ECT Speaking in tongues
- Thread starter andyc
- Start date
Sometimes.
And sometimes I pick a side.
That's it; we each simply have to have just one attempt at just one more clarification - think on that - we'd not be MADs otherwise :chuckle:
We'd be like every one else - they all think their one size fits all is where its at.
Ah, their bliss...I sometimes envy them...
Op - I feel another distinction coming on, see ya lay-tuh, al-luh-gae-tuh, lol
heir
TOL Subscriber
It's rather easy to find out who I was responding to in my post. Follow the yellow brick road...errrr, I mean click on the little blue arrow.
Then you'll know it's not about you.
:IA: I clicked on the blue arrow and came across some trees that threw apples at me. :noid:
heir
TOL Subscriber
musterion
Well-known member
You're not even asking the right question.
Tell us what preaching Christ according to the revelation of the mystery is. If you know the answer to that, that's the clue to the error in what you asked.
Interplanner
Well-known member
That is what is unpacked by the proper grammar of Eph 3:5. it was not that God was going to send redemption to the nations; that's very clear from the OT. It was that it came in the form of Christ, not the law. Ie, Christ = the Gospel. The grammar of v5 puts the weight of the shared blessings on 'through the Gospel.'
But this is a theological distinction that does not necessarily clear up the sign of tongues. The sign was to Israel (those in Judaism) to see that God was now sending the messianic Gospel to the nations. It was Israel who needed to see this happen as a confirmation. That's Paul's concern in I Cor 14 when going back to the Isaiah passage. The subjectivity of Corinthian tongues was an annoyance and he wanted them to see what the historic gift was there for to begin with.
Ephesians 1 is both the redemption issue and its own, eternal purpose beyond salvation.
Ephesians 2 is mostly the salvation issue but does touch on God's eternal purpose - and that its' salvation is merely an aspect of.
Ephesians 3 forwards then begins to explore said eternal purpose in greater detail...
I shall have to continue to disagree with your understanding that God has merely expanded on His OT's mission.
Yours is merely the very argument of the Reformed school.
Which does not really "do the history" other than within its own notion of "the history."
Reformed's"doing the history" is more like reading of how the west was won in one of those politically correct history books the one sided obscuring of facts of which many still hold to as "the truth.
Which in the average Believer's perception via superstition ends up "the truth about our God inspired country..."
In the end, you are of the Reformed school - even when you are not going on about "doing the history" as your supposed basis.
It is what it is. You are too given over to that by now...
Respectfully,
Ephesians 2 is mostly the salvation issue but does touch on God's eternal purpose - and that its' salvation is merely an aspect of.
Ephesians 3 forwards then begins to explore said eternal purpose in greater detail...
I shall have to continue to disagree with your understanding that God has merely expanded on His OT's mission.
Yours is merely the very argument of the Reformed school.
Which does not really "do the history" other than within its own notion of "the history."
Reformed's"doing the history" is more like reading of how the west was won in one of those politically correct history books the one sided obscuring of facts of which many still hold to as "the truth.
Which in the average Believer's perception via superstition ends up "the truth about our God inspired country..."
In the end, you are of the Reformed school - even when you are not going on about "doing the history" as your supposed basis.
It is what it is. You are too given over to that by now...
Respectfully,
Depends on which MADist one asks, as well.
Your version.
:chuckle:
My point was not that it was or was aimed at me.
Rather, that whether or not it was, I"d not take it's attempted correction as a personal afront, if it had been aimed at me; because I don't take as a personal front being corrected on doctrine publicly.
I'd posted what I'd posted within that, as that was what I'd been talking about.
But you know what; reading what you said about that passage afterwards, it turns out your words will have to apply towards me after all :chuckle:
For now that you have made it clear you do not view that passage as part of Paul's gospel...
I do understand that passage as a mini version of Romans 1:16 thru 3:30.
But again attempt to correct away; I have yet to take issue with ANYONE'S attempted correction of me where doctrine is concerned.
I would only hurt my own learning and continuing refinement of my further understanding on one thing or another, no matter the source and or person...
I do consider you and STP two very, very sharp cookies.
I'm also well aware that I am one as well, and that this often makes for differences both in approach and results between fellow sharpies.
You may or may not agree; and that's fine too.
Just one more distinction my curiosity for learning from all things, negative or positive, can profit from in one positive way or another
(Tongue in cheek) For some reason, when I said as much on the superstion thing; you and Tam voted against it..
:chuckle:
There was a vote?
Tongue in cheek, sis, tongue in cheek...
OK.
heir
TOL Subscriber
Nope. The ignorant, superstitious idolaters of Athens (Acts 17:18-21 KJV) would have had to go to the synagogue to "hear" Paul's preaching (Acts 17:1-2 KJV, Acts 17:27 KJV, Acts 17:30 KJV) as Paul’s sending at that time was directly related to whom salvation was sent at that time (Acts 13:16 KJV, Acts 13:26 KJV).
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
I have this gift.
:chuckle:
