Repentance is the Gift Of God !
- Thread starter brightfame52
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
It spoke to me...
However, in watching more from him (specifically, his take on tongues), I think that he is a little off-base as concerning that subject; and that because he is off-base there, he is very likely off-base in other areas; as his logic and reasoning skills are faulty.
Concerning tongues, he missed the understanding that he would have gotten if he had been looking for it, from the specific verse 1 Corinthians 14:28.
For he taught that tongues are not to be used privately for self-edification (in contradiction to 1 Corinthians 14:4).
Was it you on the phone? it reminds me of you? You think you speak in tongues when there is no one to interpret So you are supposed to keep silent, You have been caught out a few times lately But you don't repent, it seems you don't even care, Have you considered you are off base?
Last edited:
No, it was not me on the phone.
@HisLife, while I have not placed you on Ignore with the Ignore button, I do not consider that I can reach you with the good news of Christ because of what happened previously.
Therefore I am not going to be engaging with you for the most part.
Andrew Farley's teaching on tongues is what is off-base; thought it caters to the minds of those who have experienced the conviction that comes when another is speaking in tongues in their presence.
I know; because I experienced that conviction myself before I received the gift myself.
Andrew Farley forbids a man to speak in tongues in any kind of church setting; though he has crafted his teaching in such a way that he might be able to deny this. It is the gist of his teaching that no one be able to speak in tongues in church. He does not account for the fact that there may be an unbeliever present in a church service who knows the language that a tongue-speaker might be speaking in.
He also denies that tongues can be a heavenly language or a tongue of angels. This makes it possible for him to forbid men to speak in tongues if there is no one who understands the language that they are speaking in.
And, he also denies the use of the gifting for self-edifying in the private sector.
Well, if tongues are not to be used in that way; and they are not to be used in a church setting; when are they to be used? he says that they are to be used by missionaries apart from being "in church" to speak to people of other languages.
But if you have never spoken in tongues in church or on your own, how are you going to have the confidence to speak in a tongue to someone of a different language? Because the gift develops over time; one becomes more fluent in the tongue that they have as a spiritual gift as time passes. So if they are not fluent in tongues as a gift, how are they going to have the confidence to use the gift in a capacity that he has spoken of? They would not have the confidence at all that they are even speaking in the language of the person to whom they are speaking. Because they have never heard the nuances of the language in which they speak in tongues because they are not practiced in speaking in that language from the perspective of using it as a prayer language.
@HisLife, while I have not placed you on Ignore with the Ignore button, I do not consider that I can reach you with the good news of Christ because of what happened previously.
Therefore I am not going to be engaging with you for the most part.
Andrew Farley's teaching on tongues is what is off-base; thought it caters to the minds of those who have experienced the conviction that comes when another is speaking in tongues in their presence.
I know; because I experienced that conviction myself before I received the gift myself.
Andrew Farley forbids a man to speak in tongues in any kind of church setting; though he has crafted his teaching in such a way that he might be able to deny this. It is the gist of his teaching that no one be able to speak in tongues in church. He does not account for the fact that there may be an unbeliever present in a church service who knows the language that a tongue-speaker might be speaking in.
He also denies that tongues can be a heavenly language or a tongue of angels. This makes it possible for him to forbid men to speak in tongues if there is no one who understands the language that they are speaking in.
And, he also denies the use of the gifting for self-edifying in the private sector.
Well, if tongues are not to be used in that way; and they are not to be used in a church setting; when are they to be used? he says that they are to be used by missionaries apart from being "in church" to speak to people of other languages.
But if you have never spoken in tongues in church or on your own, how are you going to have the confidence to speak in a tongue to someone of a different language? Because the gift develops over time; one becomes more fluent in the tongue that they have as a spiritual gift as time passes. So if they are not fluent in tongues as a gift, how are they going to have the confidence to use the gift in a capacity that he has spoken of? They would not have the confidence at all that they are even speaking in the language of the person to whom they are speaking. Because they have never heard the nuances of the language in which they speak in tongues because they are not practiced in speaking in that language from the perspective of using it as a prayer language.
What Good News? your news is bad news you are not sure that Jesus Died For all your Sins that's Really Bad News, Especially When you are Caught in Sin you Teach Someone will go to hell if they commit...so then you have Hypocrisy, But How do you try to turn things back on me anyway...The point is Scripture Says if there is no one to interpret you have to keep silent. You didn't You are in the wrong, So your understanding of tounges is off Base, The fact is you didn't speak in tounges even though to you it seemed like a familiar spirit, it doesn't line up with Scripture
Last edited:
Superb dodges and Evasion ! Unfortunately, nobody was talking about Tongues .....lets back up to what we were discussing—- let’s try getting you straightened out one error at a time .....let's put “ tongues” on the shelf for the time being....
You say that “ he spoke to you” in regards to Heb 10.....please elaborate .....he could be in error about Tongues or 50 other things....probably none of them being a “ Salvation” Issue—— as Tongues isn’t — let me know if he at least persuaded you to look at things a little differently....there is room for all of us to “ Grow” in our knowledge of Scripture...except for me, of course......I got it “ ALL” down .....
That last little part there? That was a joke.....
Good point Blood Bought 1953 can always rely on you to get the post back on track and in perspective, I was distracted with the tounges discussion as I was hoping he saw the error he was in enough To see he might be wrong in other areas and look at the discussion at hand a bit more sincerely, Will leave it in your hands to try to straighten his salvation errors out, All the best
I know that Jesus died for all of my sins...
He also did not stop there.
He gave me the Holy Spirit and sanctified me through His blood so that I don't have to sin in the present or the future.
In 1 Corinthians 14:13, it makes it a possibility that the one who spoke in the tongue can be the interpreter.
And then, in 1 Corinthians 14:15, it is clear to me that what the person says with their mind immediately after the tongue is the interpretation, in such a case.
And also, how will it be known whether there is an interpreter present unless the person with the gift of tongues steps out in faith and utilizes their gift?
This is a scare tactic used by ungodly men to stop people who have the gift of tongues from operating in it.
In the case of a message board like this, the interpretation of a tongue may come some five months after the tongue is first spoken...because those who hear the messages here are not hearing them all at one time....they have to click on the thread and read it in due process of time; which may not be the same day in which the tongue was related.
Who is trying to hit me with something that I would have to dodge the attack and/or evade it?
Last edited:
Tongues may in fact be a salvation issue if certain people are right about the subject...I'm not saying that I agree with them.
But whether an issue is a salvation issue or not, our faithfulness to the truth on the little doctrines will determine whether we will be faithful to the truth on the larger ones (Luke 16:10)...
And therefore, Andrew Farley's departure from sound doctrine on the issue of tongues, identifies him as someone who will be unfaithful in greater matters concerning doctrine.
It turns out I was having a break and heard voices singing a song that made me believe that you may be right on some things (to go into detail on this would be tedious and therefore I refrain from telling you)...however, on further inspection, it turned out that the voice that I was hearing was not of the Lord but of the enemy.
Last edited:
I think that I am just being honest about what the scripture teaches concerning sin....and let the chips fall where they may in the scripture's judgment of me as concerning my sins. For I am still a work in progress.
So, what sin have I said someone will go to hell for, that I also commit?
Please be sure to use the quote feature to bring up the post(s) where I said such a thing.
You go to great lengths to evade the question at hand.....you’re just too” Stiff - Necked to admit that the guy had you thinking that you may be wrong ......you can’t argue with his logic, so you just Change the subject...do you think we are so stupid that we can’t see what you are up to? You are more Transparent than you realize—— we see through the evasive B.S. and you’d better believe that God does .....
Except that by this time, I have forgotten what the man said on the matter...
And, the fact that he doesn't preach sound doctrine on the issue of tongues is a red flag and warning to me that I should not go back and try to hang on the man's words...for he is slightly off in his reasoning on tongues and if his reasoning be the same on other subjects, that 1 degree off course will put you in the middle of the Pacific Ocean when you are trying to reach Hawaii...
Therefore, I would rather not go down a path of reasoning that will take me 1 degree off course; which is how this man's (Andrew Farley's) logic and reasoning works.
Your a faker We have been through this multiple times, You play dumb or refuse to admit or remember, I cant be bothered with your games,You lie a Lot and then play dumb but here is the fact of the matter
SinSinSin
Post #1292
justbyfaith" said:
And then When I ask in this Thread you reply
[/QUOTE]
If you cant see the contradiction I can't help you, if you are blind or choose to stay blind its your choice because when you know you sin you won't acknowledge it
Last edited:
Just an example of what I have been talking about...in the Youtube video he subtly misquoted 1 Corinthians 6:11 as saying that but ye were washed, but ye were justified, but ye were sanctified (5:27).
However, that is not the order that is presented in the verse itself; and neither is the verb tense correct in his statement.
This is an example of the 1 degree off course theology that is characteristic of Andrew Farley.
1Co 6:11, And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
Last edited:
I said that Jesus died for all of my sins...and I will say now that this is true because He has placed His Holy Spirit within me so that I am not going to commit willful sins in the future.
Jesus did not die for all of the future sins of everyone. What I mean by this is that He did not die for willful sins that will be committed in the future by those who have believed in and known the truth. This is evident in Hebrews 10:26-31.
If someone is born again through the knowledge of the truth, and then turns from the holy commandment delivered unto them (see 2 Peter 2:18-22), their latter state is worse for them than in the beginning. It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness.
Did Jesus die for their future sins?
But if, by Jesus dying for future sins, you are referring to those sins that will be confessed, as the Holy Spirit pinpoints them to the believer's heart (see 1 John 1:7), so that the believer is cleansed from all unrighteousness and forgiven (1 John 1:9), then I agree that all such future sins will be forgiven.
If, by future sins, you mean those sins that will be committed and never repented of, those sins that have to do with turning away from the holy commandment given to the believer; if the scripture says that their latter end is worse than their beginning, and that it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, I will take the scripture's word on that (again, see 2 Peter 2:20-22).
Last edited:
No doubt, if someone is a sheep rather than a dog or pig, he will not return to his vomit and neither will he return to his wallowing in the mire.
So, of course the passage (2 Peter 2:18-20, 2 Peter 2:20-22) is speaking of those who are not truly born again (or, made into sheep).
However, it should be clear that it is also speaking of people who have "escaped the pollutions of this world through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ."
Therefore, not everyone that is described by the above statement is necessarily born again.
While it is also true that all those who are born again fall under that category.
And therefore, if someone has "escaped the corruptions of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ," they can be identified as "born again" until and unless the moment comes that they "return to their vomit or their wallowing in the mire".
Thus it is the fact of not persevering in the holiness and goodness of the Lord that defines the dog or swine who turns from the holy commandment that was delivered to them, as being a dog or swine; and not a true sheep.
So, of course the passage (2 Peter 2:18-20, 2 Peter 2:20-22) is speaking of those who are not truly born again (or, made into sheep).
However, it should be clear that it is also speaking of people who have "escaped the pollutions of this world through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ."
Therefore, not everyone that is described by the above statement is necessarily born again.
While it is also true that all those who are born again fall under that category.
And therefore, if someone has "escaped the corruptions of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ," they can be identified as "born again" until and unless the moment comes that they "return to their vomit or their wallowing in the mire".
Thus it is the fact of not persevering in the holiness and goodness of the Lord that defines the dog or swine who turns from the holy commandment that was delivered to them, as being a dog or swine; and not a true sheep.
Last edited:
Similar threads
