sien nie, want dit gebeur nie meer nie. Die hele kerkgeskiedenis is stil oor die voorkom van die gawe buiten heidense cults waar ekstatiese “gibbersih” voorkom. Eers in die laat 1800’s en begin 1900’s het die “gibberish” opgevlam met die sogenaamde Azusa en Vineyard revivals. Dis verder populêr gemaak met die Toronto revival met hul Toronto blessing. Die geskiedenis bevestig wat die Bybel leer. Die ekstatiese gebabbel was NOOIT deel van die ware kerk nie. In die tweede eeu het Montanus ook met die praktyk in die kerk begin en is hy deur die kerkvaders toe verwerp as ‘n heretic. Daar was ander issues ook met hom moet ek bysê, maar een van die groot redes was sy ekstatiese “tale” en profesieë wat hy in die kerk gebring het. Hoekom het die kerk toe nie geweet van die gebeurtenis nie as dit so bekend was soos vandag nie. Dit was skaars 200 jaar na Christus.
hierstaanek said:
Hallo Bruce
Dankie vir die antwoord. Ek antwoord in paaiemente.
Daar is spesifieke redes waarom ons as Protestante glo die kanon van die Bybel is afgesluit.
Hebreers 1: 1In die verlede het God baiekeer en op baie maniere met ons voorvaders gepraat deur die profete, 2maar nou, in hierdie laaste dae, het Hy met ons gepraat deur die Seun. God het Hom deur wie Hy die wêreld geskep het, ook erfgenaam van alles gemaak.
In die verlede het God deur profete graat maar NOU het hy Homself is sy Seun aan ons openbaar. Die rekord van God se selfopenbaring in Christus is aan ons nagelaat deur die apostels.
My vraag is: As God Homself in sy Seun aan ons openbaar het, is dit nie genoeg nie? Wat kan God nog sê, wat Jesus nie vir ons gesê het en deur die apostels aan ons oorgedra is nie?
Vir 2000 jaar het die kerk gelo die kanon is afgesluit (Dit is waarom die sinode van Nicea GEEN boeke wat nie of deur apostels self of onder direkte apostoliese gesag geskryd is as kanon aanvaar het nie)
Jy kan nie beweer jy glo in Sola Scriptura en dan in dieselfde asem sê die kanon is nie afgesluit nie. Die twee stellings is onverenigbaar. Jy moet kies: Of Sola Scriptura en ‘n geslote kanon, of geen Sola Scruptura en ‘n oop kanon.
hierstaanek said:
Jy sê “Die geloofsbeleidenis van die NGK sê: “Ek glo in die Heilige Gees” – een sinnetjie, maar die vraag is: “Glo ek in die werking van die Heilige Gees ?”. Glo my, die dag as jy dít glo en beleef is daar nie brieke nie !!”
Die implikasie is duidelik: Jy impliseer dat ek nie in die Heilige Gees glo nie. Jammer, jy is verkeerd. Maar jy is reg: Baie charismate het nie brieke nie. Die oomblik as jy dink die Bybel is nie klaar geskryf nie is daar nie brieke nie. Maar nie op ‘n goeie manier nie.
Bruce said:
Wynand, ek impliseer geensins dat die kanon nog oop is nie. Wat ek se is dat die werk van die Heilige Gees en daarmee saam, en ek las by, ons sending taak, nie afgehandel/afgesluit is nie. Ons kan nie ‘n streep teologie toepas en net sekere dinge aanvaar en toepas nie.
Tov. die Heilge Gees en jou oortuiging. Ek impliseer niks nie. Ek stel my kant van die saak. Ek dink ook dis onregverdig om dood eenvoudig te veralgemeen oor charismate. Natuurlik is daar die afgewekenes net soos in die NKG (waarteen jy so stuwel), maar maak dit almal sleg of afgeweke ??
Jou oortuiging is jou oortuiging en ek respekteer dit. Ek het nog nie een keer vir jou probeer vertel dat jy verkeerd is of dat jou oortuiging “sonde” is nie. Dit is jy wat net nie kan aanvaar, dat ten spyte van wat ek oorweldigende feite noem, daar ‘n ander siening en oortuiging kan wees nie.Jy moet erken dat my oortuiging nie net op emosie/ervaring baseer is nie.
Daar is mense in die pinkster beweging wat nie “sky pilots” is en net daar is om geld te maak nie. Selfs die NGK het met die jare meer toegeneend gevoel tov. sekere van die kerke wat voorheen totaal personae non grata was.
Ons kan aanhou “nit pick” oor die onderwerp en die een gaan die ander een nie oortuig nie. Jy wil duidelik nie die “sonde” uit “spreek in tale” haal nie, so my voorstel aan jou is : “Los dit daar”
hierstaanek said:
Ek wil net duidelik maak oor die eksegese van 1 Kor 2
1Wat my betref, broers, toe ek na julle toe gekom het om die geheimnisvolle waarheid van God aan julle te verkondig, het ek nie met hoë woorde of groot geleerdheid gekom nie. 2Ek het my voorgeneem om met julle oor niks anders te praat nie as oor Jesus as die Christus, en wel oor Hom as die gekruisigde.
Paulus spesifiseer hier presies waaroor hy met die KOrinthiërs praat: Die “geheimenisvolle waarheir” is die Evangelie van Christus, die Gekruisigde. Niks anders nie!
4 Die boodskap wat ek verkondig, het julle oortuig, nie deur geleerdheid en welsprekendheid nie, maar deur die kragtige werking van die Gees. 5Dus is julle geloof nie op die wysheid van mense gegrond nie, maar op die krag van God.
BAie mense beweer Paulus praat hier van wonderwerke as hy praat van “die kragtige werking van die Gees” en die “Krag van God” Hy spesifiseer uitdruklik in die vorige hoofstuk dat hy NIE praat van wonderwerke nie.
18Die boodskap van die kruis van Christus is wel onsin vir dié wat verlore gaan, maar vir ons wat gered word, is dit die krag van God.
22Die Jode vra wondertekens en die Grieke soek wysheid, 23maar ons verkondig Christus wat gekruisig is.
Dus nie wonderwerke nie, maar die bo0odskap,die Evangelie.
Terug na 1 Kor 2:
7 Wat ons verkondig, is die wysheid van God, die verborge waarheid wat bedek was en wat God van ewigheid af vir ons voorbestem het tot ons ewige heerlikheid.
10 Wat ons verkondig, is die wysheid van God, die verborge waarheid wat bedek was en wat God van ewigheid af vir ons voorbestem het tot ons ewige heerlikheid.
14Die mens wat nie die Gees van God het nie, aanvaar nie die dinge van die Gees van God nie. Vir hom is dit onsin. Hy kan dit ook nie verstaan nie, omdat dit geestelik beoordeel moet word. 15Die mens wat die Gees van God het, kan die waarde van alle dinge beoordeel, maar self kan hy deur geen mens beoordeel word nie.
Paulus praat hier oor die Boodskap
1) Hy het die Boodskap van GOd ontvang
2) Mense wat nie die Gees van God het nie kan dit nie verstaan nie
3) Mense wat die Gees het kan die Boodskap verstaan.
Die boodskap wat Paulus verkondig is wat ons in die Bybel het vandag. Daar is NIKS in Paulus se boodskap wat NIE in die Bybel is nie. Hierdie teks kan dus nie gebruik word om nuwe openbaring of buite-Bybelse openbaring te regverdig nie. Dit kan ook nie gebruik word om Bybelse eksegese te doen op maniere wat nie die oorspronklike bedoeling van die skrywer in ag neem nie.
As Paulus bv die woord “glossa” gebruik het om ware menslike tale te bedoel, kan ons nie na die tyd sê “die Heilige Gees het my oortuig dat dit eintlik brabbeltaal beteken” nie. Met anderwoorde, ons kan dit nie gebruik as verskoning om nie goeie eksegese te doen nie.
Ek sien dikwels dat mense juis dié teks gebruik as verskoning om nie goeie eksegese te doen nie.
Ek glo dit is wat jy bedoel. Ek wil net dubbel seker maak dat jy verstaan: Dit is nie ‘n verskoning om goed in die teks in te lees of om die duidelike konteks van tekste te ignoreer nie!
Bruce said:
Dankie Wynand.
Ek gebruik maar net dit wat mense wat as kundiges beskou word op hulle vakgebied se
Miskien sal jy eendag besef dat omdat ek van jou verskil dit nie noodwendig enig van ons twee se sienings verkeerd of reg maak nie
Ek bid jou werklik seen toe op wat jy probeer vermag. Ek glo dat mens soms soos Don Quixote voel “tilting at windmills”
Ek sien uit na ander onderwerpe waarin ons dalk kan saamstem/verskil. “Afterall” ek is ‘n pinkstermens !!
hierstaanek said:
Bruce
Oor jou verwysings na die lexicons:
Hier is Strong se inskrywing vir glossa
“1100. γλῶσσα glōssa gloce-sah’ of uncertain affinity; the tongue; by implication, a language (specially, one naturally unacquired):–tongue.”
Jy haal Louw en Nida aan
“γλω̂σσα (3) ης f: an utterance having the form of language but requiring an inspired interpreter for an understanding of the content – ecstatic language, tongue, ecstatic speech. ὁ γὰρ λαλω̂ν γλώσσω οὐκ ἀνθρώποις λαλει̂ ἀλλὰ θεῳ̂ he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God 1CO.14:2. Most scholars assume that the phenomena described in ACT.2:4 (see 33.2) and in 1CO.14:2 are significantly different in that in one instance people understood in their own regional language or dialect and in the other instance an interpreter was required. It is for that reason that many interpret γλω̂σσα in 1CO.14:2 as ecstatic speech, which was also an element in Hellenistic religions and constituted a symbol of divine inspiration”
Let op dat Louw en Nida die betekenis van “ecstatic speech” byvoeg omdat die woord “glossa” (ook in die twintigste eeu deur Charismate) die betekenis gekry het.
Dieselfde geld vir die ander lexicon wat jy aanhaal. As jy mooi na die paragraaf in Louw en Nida kyk sal jy sien dat hulle die betekenis insluit omdat mense AANNEEM dat dit ekstatiese babbeltaal was. Om Louw en Nida nou aan te haal as BEWYS dat dit ekstatiese babbeltaal was is ‘n sirkulêre redenasie.
Ek pos later weer.
hierstaanek said:
Bruce
Jy sê “Daar is dus twee begrippe wat hier ter sprake is: (i) Xenoglossie = die Handelinge tale en (ii) glossolalie, die 1 Korintiërs tale.”
Nee daar is nie. Die Bybel (Lukas en Paulus gebruik slegs twee woorde: “glossa” (tale) en dialekte (ook) tale. Die twee begrippe xenoglossie en glossolalie is nie in die Bybel nie.
Jy sê: “In Hand.19:6 is dit egter ‘n ander saak. Deur hierdie afleiding te maak “it does not add to the text of the Bible”, om jou woorde te gebruik.”
Indien jy bedoel dat die mans babbletaal gepraat, voeg jy wel by die Bybel by.
— In Jerusalem het die dissipels ware menslike tale gepraat.
— Cornelius en sy gesin het “die selfde gawe as ons” nl ware mense tale ontvang.
— Om nou te beweer dat die Efesiers nie mensetale gepraat het nie maar gebabbel het is ‘n totale miskenning van die konteks.
1Kor.14:2: “Want hy wat in ‘n taal spreek, spreek nie tot mense nie, maar tot God; want niemand verstaan dit nie, maar deur die Gees spreek hy verborgenhede.” Ek dink nie daar is iets misterieus omtrent die vers nie – uit en uit “glossolalie”. Indien dit, volgens jou, ‘n “xenoglossie” is wat net God kan verstaan, waarom “deur die Gees” en dan “verborgenhede” ? Dit maak net nie sin nie.
Bruce, hier is jy tipies besig met eisegese.
Paulus gee geen aanduiding dat hy oor iets anders praat as die Handelinge 2 verskysel nie. Jy neem dit egter aan omdat jy met die voorveronderstelling kom dat dit babbeltaal is. Omdat jy die voorveronderstelling het dat dit babbletaal is, maar jy presies daardie afleiding uit die teks. Lees die teks met die voorveronderstelling dat dit ware tale is, jy sal sien dat dit dan perfek sin maak. “Verborgenhede” beteken bloot niemand verstaan dit nie. Dit pas perfek in by die draad wat Paulus hier volg.
1Kor.14:14: “Want as ek in ‘n taal bid, dan bid my gees, maar my verstand is onvrugbaar.”
Hier is jy weereens besig om jou voor veronderstelling van babbeltaal in die teks in te lees en dan weer daar uit te haal. Lees asb my eksegese van die teks in die oorspronklike blog pos.
Ek praat later oor die engelse stuk wat jy ingeplak het.
Die basislyn is dit: Dit is slegs as jy 1 KOr 14 met die voorveronderstelling van babbeltaal lees, dat jy babbeltaal-teologie daaruit kan kry.
As jy met die voorveronderstelling lees dat dit dieselfde gawe is as in Handelinge 2, maak alles perfek sin. Inteendeel, die Kerk het dit vir 1900 jaar gedoen totdat Agnes Ozman (google haar) skielik “Chinees” begin praat en skryf het. Toe haar gemeente tot hulle skok agterkom sy praat nie Chinees nie het hulle hulle teologie aangepas om hulle ervaring te pas. Vir die eerste keer in 1900 is 1 Korintiers 14 toe met die voorveronderstelling van babbeltaal gelees.
Pingback: Bronne om charismatiese/pinkstergroepe te beoordeel | Pro Regno
antonie said:
Om in tale te bid is bybels.Die bybel se dat satan nie as enige mens in tale begin bid dit kan verstaan nie,want dit is die Heilige gees wat beter weet wa oor ons moet bid wat dan vir ons bid,en dit is n suiwer perfekte gebed.
hierstaanek said:
Antonie, jy het duidelik nie die artikel gelees nie, anders sou jy verstaan het presies HOE jy die teks verkeerd interpreteer.
Om in tale te bid is Bybels, maar die brabbelklanke wat mense vandag “Tale” noem is nie Bybels nie. Die “tale” van die Bybel was ware, menslike tale wat deur die moedertaalsprekers verstaan is.
Lees asb die artikel en wys waarom dit verkeerd is.
Dit is sonde om iets te doen wat nie van God kom nie en dat te sê dit is van God. As jy dit doen laster jy teen God, en jy maak ‘n bespotting van die Heilige Gees.
Carym said:
Ekself is Afrikaans maar moes onderstaande debat in Engels voer omdat ek baie Amerikaners vir vriende het. Daarom het ek dit nie nodig geag om dit weer oor te vertaal nie, want ons verstaan mos beide, nie waar nie?
Ek wil begin deur te sê dat as ons uitgangspunte verkeerd is… as ons met onsself begin eerder as met God, sal ons nie die dinge van die Gees goed verstaan nie.
In plaas dat ons, ons aandag spits op ander se ‘opinies’ en/of ‘geestelike ervarings’ moet ons eerder die Skrif self laat praat; want as die Skrif enigiets minder as onfeilbaar is, kom God se onveranderlikheid en soewereiniteit ook in die gedrang.
Laat my dus toe om vir julle ‘n debat (as mens dit so kan stel) wat tussen my (CARYM) en ‘n ander gelowige (wie se gebuikersnaam ek vir hierdie doel verander het), te openbaar:
DIE AANVANKLIKE VRAAG HET OOR DIE “DOOP” GEGAAN:
CARYM►”Peter replied, ‘All of you must turn away from your sins and be baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ. Then your sins will be forgiven. You will receive the GIFT of the Holy Spirit'” [Acts 2:38].
[Mark 16:16] Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. Who said this? None other than Jesus, Himself.
So, baptism is equated with belief, and to reject it, is equated with disbelief. If one believes the message, they will accept baptism. If they do not believe the message, they will reject baptism.
“But what about the thief that was crucified on the right hand of our Lord? Did you forget that he was forgiven and he only believed and acknowledged the Savior…?”
I get so tired of those who refer to the thief on the Cross. Did they really expect the Roman soldiers to remove him from the Cross so he could be baptized and then crucified for the second time…? Or, could it be that the thief could not receive the same baptism we do, as the terms of salvation under the gospel were not yet in effect when the thief was crucified?
[1 Peter 3:20-21] God waited patiently in the days of Noah, while the ark was being built. In the ark a few people, only eight souls, were saved through water. And this WATER symbolizes the BAPTISM THAT NOW SAVES YOU—not the removal of dirt from the body, but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God.
Salvation cannot be redefined—Especially if it is so clearly stated in [Mark 16:16]. We cannot remove the “Supernatural” from the pages. I received the spirit baptism shortly after I was water baptized; just as Peter said it would be.
We read in [Acts 22:16] that Paul was commanded to be baptized so his sins could be washed away and so was Cornelius and his household.
Can we be saved if our sins remain? The blood of Christ washes away the sins [Revelation 1:5] — [Romans 6:3-4] says we are “baptized into Christ.”
Can we be saved outside of Christ? These verses in Romans also say we are “baptized into His death.” At Christ’s death is where His saving blood was shed and offered for our sins. We must contact His death to contact that blood!
Of course, we have to complete the race. We cannot run it alone without Christ and for that we need fresh fillings of the Holy Spirit all the way through our Christian journey.
ELMAR►All believers are baptized by the Holy Spirit at the moment of conversion. It has nothing to do with tongues if that’s what you’re getting at. Tongues was a sign gift for the early church. What people are doing in pentecostal churches today is a form of self or group hypnosis. The filling of the Holy Spirit, however, is an ongoing thing.
CARYM►[Mark 16:16] Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. Jesus’ own words.
[1 Corinthians 14:15] So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my understanding; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my understanding. [Jude 1:20] building yourselves up in your most holy faith and praying in the Holy Spirit.
If *Jesus, commanded what needed to be done, then who are we to redefine salvation…?
ELMAR►1 Cor 13:8 says that tongues will cease, as well as (word of) knowledge and prophesying (Thus saith the Lord type thing they do in Pentecostal churches.) Now that we have the written Word of God, the Holy Bible, those gifts are no longer needed.
The church was young yet in Acts Chapter 8 and the written Scriptures were not available.
When one believes, they ARE baptized with the Holy Spirit. It doesn’t mean tongues. We are built up in our faith today by reading the Word and hearing good preaching. 1 Cor. 13:10 says that when that which is perfect (the Bible) is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
I spent some time in Pentecostal churches many years ago. The preacher would say one verse from the Bible and then go off on a tangent. Have you noticed that all the televangelists who have disgraced themselves have been tongues speakers?
CARYM►Yes, you say the things you would like to believe in other words, you adjust the Word of God to suit you. Shame on you.
The apostles died, NOT the gifts of the Spirit—(these are for the Church Age)—The Supernatural is indispensable for the establishment of the Kingdom, and these manifestations of God’s miraculous power are released by the obedient, available channels, as God sees fit.
So tell me, did the “Gift of Faith” also cease? The “Prayer Language” is linked to one’s FAITH and the ARMOR. Are you then also letting go of “Faith” and the “Armor?”
As it clearly states in [Jude 1:20] But you, dear friends, by building yourselves up in
your most holy faith and praying in the Holy Spirit.
Now, would God want us to build ourselves up in the “Most Holy Faith” to reduce it later on, to an “Almost Holy Faith,” to an “Unholy Faith,” and, eventually, to “No Faith” at all…? This will happen if the ‘Prayer Language” is removed completely.
Your Church, is having one power failure after another. Let me just say this, YOUR getting high, and MY getting high (to get by), are two different things, it seems…
Would God give us the “spiritual gifts” especially, the “spiritual language” {us-praying-
Directly-and-Correctly-to-God} so, we may finish in the flesh…?
Christ commands us to pray in the will of God — The rule of prayer must be sought from the Word of God, not from YOU, is that clear?
[Ephesians 6:10-18] verse 18 – AND pray in the SPIRIT on ALL OCCASIONS with all kinds of prayers and requests.
Is the Christian journey not called the “Race of Faith?” P-r-o-g-r-e-s-s-i-v-e Faith…? NO Faith & Obedience, NO Grace (no salvation)!
First, I was raised a Presbyterian. Every Sunday was a punishment for me to attend a church that generates dead souls. So, at the age of 16, I went over to a Gospel Church where I met the Lord for the first time. Most of my family is still Presbyterian.
They can see how I have changed, they love what I tell them about my Supernatural experience and the Word, yet they still hold on to their sin, just like you…
Second, in these last days everything is by God’s Spirit. Christians who focus only on the Pharisaic arguments (who lacks the Spirit of God), can never and will never, understand the things of the Spirit. Words without a heart are empty, regardless of the amount thereof.
You overstepped your mark when you spoke against the Spirit of God and His Gifts.
Third, [1st Corinthians & 2nd Corinthians] were written sometime between 55 and 57 A.D. — The “Letter to the Ephesians” was written afterwards, sometime between 60–61 AD, around the same time Paul wrote Colossians and Philemon, as he sent all three letters by the hand of Tychicus.
How do you account for that? Did Paul change his mind about the “Tongues,” OR did YOU not fully understand what he said?
And, what he commands in [Ephesians 6:18] is that we pray in the SPIRIT on ALL OCCASIONS with all kinds of prayers and requests.
Just how, if I may ask, do you pray in the Spirit?
The Bible clearly teaches that the “Balance of Truth,” lies in the Spirit and the Word.
[John 4:23] “But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in Spirit and Truth, for the Father seeks such to worship Him.”
We also know that a false balance is an abomination to the LORD: but a just weight is His delight.”[Proverbs 11:1].
For what it’s worth, I cannot hate you, but the TRUTH must triumph. It’s better to button up if you don’t know what you’re talking about, because the Truth, will give you a hiding. That’s why the Bible says that you cannot do anything against the TRUTH [2 Corinthians 13:8]. WITH LOVE, CARYM.
ELMAR►Yes. I agree that the Presbyterian church is mostly dead. My Baptist church, however, is seeing souls saved on a regular basis. And I am most certainly not letting go of faith and the armor of God. A person prays in the Spirit when he/she is right with God and reading His Word daily.
I went to an Episcopal church as a child – also dead – and wasn’t born again until my late twenties. If you don’t mind my asking, how long have you been saved? I have been walking with the Lord for over 35 years.
What makes you think I would “like” to believe these things? I would like to believe the truth. I did the so-called “speaking in tongues” thing and later realized that there was something wrong with that doctrine. I will be praying for you, dear one. May God bless you.
Please reread 1 Cor., Chapter 13; especially verse 11. And pray for discernment.
By the way, my Baptist church does not have a rock band at the altar. We sing the old gospel songs and hymns and are blessed and rejoicing. We support missionaries around the world and don’t give money to greedy televangelists, 90% of whom are false prophets.
I don’t know what your point is about Ephesians being written around 60 AD, Carym. That WAS the early church. Did you see my comment about the sign gifts being for the early church? There are several gifts still in operation – helps, giving, administration, mercy, etc.
CARYM►I’m here for 5 minutes only before I head back to where I belong (with the rest of the family).
(1) “A person prays in the Spirit when he/she is right with God and reading His Word daily.” According to you…
NO, Paul made a CLEAR DISTINCTION between praying with the UNDERSTANDING and praying in the SPIRIT (praying in tongues). We do not UNDERSTAND what we pray, when we pray in the SPIRIT.
How difficult was that to grasp? [1 Corinthians 14:14-16].
Your reaction, is *your opinion and NOT God’s Word. This happened the moment ‘humanism’ entered the modern Church.
We should never desire a place where it is too comfortable; because that’s where we can easily lose our fear and reverence for God.
Praying in the Spirit is the means by which our *redeemed human spirit communicates directly with God’s Spirit. Intended to be used for more than just communicating with God in prayer, it is also designed to be a power producer to enhance the operation of ALL the other gifts and graces of God.
For these reasons it could be considered one of the greatest Gifts of the Holy Spirit that a Christian can receive.
(2) You’ve been walking with the Lord for over 35 years… Listen, I do love you (I really do) but, you’ve been walking alone “in your own strength without power” {sorry}. Because when we believe that the Gospel is actually true and responding to it by living our lives in the rhythm of the Kingdom of God, we are walking in the Spirit.
When we walk in the newness of the Spirit (the fire of the Holy Spirit) on a daily basis, you’ll never know what it is to be powerless, or to backslide.
(3) BTW, do I understand correctly that you will pray for me because, perhaps I am “unsaved/less-saved,” OR because I’m beyond the rhythm of your man-made doctrines…?
Without going into much detail, At 16, I switched denominations (without my parents’ consent), due to some religious beliefs which, in my opinion, were unbiblical. They proclaimed a ‘powerless’ watered-down Gospel, which could not satisfy one’s spiritual needs.
I was water- and Spirit-baptized within the first three weeks of joining the other Church, just as Peter said it would be. My spirit baptism WAS Supernatural (according to the Bible, rivers of living water will flow from within). Unknown words bubbled up and out of my mouth… I could control the volume, but the words kept flowing… It was the most wonderful feeling ever! Tongues, for sure…
Each of us, is called by God to experience the indwelling presence of the Spirit ‘in a conscious and perceptible way.’ It’s not enough for us to possess the Spirit merely in an implicit manner. That’s why I know what I know…
After having had this Wonderful Supernatural experience, I wanted more and more, I just couldn’t get enough of God and His Word.
Okay, long story short: I then attended Varsity and at the same time, joined a Bible Study Group (only a few of us), where we read/studied the Bible for 10-years x 20 chapters a day, every single day–{how’s that for discipline?}– Do the math and see how many times I have worked through the Bible from cover-to-cover each year.
What began as a dedicated exercise later became a serious, disciplined Bible study. It became more and more personal and spiritual, which eventually led to an intimate relationship with God.
And, God takes delight in someone who devours His Word… So, I think I’m somewhat further advanced than a beginner!
We also know that membership does not define a Christian’s character; and that ‘age’ does not constitute spiritual maturity.
Believing isn’t what makes someone a Christian. Nor does good works. Either one of these things “on their own,” fall short. Why? Because if you simply believe in Jesus and the Gospel, but don’t actually obey Jesus and the Gospel, then you don’t actually believe Jesus and the Gospel.
However, everyone on this page needs a touch of the Holy Spirit and I have already prayed for it.
Oh, I didn’t see this… “Carym, I don’t know what your point is about Ephesians being written around 60 AD, it was the early Church?”
Really, Where do we find the Armor? Is it for today? Well, is it?
[Ephesians 6:10-18] Let’s look at verse 18 And PRAY IN THE SPIRIT on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the Lord’s people.
ELMAR►Please pray for both of us and all reading these comments to have wisdom, discernment and a right heart before God.
CARYM►Now, ‘that’s what I’m talking about!’
Yes, I usually ask God to prepare people’s hearts and make them receptive to His Spirit.
Sorry, guys, it’s out of my hands now… Love you all. God bless!
______________________________________________
Met al my Christelike liefde. Mag God julle seën. CARYM.
Carym said:
antonie en Bruce, julle het albei my ondersteuning.
Bruce said:
Carym, thank you for your ‘heads up’ re my bit on speaking in tongues. We cannot simply select from the Bible what we believe still to be relevant in modern times. It is all or nothing !!
There is, however, one point where I differ from you. Maybe I misunderstood you ? Being baptised as a believer is an act of obedience and neither adds nor subtracts from the fact that I have been saved
Bless you and may the Lord’s mercies fill your life in 2019
carym coetzer said:
Bruce, let me just add that Truth is not determined by what any man or group of men may teach. It is determined by Scripture and Scripture alone. As I understand it according to [Mark 16:16], Jesus made it very clear. No matter how hard we try, we can’t misinterpret it. According to Jesus, ‘Baptism for the remission of sins is essential to salvation.’
Even Paul, after his dramatic, instantaneous, physical, spiritual, emotional and Supernatural conversion, was ordered to be baptized?
We read in Acts that both Cornelius and Paul received the Holy Spirit prior to being baptized and that they were commanded to be immersed [Acts 10:48]; [Acts 22:16]
As I have already said a few comments back, ‘Faith and Obedience’ go hand in hand.
Jesus is the Righteous Judge: if anyone took the first steps of salvation and die before he/she was baptized, we shall surely leave it in the hands of the Righteous Judge? After all, He knows the intentions of our hearts, right?
Did God exclude deathbed conversions?
Return to God is always possible; a sinner may be converted at that last-minute in such fashion that God alone can know it… yes, even up to the time of death, but it becomes more and more difficult as hard-heartedness grows. Therefore, we should not put off our conversion in the here and now.
God’s mercy is new every day. Fear Him who has the power to destroy both body and soul in Hell [Lamentations 3:23]; [Matthew 10:28]
[John 5:24] “I am speaking the truth. Anyone may hear My word and believe in the One who sent Me. If they do believe, they have the real life that goes on forever. I will not judge them for the wrong things that they have done. They have moved from death into life.”
How much better it is to believe and obey the plain teaching of the Word of God. This is especially urgent when we consider that most folks who wait for 11 o’clock salvations usually die at 10.
May God add new beauty and freshness to your life and let us not neglect the Spiritual Prayer.
Love you all.
Happy New Year! Carym.
hierstaanek said:
Hi Bruce
Ek sien na meer as 2 jaar het jy nog nie my eksegese weerlê nie. 😂😂😂
Voorspoed vir 2019!
Bruce said:
Carym, I have no problem with this statement in your mail: “According to Jesus, ‘Baptism for the remission of sins is essential to salvation.’ Bless you
Bruce said:
Wynand is dit jy ?? Ek dog jy het iets oorgekom, want jy het midde-in ons gesprek skielik doodstil geword !!
Mag jy ook ‘n baie geseende jaar he en mag ons nooit ophou om die Here te dien op ons eie besonderse wyse nie