Tongues - Part 2

Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use."
THIS CHANNEL IS NOT AND WILL NEVER BE MONETIZED - If Shepherd’s Chapel has helped you, help them keep coming to you and share in the blessing of the ministry they have provided throughout the years, by sending your tithes to: The Shepherd’s Chapel, PO Box 416 Gravette, AR 72736

[@garysuplee5092]

Here am I Lord.. Keep covering me,. with thine hand, Lord. While sowing seeds,..the children of Cain... keep firing darts of Satan... but so far haven't found their target. Thank you Lord.. Full armor on tight.. Commander Arnold Murray,.. Minister of FIRE 🔥.. Under the Administration of Christos Yeshua . Jesus Christ,..Lord of Lords...King of Kings.

[@michellcupito3788]

This first verse is where they get that they are speaking secretly so satan can't understand. Wow.

[@jamespaquin5639]

Since I was a kid I've seen fake tongues. Pastor Murray's teaching makes sense. Churche people want to believe in fake tongues. So childish.

[@joshgellock]

Prophecy is not the same as teaching. That's odd teaching. Also, 1 Corinthians 14:2 is plain - when you speak in tongues, you speak to God. That's called prayer.

[@jamespaquin5639]

Wake up Josh. It's languages.

[@joshgellock]

@@jamespaquin5639 so talking to God isn't prayer? What a strange thing.

[@joshgellock]

@@j74-rx2ge Paul qualifies his statement later on, again calling speaking in tongues prayers to God. 1 Corinthians 14:14. When you speak in tongues it's toward God, not to others. The language is plainer than white bread in America. What I'm saying is consistent throughout the Scripture. This guy is a bad teacher. That's also easy to see. Why do it? Do you pray with others in church? Probably, but not too much in a corporal setting. This is why Paul put limits on it. It's good, but let's not get carried away. These things can be edifying.

[@joshgellock]

@@j74-rx2ge If you're going to isolate a particular passage, we're done here. I'll answer, and see what you say, but we're not going to go back and forth forever if you're going to go into a tunnel vision kind of mentality. Read verse 26. Tongues are supposed to be with interpretation. Otherwise, the person speaking in tongues should speak, again, to who? To God, quietly. Verse 28. Again, all consistent with verse 2. You have to read the section in its entirety to understand it.

[@joshgellock]

@@j74-rx2geEdit: I wrote a response but have come back to add clarity and all of the other things you said to rest. This will be my last reply to you. "I am responding to you in the context of the Scriptures you've provided..." No, you're trying to drag me down rabbit trails that have nothing to do with the Scriptures, and when you're discussing the topic of tongues you cannot isolate a particular passage when the totality of Scripture doesn't do that on this matter. "...and, in defense of the pastor, to your previous attacks on his overall teachings." I'm glad you recognize that I attack the substance of what's said and not the man himself. This is true. I could care less who it is, but that what is being said is problematic and not in alignment with the teachings of Scripture. "I'm curious as to how gibberish is actually translated, why a separate interpreter is needed because the one "speaking in tongues" can't do it on their own." If this is your attitude, then your problem is with God and His word - more specifically, the Spirit of God since the Spirit "apportions to each one individually as he wills" 1 Corinthians 12:11. Understand something friend: Paul says the structure, truths, and definitions he shared were from the Lord, not from him (1 Corinthians 14:37). Understand as well that the Spirit wanted to give the gift of interpretation, and did so. 1 Corinthians 12:10. "The spiritual gift of being multilingual (speaking in tongues) comes with having a 'flow' of communicating the Word such that one is able to properly convey in a different language what is meant on a deep level, giving spiritual edification to the foreign-speaking listener without the need for an interpreter. Again, the miracle that is the cloven tongue of the Holy Spirit needed no interpretation" There's a lot to unpack here and I'm going to do so below... "The spiritual gift of being multilingual (speaking in tongues)..." I think you misunderstand tongues in the context of Scripture. The gift of tongues wasn't used as a means of being multilingual. It wasn't when the Holy Spirit came on you, from that moment forward you could speak English and Spanish, having only ever known English your entire life. That wasn't the case, at all. The fact that this idea is absent in Scripture, says it all. "...comes with having a 'flow' of communicating the Word such that one is able to properly convey in a different language what is meant on a deep level..." Incorrect. Again, you have an argument of silence. The Scriptures never convey the idea that tongues were used to communicate the word of God. You cannot point me to a single instance. Tongues are not a preaching tool. Tongues are not a teaching tool. Tongues are not a tool used for prophecy. When you look at the totality of Scripture, you will find these statements hold up. Now you may say, but what about Acts 2:11? Those speaking in tongues were declaring the mighty acts of God? Isn't that speaking to the people there? Friend, there's a book in the bible with 150 chapters "declaring the mighty acts of God" - Psalms. Who were the Psalms written to? God. These tongue-speaks were not preaching, teaching, or prophesying to their fellow men. They were speaking like the psalmists. Or again, you could come back to the simple: If the tongue speakers in Acts 2 were sharing some kind of message, then it doesn't seem to make much sense that at Acts 2:14 Peter gets up and delivers a sermon. It would make more sense that the tongues were spoken and people believed and were "added to the church" (Acts 2:41). But that would be an argument from silence because that isn't what happened. In short, tongues were spoken briefly, Peter spoke, and people joined the church. "giving spiritual edification to the foreign-speaking listener without the need for an interpreter..." Again, your problem is with Scripture. Paul says interpretation should be done so that all can be edified. I can't confirm this, because I don't know your mind, but I suspect that you think Acts 2 is the "norm" and that people hearing the tongues will understand them without the need for an interpreter. The problem with this is two-fold: one, Scripture calls for interpretation (1 Corinthians 14:26-28), and two, Acts 2 was a very unique experience and not repeated again. There are two more times in Acts that tongues are spoken. Where's the rushing wind? Where's the fire? Where's the list of languages? They. Aren't. There. This idea that tongues were used to communicate is so bizarre to me. If there were 12 men at Ephesus (Acts 19:7), then why when the Holy Spirit came on them (19:6), they "began speaking in tongues and prophesying". Keep in mind, it says "there were about twelve men in all". Do you see that? "In all" There's no one else there. If tongues are used to communicate, who are these guys communicating with? Paul? That doesn't make sense. And, notice that the word distinguishes between prophesy and tongues. "Prophetic tongues" don't exist and this section of Scripture proves it, but I'm not going there tonight. "Again, the miracle that is the cloven tongue of the Holy Spirit needed no interpretation" I think I've already put this one to rest - cloven tongues of fire only happened once. And, the Lord commanded interpretation, through Paul. So that all can be edified. An interpretation of a tongue should sound very much like a prayer. "Because, to be frank, the often off-putting optics of your version of speaking in tongues..." Slow down. What do you mean by my version of speaking in tongues? Friend, don't speak like you know me, or like we've had 120 cups of coffee together, discussing this topic. We haven't. You don't even know what "my version of speaking in tongues" is. But since you brought it up, I'll share my version of speaking in tongues: it's a biblical one. :) "...range in extremes from appearing comical (see "Hoo Ba Ba Kanda" on KZbin), to that of seemingly being possessed by a familiar spirit, such as with 'hosting' that mediums do." Not really. You've never seen me speak in tongues. That's a fact. You've never even heard me pray. Another fact. "This is why a lot of us prefer a straightforwardness of speech..." I suspect this is why the Lord put a limit on tongues. Two, or three, at the most (1 Corinthians 14: 27). "...so as not to feel we're being 'put on' or deceived with charismatics or by anyone's special claims of having some esoteric knowledge." What knowledge? It's prayer. And deception happens when things go out of order. "If anyone thinks that he is a prophet or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized." Therefore, if someone doesn't want to follow the order, they shouldn't be recognized. In other words, you have no place during service until you get in line. But notice what Paul said, again, by the Lord, in the next verse (14:39): "Do not forbid speaking in tongues." Many hate this verse and wish Paul never said it, so that they can hamper down on those who love God and His Spirit and His work. God has a place for tongues for interpretation - orderly, in turn, with structure and discernment. If you're not allowing tongues, then you're in direct violation of Scripture. Period. And there we are. Friend, all languages besides the one I know sound like gibberish. Simple truth. And maybe even more obvious is that Paul, in his wisdom shared, doesn't even bring up what you're bringing up. Notice that he never says, "Make sure it's a language...". He just doesn't. He's concerned with order. Order and truth distinguish the real from the fake - the Spirit and the... Not-Spirit. I'm sure lots of people like Murray and think he's great. People said similar things about William Branham. Go look him up if you're unfamiliar. I couldn't care less. I care about the teachings and this guy's are off. You can keep trying to restore Murray's reputation. But you can't. He's gone. I'd say you should be more like Apollos who welcomed a more adequate teaching when one was presented. We who are of the Lord Jesus Christ, who have His Spirit, who answer according to the word (Isaiah 8:20), know God and recognize teachings that aren't in line with the totality of Scripture. Murray put on a show that fooled many, but if you know God and know His word, you can easily see the problems with Murray. They. Are. Many. I'm giving you simple Scriptures and logic and reason and where has that gotten us? I can't even go into deeper stuff because you can't understand the simple. As I said, this will be my last reply. Take care.

[@joshgellock]

I couldn't even get to ten minutes, this teaching is so obviously problematic. Yikes. Stay away from Sherpard's Chapel and Arnold Murray.

[@deborahpeak9658]

Pastor Arnold Murray was one of the best of teacher of the WORD OF GOD, I study with The Shepherd's Chapel for over 20 years, 🙏✝️ PRAISE THE LORD GOD in JESUS CHRIST Name 🙏✌️🕊️✝️

[@joshgellock]

@@deborahpeak9658 I would encourage you to find perhaps a Calvary Chapel church or some other bible-believing church. "Pastor" Murray is so way off base it's not even funny. A dangerous and heretical teacher.

[@godsees-5871]

Why do you say?

[@joshgellock]

​@@godsees-5871because he casually changes the meanings of the Scripture without due reason. Case and point: 1 Corinthians 14:2. He's not a scholar to even claim he's right from the original manuscripts. He also thinks prophecy is the gift of teaching. It isn't. And he doesn't have that gift or hold that office.

[@oshenwalker9178]

Do you think this a spirit of religion operating ?