Quote:
Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa
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.
|
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.
Threaded Mode
