Wow Sean. Been reading some of your bizzare rants against tithing. You certainly don't lack passion for your position.
I've always given a tithe on my earnings. While it was an Old Testament principle that God invented, it seemed to be a good principle in the new also. Nobody ever forced, coerced, or threatened hell fire if I didn't offer tithes. It just seemed to me an excellent principle for financing the work of the ministry. I always felt honored to give my tithe, and gave it reverently, as unto the Lord. And I always trembled for the man of God, that he was now accountable for the use of those funds, in the work of the kingdom.
Besides the tithe, I have also had the privilage of giving to several building funds, Sunday Schools, and missions programs. None of them by force, but freely and most reverently. What a great God I serve...that he would allow me in some small way, to contribute to his mighty work.
To now learn that I'm gonna split hell wide open...and that eradicating such worship has become my Lord's top priority, is a little unsettling. Are you sure you didn't have a wrong number, when my Lord talked to you about this?
I'm happy that you were never "forced" to give tithes or made to feel guilty about giving. I believe Sean's beef is how some preachers make it out to be a heaven or hell issue and are willing to pray a curse on their congregation.
I also appreciate you mentioning that the ministry is now accountable for what is given. Shame on churches who's budget doesn't include outreach, donating to local charities, foreign missions, helping the needy in the church (benevolence fund), etc. If a church is just getting by and 95% of what comes in is for operations and salary, then there is something wrong with our priorities.
Perhaps it might help if I explained that interpreting tongues is "interpretation" not "translation". It's not like being a translator at the UN. Maybe that will clarify what I'm saying and will help resolve your fears.
Good God from Zion!!!!
"Yea I say this is he who words are written in red"
You are trying to debate that the above was some how legit?
That Elder Epley shouldn't judge message in tongues?
Do you know not all New Testaments have red letter editions? So who was the prophecy for? Only the people who have red letter editions? Or since the person was "theeing, thussing, and yeaing" then the message in tongues was only for those who had red letter edition KJVs? Also what about people who don't like red letter editions because they are hard to see the words, was the message also not for them?
Since a Bible printer places the words in red then was the person really giving a message in tongues about Zondervan, or Kirkbride Bible co? because after all they are the ones who placed the letters in red. This argument is ridiculous.
No, you have not resolved my fears, you compounded them.
__________________ "all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
~Declaration of Independence
"Yea I say this is he who words are written in red"
You are trying to debate that the above was some how legit?
That Elder Epley shouldn't judge message in tongues?
Do you know not all New Testaments have red letter editions? So who was the prophecy for? Only the people who have red letter editions? Or since the person was "theeing, thussing, and yeaing" then the message in tongues was only for those who had red letter edition KJVs? Also what about people who don't like red letter editions because they are hard to see the words, was the message also not for them?
Since a Bible printer places the words in red then was the person really giving a message in tongues about Zondervan, or Kirkbride Bible co? because after all they are the ones who placed the letters in red. This argument is ridiculous.
No, you have not resolved my fears, you compounded them.
Brother, I'm not saying that that Bro. Epley shouldn't judge the message. However, since it concerns (or could concern) the Holy Spirit... I'm not going to judge too harshly seeing that I wasn't there.
My point was that based on the statement given, I wouldn't immediately discount a message in tongues. It would take some radical content in the rest of the message that was Scripturally or morally questionable. But the mere phrase, "Yea I say this is he whose words are written in red", isn't enough for me. We all know that within our church culture today the "red words" are used to denote the words of Jesus in our Bibles. Therefore, God could very well claim to be He who spoke the words written in red. In fact, if theologically examined, making such a statement is inherently Oneness. Because Trinitarians would regard the Holy Spirit to be a distinct person from the one who spoke the words written in red, Jesus. However, in this utterance the Spirit clearly professes to be Christ Himself through such an association. Therefore, be it legit or not... the statement is culturally relevant to our modern churches and theologically Oneness in its Christological implication. If spoken by a Trinitarian, I'd get a REAL kick out of it. God can have a rather unique sense of humor. It wouldn't be the first time I'd have heard the Spirit speak through a Trinitarian and use distinctly Oneness self descriptions and affirmations. lol
Chide me if you like... But if you truly look at it objectively... I'm telling the truth. The utterance could have said, "Yea I say this is He whose words are written in the Good Book!" We'd know that the Spirit meant. It isn't uncommon for God to condescend to our level and speak in our vernacular to clarify what He desires to say.
I don't know... maybe what I'm trying to say is too deep for you to understand and give me credit on. Perhaps we should let it go and vote that the Spirit should only be believed if it speaks in the King James English using a 1611 vernacular and lots of vibrato.
"Yea I say this is he who words are written in red"
You are trying to debate that the above was some how legit?
That Elder Epley shouldn't judge message in tongues?
Do you know not all New Testaments have red letter editions? So who was the prophecy for? Only the people who have red letter editions? Or since the person was "theeing, thussing, and yeaing" then the message in tongues was only for those who had red letter edition KJVs? Also what about people who don't like red letter editions because they are hard to see the words, was the message also not for them?
Since a Bible printer places the words in red then was the person really giving a message in tongues about Zondervan, or Kirkbride Bible co? because after all they are the ones who placed the letters in red. This argument is ridiculous.
No, you have not resolved my fears, you compounded them.
What else was in the message? Was it a mess? Or was this the only statement you took to be questionable?
I remember an interpretation wherein God desired to "sit at the head of your table". The statement didn't mean much to me and sounded odd. But as it turns out a brother and his wife had been fighting. He was being overbearing and emphasizing his headship. A couple nights prior to that midweek church service he sat at the head of the table at home and emphasized that he was privileged to sit at the head of the table because he was the husband. While the statement made no sense to me, it made perfect sense to them. God was desiring to be the head over the family, and as long as the husband was being un-Christlike... it wasn't happening.
Just because something doesn't make sense to us personally, it doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense at all.
With regards to the words "written in red" phrase... couldn't that indicate that phrase be an endearing way of the Spirit desiring to let us know that He was indeed Christ Jesus?
Main Entry: in·ter·pret·er
Pronunciation: \in-'t?r-pr?-t?r, -p?-\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 : one that interprets: as a : one who translates orally for parties conversing in different languages
A "translation" is a word for word presentation of what is said in another language.
Let's talk about, "interpretation".
Interpretation is a more fluid and dynamic manner of presenting the meaning of an unintelligible utterance.
For example, when a baby cries, a mother or father can often tell the difference between their baby being hungry, uncomfortable, sick, or in pain. They are "interpreting" the child's cry. However, nothing in the child's cry can present a word for word translation saying, "I'm hungry." or "I'm in pain." The "sound" or "feel" of the cry is all that is necessary. When the parent hears it he or she might say, "Awww... baby is hungry." Or a playful parent might bounce the child on their knee and playfully say, "Baby is saying, 'I want food mommy. Hurry up and put those dishes away and feed me.'" They are essentially imposing English words upon the meaning of the cry and the perceived intent of the child.
Now, as it relates to the Spirit... Let's consider the example of a simple four second utterance saying something like,
"Lalalala layHORAY viza loo...lala!"
The "interpretation" of this utterance might render a 10 minute message. The "meaning" of the utterance is essentially impressed upon the spirit of the interpreter through the Holy Spirit. It might come in waves or a steady stream of feelings/emotions, pictures, or phrases. The general sense of the utterance impressed upon the interpreter might be a singular theme such as one of warning, admonishment, encouragement, healing, or a call to repentance. The interpreter then seeks to openly receive or use the best words with which to bring the interpretation of the utterance as the Spirit guides them in that moment. Being a human conduit who is receiving the interpretive impression from the Spirit, the interpreter is often limited by their experience, confidence, and vocabulary. Therefore an interpretation might often be "off" or "incomplete" as given by an interpreter. The Spirit may tarry and seek another interpretation from the same individual or impress the interpretation upon another individual entirely.
Interpretations may also come in first person or second person depending upon the interpreter. Some interpreters are not comfortable or confident enough with belting out, "Thus saith the LORD..." They might stand quietly for a moment and say, "I sense that what the LORD is trying to tell us is...." In most cases the majority of the wording used by the interpreter is chosen by the interpreter as they feel the Spirit guiding them. As said above, this can cause the interpretation to be "off" if the interpreter isn't entirely open, has limited vocabulary, or is lacking confidence. Therefore, an interpreted utterance should never be considered infallible or worthy of being holy writ.
Is this clarification clear enough? Is it "deep" enough to be given at least some sincere consideration?
Jees... you guys act like you've never interpreted tongues. C'mon now, we're Pentecostals!
Linear Mode
