quick note

Hey I just want to mention, that I don't think the things I talk about here are a problem of the "Pentecostal" church.

The Pentecostal church in it's very nature tends to hold onto these things but I'm not specifically talking about that church. Some non-pentecostal churches have the issues I am putting forward and some pentecostal churches don't.

Don't get me wrong people :)

What do I think about tongues?

Well here's a topical topic. Not really topical at all though, but quite controversial. I go to a church where we do not speak in tongues, and I used to go to churches where we (and I) spoke in tongues on a regular basis for the past 7 or 8 years. So how do I feel about them? Well the first topic I'm going to tackle is wether or not all christians should speak tongues and also what they are.

To start with though, I am going to put forward 2 concepts of bible study which will ultimately lead us to determining how we feel about such a subject, because what has God given us to know him other than the bible?

1. The difference between "Descriptive" and "Prescriptive" books.
2. Reading our experiences into the bible.

So I touched on the first point in my last update but I will repeat it here as it is an important part of understanding how the bible works and fits together.

What type of book is Acts? If Acts was on it's own and not in the bible, would we look at it as a fiction, a historical book, or an instructional book? Well nothing in the bible is fiction so we can cross that off the list right away. So is it a historical (Descriptive) book or an instructional (Prescriptive) book? Well I guess we'd all agree that it is a historical book, it describes history as it happened.

Note that it is important to realise this isn't a book telling us what should happen to us, but what has happened in the past.

So are we to read this book and assume that what happens in it should happen to us? Surely not, as in acts people get transported (Acts 8:39-40) about, also the holy spirit appears as fire (Acts 2:3), a number of other unusual acts (lol) happen too. Now what we need to understand about Acts that the book is very unique as it deals with the Apostles, a group of people that existed at the time but no-one can ever replace in position or authority (see Acts 1:21 to back that up) and was also a book of many firsts, including the first time that God's blessing ever came onto a group of people that was not Jewish. These are all things that are once-offs and do not happen in this day and age, or more correctly, cannot happen in this day and age.


The second point is reading our experiences into the bible. Now here is where it gets tricky and where I am going to write from. Now I have spoken, and am still able to, speak in what I used to know as "tongues", but now I'm not so sure that what I did speak was what the bible meant when it referred to "tongues", see everything I knew about tongues was from other people and what they told me, but not really from the bible. I think we have been reading our experiences into the bible, as in, we spoke what we thought was "tongues" and then decided that what is in the bible is what we were doing.

The problem I have with this is that the bible when it refers to tongues talks about tongues as if it were another human language. The first time tongues was heard was in Acts 2:4, and please note that the word tongues also means languages. The NIV even has a note to do so. It is a problem when reading the bible in English that we take the translation too literally without studying it to find out what the original text actually said, because often the translation process isn't so straight forward.

I do not believe that the nonsensical sounds that I can produce and call tongues are what the bible talks about. In Acts 2:8, in reference to Acts 2:4, the people all said that they are speaking the native tongue (language) of the people listening, not the people speaking. Now would it not be accurate to say that here the tongues are other languages? In 1 Corinthians 2:2-28 Paul tells us about how tongues serve no purpose in church unless they are interpreted. I have never ever been in a situation where tongues have been interpreted. It says that we should prophesy, and yet I don't see this happening?

In my experience the pentecostal church has put a lot of emphasis on people and speaking in tongues. I have even heard people say that you have to speak tongues if you are a christian! Thats crazy talk! 1 Corinthians 12:10 says "to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues." So it says that some people tongues, some people prophecy, as you can see here.

I think thats all I have to say about tongues right now. My next topic might be the idea of baptism of the Holy Spirit, and is the Holy Spirit coming on us an experience that is different to becoming a christian? Basically the concept of a christian having to "get" the Holy Spirit after becoming a christian is crazy because without the Holy Spirit what is a christian? More later ;)

i'll finish this later

i did some crazy ass quiz which is complete bs but here's the results

You scored as Reformed Evangelical. You are a Reformed Evangelical. You take the Bible very seriously because it is God's Word. You most likely hold to TULIP and are sceptical about the possibilities of universal atonement or resistible grace. The most important thing the Church can do is make sure people hear how they can go to heaven when they die. Reformed Evangelical 89% Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan 86% Fundamentalist 68% Neo orthodox 68% Classical Liberal 50% Emergent/Postmodern 36% Modern Liberal 32% Roman Catholic 14% Charismatic/Pentecostal 7% What's your theological worldview? created with QuizFarm.com

My problem with the "modern" church pt i

ooooh I said it was going to be controversial but starting out like this?

First of all I'd like to say "don't get me wrong people" because I'm only a christian now because of the pentecostal church, and there are a lot of things good about it. I know it's not good to just go around nit-picking but that's not what I'm doing. I feel that there are some serious issues that modern church mind-set has, and they need to be addressed. And by the way, this is only from my experience of the pentecostal church in Christchurch, mainly my previous church, which was a predominant church near the centre of town.

I feel that the teaching in most modern church leaves a lot to be desired. In fact I would go as far to say that months would go by without any teaching in the church. I know I know there are sermons every week, but my question is, "What purpose do they serve"? Well, is it good enough to go to church, and then have some one talk to us about a certain subject that is christian based? Sure, if it's done correctly. The amount of sermons I have heard and forgotten is unbelievable, is that my fault? Maybe, but a lot of the sermons I have heard have dealt with such subjects as "outreaching in your highschool" and "get more holy spirit". Now for what good value these topics have, well, whats the point in just talking about them? I've found most sermons to be mixtures of stories and well chosen bible verses to illustrate a topic followed by a lot of emotion. While I grew up with this kind of teaching, I now realise that it achieves very little. Sure at a "fired" up concert maybe at the time you'll feel like going home and saving the school, but often the next day you just don't feel that same way.

The problem for me isn't the good intentions of the sermon, but the practical aspects of one. We need to understand that man is man and God is God and we cannot in any way shape or form replace God. God gave us the bible to relate to him with. Jesus only had the scripture when we was around on earth but did he have any trouble with motivation? Do you think if instead of reading the scripture, if one of the Pharisees had decided to take some verses from here and there, and talk about a subject, if Jesus would have been the same? No he wouldn't have. He knew everything about God because he had the scriptures and he read and understood them. He had an ability to understand them that we do not possess, but he still got every single thing he needed from them. Is it not wise that we take this same approach to the scriptures? What exactly about our society needs are not met by the scriptures? I have discovered, and through practice, that being taught Gods word, and by having it explained and researched, that I have learnt far far more about God, I am in a position to understand him better, to understand what God wants for us and how he wants us to live our lives.

I have been a christian since I was 15, and I am 23 now (2 days from 24) and only in the past year have I learnt such fundamental christian historical facts as who the samaritans actually are! How come the hebrew people are called jews in the New Testament? I never knew! It's crazy to think that for all this time I hardly even understood the basis of where we get our beliefs from! Sure I used to try to read my bible every night, but unless we dedicate our selves to studying the scriptures, we are only going to end up with nice memory verses.

Which brings me to another topic: The 3 C's of bible study

CONTEXT
CONTEXT
CONTEXT

I was in an old church of mine recently who are doing up the stage. Plastered on the wall was a quote from 1 Kings 5 "I intend, therefore, to build a temple for the Name of the LORD my God" it may have been a different version but it was King Solomon either way. It was almost as if this verse was the reason for the building of this new stage. Why do I have a problem with it though? I mean, it's talking about making a temple for God isn't it! Well, it is, but in context, we should know that the temple Solomon built was a temple for God in the Old Testament. God promised David that his son (Solomon) would build a temple. But God doesn't "live" in temples any more. Every single christian has the holy spirit and so we don't need to make a temple for God, we don't need to offer physical sacrifices anymore for our salvation, as Jesus has died on the cross and achieved that for us. The temple in the Old Testament went hand in hand with sacrifices and other practices now, that were required so we could be ok with God, but don't need to happen anymore.

Now was this sign trying to say "We are bringing back the old style sacrifices"? And effectivly putting the law back in place? No I'm sure they were not, but in light of what the verses were actually in the bible for, does that make it ok to use those verses where we see fit? We need to understand that there are two types of books in the bible. Descriptive and Prescriptive. Descriptive books, like most of the Old Testament, tell of a history, but are not a prescription of what we are to do. That's not their purpose in the bible. The letters in the New Testament are prescriptive, they are instructions to the church. The Gospel and Acts are Descriptive, as in they tell a history. Sure there are commands from Jesus in there that we are to listen to, but we need to understand the purpose of the whole book.

We need to understand that we can't just use verses by themselves because they sound nice. It's called quoting out of context.

A great example is Jeremiah 1:5 ""Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."

Wow thats amazing! It speaks right to me!!

Hang on though! What else does God say in the same conversation?

"Now, I have put my words in your mouth. 10 See, today I appoint you over nations and kingdoms to uproot and tear down, to destroy and overthrow, to build and to plant."

Oh crikey! That sounds a bit extreme! Lets see what else he says

From the north disaster will be poured out on all who live in the land. I am about to summon all the peoples of the northern kingdoms," declares the LORD.
"Their kings will come and set up their thrones
in the entrance of the gates of Jerusalem;
they will come against all her surrounding walls
and against all the towns of Judah.

I will pronounce my judgments on my people
because of their wickedness in forsaking me,
in burning incense to other gods
and in worshiping what their hands have made.

What the hell!! It seems like all the Northern Kingdoms are about to be summoned by God!


We need to understand that God was saying that to Jeremiah, and not to us. There ARE lessons to be learnt from reading this book, and it is essential to understand God, else God would not have put it in the bible! But we can't just take any old verse and think that it is God speaking to us, well no more than we can from any book. Just because something sounds nice and comes from the Bible doesn't mean we can just read it how we want.


Now I know I've said a lot, and I've probably rushed it, but I would like THOUGHTFUL comments and INTELLIGENT discussion on this. If you have questions please ask as I want to answer them as well as I possibly can.
Until next time.

What is this Andrew?

Well I've been inspired to write about things that actually matter. I'm going to use this as an outlet for serious thoughts of mine. They will mostly all be about God/theology etc. It will most likely be controversial given my prospective audience, but I will keen for people to argue with me, and hopefully encourage everyone to study the bible more to come to a clearer understanding of God through the bible, his appointed method for us to learn about him.

ps counters suck and don't buy viagra online

Buy Viagra Online