Feedback on the above article:
( Page 6 of 8.
Peter Carr (24/08/2011 10:24)
The question that I would ask in response to that is;
Is God restricted in how He communicates?
Editor (24/08/2011 11:46)
"Is God restricted in how He communicates?"
Absolutely not. He used Balaam's donkey.
I think what Curlew is asking is whether a word given out using the "thus saith the Lord?" terminology implies an infallibilty which (again by implication) puts the word beyond question.
It may be that words are spoken which are entirely of the Lord (more often they may be also be 'tainted' by things of the flesh; and who can say they are completely free from that influence?) but even so EVERYTHING must be tested.
Perhaps the whole difficulty could be avoided by prefacing any and every 'word' with something like: "I believe that the Lord might be saying....."
This suggests a humility, a recognition and acknoledgement of frailty (in even the most mature of saints) and invites a Berean response.
On an 'admin' note: I am due to interview (speak with/ask questions) with my friend next Monday (d.v.), so please send in any questions you might have and I will ask them on your behalf.
Jenny (24/08/2011 13:06)
Thank you very much, Editor, you expressed it exactly.
"Perhaps the whole difficulty could be avoided by prefacing any and every 'word' with something like: "I believe that the Lord might be saying....."
This suggests a humility, a recognition and acknoledgement of frailty (in even the most mature of saints) and invites a Berean response..."
Yes, I think so too.
Editor (24/08/2011 15:30) "Thank you very much, Editor, you expressed it exactly. "
PS. Perhaps I needed to add: "In spite of my reservations on the mode of delivery, I would rather hear what folk feel God is saying than close my ears to things which are expressed in a manner which is not quite my personal preference. I have sufficient respect for some folk that I put my reservations about form of expression aside; but I certainly do not suspend my discernment or need to come to a view on what is being said.
Donald Boyd (25/08/2011 15:43)
For your information following the inconclusive discussion above:
“Secret place” occurs in the King James Version and the Scottish metrical version of the Psalms at Ps 18:11; 81:7; 91:1 with reference to God. Each one translates the same Hebrew word, which is also translated in other ways in other Scripture passages.
Peter Carr (25/08/2011 16:27)
Thanks Donald, but the discussion relates to the NT and Matt 6: 6, any thoughts on that?
Jenny (25/08/2011 16:56)
Thanks Donald, I knew it was somewhere. My Concordance is too small :-(
Editor (25/08/2011 20:50) For one online Bible resource (including Concordance search) -
There are many others I'm sure.
Seumas, Tobermory (Guest) (26/08/2011 11:29)
Tartan paint asked what I understood by the term charismatic - sorry for taking long in getting back - I am pretty busy right now.
Anyway, my understanding is quite simple I think - it refers to gifts described in the NT and charismatics are those who accept that these are valid for today.
The list is given in the graphic at the top of this article. I am not going to go through them all and take them apart but I will just raise a few points about one of them. Tongue speaking.
IMO, what is called tongue speaking is little more than gibberish, gibberish produced by people exhibiting expected group type behaviour in a situation of an altered state of consciousness.
Insicdentally, studies conducted on TS reveal that the phonemes and vocables used are exactly those from the speakers own native language - studies have been done on this and it shows that there is nothing extraordinary in the sounds used . So its gibberish. Heavenly, angelic language - yeah sure.....
My challenge would be this:
1) Record some of this TS nonsense
2) Play it back to someone who can supposedly interprest these things
3) Record the "interp"
4) Got to another "interpreter" and see what the response is. Record it
5) Do this a third time
6) AS year later go back to the first "interprester" and record their interpretation again
Get my point? Would the results be the same each time?
IF TS was valid and the Interpretation was a valid thing, then there should be some sort of consistency in the translations both across time and place.
The reason I mention this, is because this very sort of experiment was carried out by an American skeptic called James Randi. From his web site:
"Back to the year 1945, and my test of the interpretations of this babble given by the minister. My friend Gary and I had a very early model of a WebCor wire-recorder. This predated tape-recorders by a bit, and it was the wonder of my circle of friends. Gary and I attended a service at the church, plugged in the WebCor, unknown to the minister, and recorded some of the gibberish and the provided translations. Then, the next week, we interviewed the gentleman and played back some of the material. He gave us the divine interpretations - which were quite different from what he'd previously provided. He was not amused."
So basically tongues = BS
Just like the rest of the charsimaniac nonsense - slain in the spirit, drunken laughter, barking like dogs, rolling around and so on
But the biggest load of nonsense to do with this is when pastors tell their hearers that they are not really saved unless they can speak in tongues. Jack Hayford was guilty of this (something I discovered by reading this very web site some time ago!) But apparently he has changed his mind on this point now....
These lies, deceit and stage tricks that the charismaniacs get up to are massively damaging to Christianity IMO. They make Christians look ridiculous and an embarassment
Editor (26/08/2011 11:49) Seumas, I will put your points to the church leader by e-mail and discuss this with him on Monday.
( Page 6 of 8.
© 2013 Christians Together
High Accessibility Version
Full Graphics Version