The Age of Reason is a free Bible study/Christian history that shows how and why modern Christianity became apostate. |
View/save chapter in PDF format. |
Ti 1:10-13: For there are many unruly and vain talkers
and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:
Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they
ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake. One of themselves, even a prophet of their
own, said, The Cretians are alway
liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. This witness is
true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;
In this chapter I will
let the Scriptures tell you what miraculous tongues is,
that is, how to recognize Scriptural tongues, so you’ll know anything
different from it is fake. I am going to show you the pretentious gibberish
passed off as “tongues” today is a deliberate hoax. I say deliberate because if the Scriptures actually do reveal today’s
tongues to be unscriptural, that means the Holy Spirit has done nothing
to these people; their utterances are voluntary and completely controlled by
them. That means they know they are faking it.
Back
in the sixties and seventies when the modern “tongues”/gibberish movement was
new to everybody, almost no one knew it was fake.
Therefore each individual thought he was probably the only one in the
group faking it, and he hoped and prayed he’d eventually “get the blessing” if
he just kept “practicing.” In the meantime, these fakers passed out literature
promoting gibberish to family, friends, and neighbors, and repeatedly lied even
to family members and Christians about God causing their utterances, and often
had their consciences seared as with a hot iron and became habitual liars,
reprobates in the faith.
Those
who have been faking it for years know what is going on in the “full gospel” churches, and many know how to take advantage of the
situation. The preachers and denominational officials under the banner of the
“diving dove” realize how easy it is to manipulate a group of people who harbor
a common sense of guilt and inadequacy. Some churches became successful because
they found a niche catering to the insecurities common among people who lack
emotional fulfillment in their lives. These churches were thought to be more
“caring” because they provided their members with an affectionate social base.
The churches also improved the self-esteem of their members with assurances
that gibberish meant God viewed them as elite Christians and would reward them
materially by making them abundantly prosperous in this life.
However,
a number of fakers did have consciences because their deliberate deceit
and that of those around them began to bother them, so they quietly shut their
mouths and began attending “partial gospel” churches. I say quietly
because these same people who used to fake gibberish and tell other Christians
they needed to receive the “second blessing” were and are too ashamed to tell
anyone the false gospel hoax they participated in and perpetuated was all
immature fakery.
“Full
gospel” preachers watched their income shrink as more and more tithers left. So they quietly de-emphasized tongues and
became more like the “partial gospel” churches. That has resulted in more
“non-talkers” in their congregations – and more tithers.
Two
of the usual charades that accompany the gibberish hoax are the healing hoax
and the “slain in the Spirit” hoax. “Miracle”-working preachers realize nobody
who has for years been lying about the Holy Spirit of God and about
gibberish is going to admit his back still hurts when he is “healed”, and no Cretian is going to just stand there instead of falling
down when his preacher touches his forehead; because to do so would expose this
insecure saint who has been faking “faith” for years as not really having it.
That’s why “healings” are never done like
they were in the Bible – at random while walking down the street among normal
people; they are always done in carefully controlled environments.
The
carefully controlled environment manifests itself every church service when
some liar jumps up and says God has given him a message in gibberish. Anybody
with “the gift of tongues” in the congregation can do that. Interestingly
enough, however, only a handful of carefully chosen Cretians
– who can be trusted not to get too inventive with their lies – is designated
by the preacher as having “the gift of interpretation.” So, when a liar jumps
up and fakes some gibberish, one of the lying interpreters says, “I have the
interpretation!” And it is always some bland, boring, generic “message
from God” they all already know, such as, “We need to be more earnest in our
prayers” or “We should love each other more.” These “messages from God” are
never taken seriously by the Cretians because they
know they are lies. Not one of the fakers has ever been exposed by having an
“interpreter” say, “That wasn’t angel talk; it was just gibberish. Why did you
try to deceive us, you Cretian?” That’s how the
congregation gradually learns that all of them, even the exalted,
handpicked “interpreters” are fakes: When a pewster does his gibberish he knows he is faking. And then
he finds out the “interpreter” is also a fake when he gives the
“interpretation” of the pewster’s fakery. That’s why
the “interpretations” are never collected and published as, “Instructions
from God to His Twenty-First Century New Testament Church.” In fact, the Cretian preachers and pewsters
have such a low opinion of these “divine utterances” that none of them even
bothers to remember these “direct messages” from God from one week to the next.
That obvious contempt for the “word of God” is a far cry from the old Hebrew
scribes who tirelessly labored to preserve every utterance of the Lord, and is
a disdain shared by all Christians who think God is an incompetent liar Who did
not or could not preserve His word – and therefore today we have nothing but
leavened, unclean “translations” and “versions” that exist to be ignored,
corrected, used, abused, wrested, and twisted in compliance with what the
carnal mind thinks is right and good.
Speaking
in tongues is in the Bible, so it is Scriptural. But what is tongues? Is it gibberish? Is it the language
spoken in heaven? Are the Cretians really liars?
If
you ask a Cretian preacher, “According to the Bible,
what is miraculous tongues; how do I recognize it?” she will never
directly answer your question. She will tell you it’s the “second blessing”,
it’s “evidence that you’re saved”, the “baptism of the Holy Ghost”, “receiving
power from on high”, that “you’ll know it when you feel it”, etc. But she won’t
point to anything in the Bible that describes tongues so you can
recognize it. She relies on the traditional and well-known deception that
tongues is gibberish. Therefore, when she points to Scripture that does
not answer your question (such as Ac 10:44-47 and 19:6), she will
depend on you to assume,
since tongues is Scriptural, her gibberish must be the same
tongues of the Bible. When you then point out that Moslem women in the Middle
East make the same tongue-trilling utterances and ask if those, too, are
caused by the Holy Spirit, she will say, “No, that isn’t tongues; they are doing
that voluntarily. But if I preached to them and got them saved the Holy Ghost
will take over their bodies and cause them to involuntarily make those exact
same utterances they voluntarily made as Bible-rejecting pagans.” And when you
question the Scriptural validity of certain practices in gibberish churches,
she will assure you it is perfectly plausible to assume Peter in Ac 10:44-47
and Paul in Ac 19:6 also advised their eager listeners, “It will happen if you
just relax and stop overpowering the Holy Spirit’s control of your body. It
will also help if you make slow, fake miraculous prayer language utterances.
And then try to get faster and faster – as practice – so your tongue can get
used to the rapid trilling the Holy Spirit has so far failed to get you to do.”
---------- page
2 ----------
During
the modern Cretian conversion process the converts
are shown Scripture that validates tongues, but are never shown what tongues is. So the ignorant converts assume the
Moslem trilling, when done by a Christian, is the same miraculous tongues of
the Bible. They are eager for a positive, physical manifestation of God, so
they naïvely comply with the extra-Biblical encouragement they receive to “help
it happen.” They just want to fit in, to be accepted by “full-gospel,
diving-white-dove, Holy-Ghost-empowered saints.”
It
is no big secret in Christianity what real tongues is. The fact that many
Christians don’t know what it is reflects poorly on their interest in doctrine,
and on their churches. And many Christians who do know what tongues
is cannot open the Bible and prove it because
they, like Cretians, really don’t care about
Scripture. Today the authority of God’s word has been replaced by the
democratic concept of the authority of the individual. Therefore, instead of
learning the Bible, most Christians just want to “get their story straight” so
they know what to say to “defend” their denomination’s doctrinal position.
Instead of a serious discussion of Scripture when Christians get together it is
considered acceptable to say, “Well, I think the star of Bethlehem was a
super nova.” “I think” “I think” “I think” is all you hear Christians say these
days. “I think” has replaced “Thus saith the Lord.”
(If you keep saying “I think” rapidly enough you’ll be helping the Holy Spirit
give you “the Power.” Or, if you prefer, you may practice your gibberish prayer
language by using Goofy’s laugh: “Ah-hyuck! Ah-hyuck! Ah-hyuck!” It’s all acceptable
because there are no official guidelines.)
What
is tongues? Biblical, miraculous tongues is when a
person speaks a normal human language (such as English), and the Holy Ghost
changes the sound in mid air so the various listeners hear only their native
language (such as Spanish or Vietnamese). That comes from Ac 2, which is
the only place in the Bible that deals with – rather than just mentions –
tongues. But, you ask, doesn’t 1 Co 14 also deal with tongues? No, 1 Co
14 most certainly does not deal with Biblical, miraculous tongues; it
deals with common, everyday unknown tongues. There’s a big difference
between “tongues” and “unknown tongues” in the Bible.
Let’s
quickly compare the two chapters:
● Holy Ghost present and working ● Holy Ghost uninvolved
● “Tongues” are spoken ● “Unknown” tongues are spoken
● The subject is a
miraculous sign ● The subject is edifying the church
● Interpreters are never needed
● Interpreters are needed & required
● “Tongues” cannot be abused
● “Unknown” tongues can be abused
Now let’s look
at those chapters in detail:
Ac 2:4: The Holy
Ghost made them speak “other” (not “unknown”) tongues.
Ac 2:5,9,10,11: Lists some of
the native countries around the world of some of these Christians.
Ac 2:6: These
individual Christians were perplexed when they heard the Galilean apostles
speak the native tongue of the individual listeners.
Ac 2:7-12: Everyone
there was amazed because every single one of the listeners – no matter
what country he was from – heard the words in his own native tongue. Two men
standing next to each other, for example, one from France and the other from Germany, communicated with each other in Hebrew because it
was the only language they had in common. They also expected the
Galilean disciples to speak to them in Hebrew – as usual. Therefore, when the
Frenchman heard the Galileans speak French it was quite a surprise. The
Frenchman, knowing his German friend didn’t understand French, spoke to him in
Hebrew to express his amazement that Galileans spoke French. The German then
laughed at his French buddy and replied in Hebrew, “Yeah, you wish they were
speaking French so you could understand it! But, seriously, how do you suppose
they all learned to speak German? And why would they speak German when most
people here don’t speak it and when everybody does speak Hebrew? Do you
suppose those little flame-like things sitting on the twelve has
something to do with this?” The two began to challenge each other about what
had been said by the Galileans in their native tongue and found they both really
did understand what had been said! How was that possible?! They questioned
others and found other brethren had heard neither French nor German; each
listener had heard the language of his native country! This caused quite a stir
and the confused amazement was quickly replaced with exultation as Christians
realized God was giving them a sign because this was unquestionably a miracle.
Nobody heard Goofy’s laugh and nobody heard Moslem
tongue trilling.
Ac 2:13-15: Other
Christians, more disciplined and therefore unwilling to rudely interrupt the
speakers by talking with their neighbors, patiently waited for an explanation
of why the Galileans were speaking their native Egyptian or Libyan. They were
offended at the boorish outbursts of people laughing and shouting, “It’s
French!”, “No, it’s German!”, “It’s both – it’s a miracle!” They assumed the
rowdiness meant the people had been drinking. But Peter assured them the people
were excited about the miraculous doings of God.
Acts 2 is the only place in the Bible that
explains what tongues is. It is not the
incomprehensible gibberish common to Moslem women and “full gospel” Cretians. Nobody ever listens to Cretian
gibberish and says, “How hear we every man in our own tongue wherein we were
born?” like they did in the Bible when the Holy Spirit was at work. Therefore,
if you know anyone who speaks gibberish, you know he is either a deliberate
fake who is so apostate he doesn’t mind repeatedly
lying about the Holy Spirit, or he is possessed by a devil. Either way he
couldn’t care less what the Scriptures say.
Let me illustrate the truth of what I say: If
you ask Cretians if the gibberish they speak is
Scriptural, they will point to Acts 2 and reply it most certainly is. When you
then point out that the languages in Acts 2 were all recognized by men as their
individual native tongues, and contrast that with the fact that no gibberish-triller in the Cretian churches
speaks human native languages, and that nobody ever asks the Acts 2 question,
“How hear we every man in our own tongue wherein we were born?”, they will
respond by taking you to 1 Co 13:1 and explain that they are not
speaking anybody’s native tongue because they are speaking the “tongues of
angels”! Do you see what I mean? You asked what their incomprehensible gibberish
is and were taken to Acts 2. But if you know Acts 2 is about human,
understandable native tongues – not about incomprehensible gibberish,
the lying Cretians will scamper from Acts 2 to 1 Co
13:1! So, why did they attempt to deceive you by taking you to Acts 2 when you
asked about gibberish? Because the Cretians
are alway liars. They are not interested in
the truth; if they were they wouldn’t have faked gibberish the first time they
were told, “Let go and receive the baptism of the Holy Ghost!”, and they
wouldn’t be attempting to prey on your ignorance of the Scriptures to get you
to think their gibberish is the understood human languages of
Acts 2. If they were honest, and if they knew the Scriptures, and
if they thought their gibberish really was “angel talk” (I know, those
three ifs cannot coexist), they would have initially answered your
question by saying, “Acts 2 is about human languages that are understood by
everybody. Obviously, we aren’t speaking Acts 2 tongues because nobody
is ever going to walk into our church and say, ‘Wow! I grew up in a remote part
of Bulgaria speaking that language! How can you Americans all be speaking my
native gibberish?’ We are speaking a heavenly language. Let me show you 1 Co
13:1 to show you there is such a thing as ‘tongues of
angels’, and it, unlike Acts 2, is a language not native to earth.” Only
in that case would you think it might be worth listening to their explanation
and might have some chance of having a Scripture-based conversation. (But the
three ifs mean this case is not possible.)
---------- page
3 ----------
But wait! That “angel talk” stuff looks
intriguing; maybe the Cretians have a valid point.
No. If they did they would long ago have figured out to take you straight to 1
Co 13:1 and would have dropped Acts 2 from their vocabulary. Their churches can
only exist if ignorance of the Scriptures continues to breed contradictory
confusion about this subject. (Therefore I expect gibberish churches to
continue to thrive.) Let’s examine the problem with 1 Co 13:1 that keeps Cretians from making it the foundation of their doctrine.
We are going to zero in on the word though
in 1 Co 13:1 by looking at Paul’s use of the same word in Ga
1:8. Does the word though in Ga 1:8 mean
Paul actually was preaching a false gospel? No. Does it mean an angel from
heaven was going around with a false gospel? No. (Until the fallen angel Moroni went around with “another testament of Jesus
Christ.” I suspect a number of good Christians used Ga
1:8 to reject Moroni’s false gospel until he finally
found a sucker in Joseph Smith.) So what does the word though mean? Ga 1:9 repeats v.8 but it substitutes the
word if for the word though. Paul was not preaching a false
gospel. He was using exaggeration to make the point that no matter how
holy the bearer of another gospel might seem, he was to be accursed.
Because of this, Cretians
don’t first go to 1 Co 13:1 where Paul is again using exaggeration to
say no matter what seemingly great stuff he might do, without charity it is
empty. Look at his use of though in the next two verses to confirm Paul
is not saying in v.1 he spoke “angel talk”: Did Paul understand all
mysteries? Did he have all knowledge? Did he have all faith? Was
he burned? No, those are exaggerations to make a point.
Cretians also don’t
base their false doctrine on 1 Co 13:1 because they know you are eventually
going to realize Acts 2 and 1 Co 13:1 can’t be what gibberishers
teach, because that would mean all angels in heaven are mute until the Holy
Spirit miraculously gives them utterance. The “tongues of angels” is just
another smokescreen used by hypocrites and vipers to lead the blind into the
pit.
When
you point all this out to Cretians they generally
resort to their “last ditch” verse to befuddle you. That’s right, they won’t
stick with a Biblical discussion of any of the Scripture they’ve already
taken you to; they always abandon it and move on in an attempt to find
some verse you can’t explain so they can piously claim it supports their Moslem
tongue-trilling as being “overpowered by the Holy Spirit.” Let’s examine their
last-ditch verse by looking at its entire chapter.
1 Co 14:1: You should
want to be able to prophesy. Prophesy with an s simply
means to preach (Am 3:8/Je 20:9; Ezek 37:9). Prophecy with
a c as in 1 Co 13:2 refers to a revelation from God (2 Pe 1:19-21). It will become clear that the use of the
word prophesy in this chapter refers to preaching in the vernacular
rather than preaching in a tongue unknown to the congregation.
1 Co 14:2: This brings
up the subject of unknown tongues, that is, languages unknown to the
congregation. This verse says a man who speaks a language unknown to the
congregation is not prophesying because, even though he knows
he’s preaching good stuff in German, the English-speaking congregation doesn’t
understand him. The only ones in the church who would understand his German are
God and himself. (“In the spirit” doesn’t mean anything mystical in this
chapter. It just means the personal understanding of the speaker as opposed to
the general understanding of the others present. We’ll have more examples of
this in this chapter.)
1 Co 14:3: This verse
introduces the purpose of the chapter – edifying the people in the
congregation. No man can edify the congregation if he is the only one who
knows what he is saying. Speaking in an unknown tongue is not prophesying.
1 Co 14:4: He that “speaketh” (Notice it doesn’t use the word prophesieth, which is always used in
conjunction with a known tongue and never in conjunction with an unknown
tongue.) in a foreign language only edifies himself because only he understands
German. But he that prophesieth (which
requires a tongue understood by the congregation) edifies the church.
1 Co 14:5: It would be
great if you all spoke lots of languages, but I wish you would prophesy
instead: because he that prophesies is better for the church than
he who speaks lots of languages, unless there is an interpreter.
Since the purpose is to edify the church, and since the church can’t be edified
if it doesn’t understand the preaching (prophesying), the presence of an
interpreter to translate the German into English so the church can be edified
makes the foreign language preacher no longer inferior to he who prophesies.
1 Co 14:6: Think about
it, what good am I to you if I preach in a foreign tongue? None
– unless you can understand the message.
1 Co 14:7: And it’s
exactly the same with musical instruments: If you don’t understand the tune how
are you going to know what is being played?
1 Co 14:8: For example,
if the trumpet is sounding an urgent call to battle how are you going to know
to arm yourself and gird your loins rather than retreat if you don’t understand
the trumpet’s meaning?
1 Co 14:9: And it’s the
same with congregations; unless you use words they understand (prophesying),
you’re communicating with no one.
1 Co 14:10: There are
many languages spoken in the world and each one has a purpose.
1 Co 14:11: Therefore
without that purpose of languages being fulfilled (communication, prophesying,
edification) both speaker and listener are as incommunicative barbarians to
each other.
1 Co 14:12: So, since
you’re so interested in being “spiritual”, how about trying to edify the
church.
---------- page
4 ----------
1 Co 14:13: To that end
(edifying, communicating, prophesying) let him
that speaketh only German pray that he will learn
English.
1 Co 14:14: This is the
last-ditch verse Cretians use in an attempt to end
their retreat before Bible believers. They claim it means: “When I speak
gibberish, it is my spiritual man communicating with God, but the old-man part
of me doesn’t understand what I’m saying.” The problem is their claim has
nothing to do with, and is contrary to, the thrust of the chapter as well as
the entire Bible. We’ll draw on the fact that this verse begins with For
as a reference to what has already been said in the chapter in order to produce
this paraphrase: “I told you to pray that you’d learn English because (“For”)
if I preach in German, I (my spirit) understand what I’m saying,
but my own understanding is unfruitful for you; you are not
edified, you don’t know how to respond to the trumpet I’m blowing, I’m not
communicating, and I’m not prophesying.”
I was talking with the pastor of a gibberish
church about all of this one time, and, true to form, he retreated to this
verse. I quickly took him through the rest of the chapter to establish the
context and then explained v.14. He was so impressed he was caught off guard;
his jaw dropped, he looked at the verse and said almost to himself,
“That’s the best explanation of that verse I’ve ever heard!” Then he quickly
recovered with, “Ah, but my denomination doesn’t teach that view of it.”
Gibberish churches do not produce Swordbearers.
1 Co 14:15: So, what is
my point? I will preach with both my understanding (the spirit) and the
understanding of the congregation.
1 Co 14:16: Otherwise if
only the speaker understands, how is the congregation going to be able to agree
with him?
1 Co 14:17: Because even
though the speaker is truly giving thanks in German, the congregation is not
edified by something it can’t understand.
1 Co 14:18: I thank God I
speak several languages.
1 Co 14:19: But in church
I’d rather speak five words that are understood by the congregation than ten
thousand words in German that nobody understands.
The rest of the chapter builds on this by
establishing rules for interpreters whenever preaching is done in German and
other foreign tongues.
1
Co 14:34-38: The whole chapter so far has been dealing
exclusively with men because they are the only ones who speak in church. The
explanations have been careful, patient, even
respectful. But now in a quick five-verse, almost parenthetical change of
subject, women are dealt with briefly and decisively. Women are to remain silent in church. Period.
And just in case that isn’t clear enough for New Testament Christians we are
given a specific example that has been rejected ever since the “roaring
twenties” and women’s liberation: If a woman wants to lean over in church and
ask her husband something about the Bible, about the sermon, etc., she is
not allowed to do so because she is to remain zip lip and ask him later at
home! Why? Because it is a shame for any woman to speak
in church. It could not possibly be clearer. (“Have you not read?” “Is
it not written?” “Why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do
not the things which I say?”) This verse should not be used as a proof text
that women shouldn’t be preachers because, by ignoring the strict wording of
the example, that would allow people to think it is permissible for women to
ask their husband a question in church. In other words, it relaxes the obvious
meaning of the rule. This is an excellent indicator of the power tradition has
to make the word of God of none effect because when you and your wife read this
New Testament commandment you will not want to believe, accept, and be
governed by what it plainly says. Because you took reading in the first
grade you can see it isn’t confusingly written and has no challenging
vocabulary words. It is simple and straightforward: V.34 mentions the rule;
v.35a gives a specific example of the rule so nobody will be tempted to think
the rule applies only to preaching; v.35b says the reason for the specific
example is to prevent the shameful breaking of the rule; and v.37 is nothing short
of the Bible’s emphasizing its authority by pointing its finger in our
impudently-willful faces and challenging us – if we claim to be Christians – to
humbly acknowledge that these verses are rules from God. V.37 is a quick jerk
on the leash to remind us the Master is watching; it is the Drill Sergeant who
has been issuing instructions in a neutral tone suddenly and briefly reminding
us of His terrible authority by fixing His gaze on us and demanding, “Have you
got that, soldier?!” or “Is that clear?!” in order to force our active, vocal,
submissive assent in an effort to prevent passive, silent, rebellious
rejection. This verse snaps us back to attention and forces us to take the
entire chapter seriously. If you’ve ever been in or under authority you recognize
all that goes into this verse. In v.38 the sudden sharp tone of the previous
verse begins to fade – but not the veiled threat.
In addition to the obvious literal meaning,
there is a figurative meaning of 1 Co 14:34,35 that
applies to all Christians of both sexes in the body of Christ, and it has to do
with Ac 17:11; Ga 1:16; Mt 16:17; Ps 81:10; Je
33:3; Jn 14:26. Understanding and applying this
figurative meaning is an important part of maturing as a Christian. The
denomination-bound preacher I mentioned in my discussion of 1 Co 14:14 did not
apply this to his Christian walk.
Before I leave this unpopular and almost universally-ignored
(!) commandment by Almighty God that women be silent in church, let me show you
the kind of incredulous reactions liberal Christians typically have to this
Scripture:
“You have got to be kidding me! Over 99% of
Christians think this Scripture only forbids public speaking by women in church, which does not prohibit a woman from discretely leaning over in church and
saying something to her husband in either a whisper or a low tone of voice. How
in the world can you claim this says women are to remain zip lip without so
much as a whisper or other non-public form of speech? Does this mean you also
think women should not sing solos in church?”
Most modern Christians agree with the above
liberal argument, and they’d also have agreed with Naaman’s
Reasoned, practical, incredulous reaction to God’s literal commandment in 2 Ki 5:10-12:
Naaman thought
the overall intent of the commandment
was that he wash and be clean, which meant there should be no need to take the
Scripture literally by bathing seven times in the Jordan. And
since the waters in Damascus are better than the rivers in Israel, he should be
able to satisfy God by taking a good shower in his apartment in Syria. 2 Ki 5 goes on to show that God really did require Naaman (and us) to do exactly
as He says.
My teachers and professors used to tell us we
had to remain silent in the classroom because: 1) It was distracting for
other students to see two of their fellows huddled together speaking – even if
no one else could hear them. 2) Whispering among ourselves was rude and disrespectful
to our instructors. “Len!” my instructor barked at me, “If what you have to say
is so important, would you like to come up here and enlighten us all?” When I
sheepishly apologized, I’d be told not to disrupt the class again. Any
student protests that whispers and low tones did not violate the overall intent
of the “silence – no speaking” rule were rejected because even whispered asides
among the congregation are, in fact, distracting, disrespectful, and ultimately
disruptive.
---------- page
5 ----------
Now let’s examine two Christian women,
Roberta and Linda, standing in line awaiting Judgment. Roberta was one of the 99% who, like Naaman, thought
seven didn’t mean seven and Jordan really didn’t mean Jordan. She thought, “Let your women keep silence
in the churches” really meant, “Neither men nor women have to be silent – as
long as their utterances are whispered in low tones, and as long as not too
many of them are engaged in these non-public conversations at the same time.”
And Roberta thinks when the Bible
says “it is not permitted unto them to speak”, it really means, “they are permitted to non-publicly speak with
whispers and low tones.”
If the word of God turns out to mean exactly what it says,
Roberta is prepared to argue at
Judgment that over 99% of the people she knew (including Naaman)
agreed that it was OK to live by “thus meaneth
the Lord” rather than by “thus saith the
Lord”.
What is the worst thing that can happen to Roberta at
Judgment? She can find herself looking up at an angry God who put those words
in the Bible the way He did because He meant every one of them, in which case
she’ll hear Him say the same frightening words she’d read many times in His
Instruction Book: “Why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” Roberta could find out –
too late – that this spiritual warfare is a struggle between what we think God means…and
what God says.
Now let’s look at Linda. Linda agreed with Roberta, with one
exception: Linda feared God. She thought it was probably OK for a woman to lean over and say a few whispered,
well-intentioned things to her companions in church…but she also knew what the Bible says: “Let
your women keep silence in
the churches: for it is not
permitted unto them to speak; for it is a shame for women to speak
in the church.” She was afraid her Lord might mean exactly what He says, and her
number one priority in life was to glorify God by faithfully, submissively, and
obediently being a doer of His word – without adding to or subtracting
from His Scriptures. And she was afraid
changing “speaking is forbidden” to “public speaking is
forbidden” might turn out to be adding to
Scripture (Dt 4:1,2; 12:32; Re
22:18,19). So when her preacher asked her to sing in church because she had
a great voice, she politely declined. And when her friends in church all leaned
over and quietly tried to get a response from her about various things, she
frowned slightly, gently shook her head, and turned away. After church her
friends all asked her why she was such a jerk. She replied that she was sorry
if she offended them, but she took God at His word – literally, and she
expected her friends to respect her religious beliefs…especially because there is nothing wrong or harmful about
women being silent in church. The only time she actually spoke in church
was when she saw smoke billowing out of a closet: she yelled “FIRE!” as loud as
she could – because of the doctrine of expediency.
Most of Linda’s friends were offended by her basing her
beliefs on the literal word of God. Not because there is anything wrong or
harmful about women being silent in church, but because Linda didn’t agree and go along with what 99% of the congregation thought God meant to
say…but didn’t. (Yes, peer pressure
exists among Christians, too.)
What
is the worst thing that can happen to Linda at Judgment? She might find herself
looking up at God, who, with an understandingly-benevolent smile says: “Linda,
when I said you couldn’t speak in church, I didn’t mean you couldn’t speak in whispers and low tones. And when I said you were to be silent, I didn’t mean for
you to be completely silent. However,
I do not fault you for doing the things which I say; I wish I had
more servants with your humility, fear, and strictly-obedient submission to my
Instruction Book; for man does not live by bread alone, but by every word of
God. Well done, good and faithful servant: Enter into the kingdom I have
prepared for those who are doers of my word.”
Of
the two women at Judgment, would you rather be Roberta or Linda?
No
matter how interesting it might be to do historical research into what kinds of
disruptive things may have been going on in early New Testament churches (men
pompously speaking in foreign languages, and loudly-gossiping women paying
little attention to the preaching), and no matter how tempting it might be to
use whatever skimpy evidence we find to speculate about why God laid down these
1 Co 14 laws for men and women, the inescapable, overriding, and only relevant
fact is it is written! We have our
clearly-written orders, and our duty is to carry them out. Nothing else
matters; we live and die by thus saith the Lord.
Why
do so many modern Christians defiantly refuse to take this New Testament
commandment literally? (One Christian couple – in outraged indignation –
stalked out of my home as soon as they learned I am one of the “1% zip-lip
literalists”, and they realized they had no way to get around what the Bible
plainly says unless they either changed
what it says or added
to the word of God.) And why do liberal Christians argue that church is a
completely different, less formal setting than a classroom – and therefore
“discrete speaking” should be permitted in the former but not in the latter?
Obviously, the usual suspects, equality
(God should have assigned women the same status and privileges as men), which
was spawned by Greek Reason, and equality-based tradition (God meant to add the word public to speaking, and add partial
to silence) that have made this commandment of none effect, are big factors. But
do not overlook the fact that today’s naïve Christians have no idea that a violent, deadly war is
going on every day…and therefore our churches are supposed to be training us up into dedicated warriors whose
Scriptural discernment enables us to see the battle through the obscuring fog
of carnality so we can stand in the gaps and hold the line against the
onslaughts of hell. Most Christians, in practice, think the main purpose of
church is to be a social gathering of ignorant effeminate lightweights who assemble
in order to hear and applaud the ear-tickling “thundering” of panty-waisted preachers who teach them to reject and condemn the
very God-fearing Biblical literalists they need to hear. The stark reality is
that church, where we are supposed to be learning how to live and fight, is infinitely more important and serious
than school classrooms. Therefore, God’s commandment that His New Testament
women be silent in church makes sense…because it underscores the critical
importance and deadly-serious purpose of the doctrinal learning that is supposed to be going on in church. The
modern Enlightened crap that liberals call “praise and
worship services” breeds haughty, supercilious Pharisees who wrongly and
contemptuously look down their noses at humble Christian women who, because
they take the word of God literally, choose to be silent in church. Let them
that have ears to hear, hear.
---------- page
6 ----------
1
Co 14:39: Now the subject has returned to men in order to
wrap up the lesson. It says we are to focus on edifying the church by prophesying,
which includes “tongues” but not “unknown tongues.” Unknown tongues like
German become edifying prophesy only when there is an English
interpreter.
1
Co 14:40 requires an understanding of much of the Bible
and is why Bible believers find the gibberish doctrine not only unscriptural,
but also offensive to Godly order. Mature Christians have a deep and clear
understanding of Biblical principles concerning authority, hierarchy,
master/servant, head/body, carnality, fasting, drunkenness, order vs. chaos,
submission vs. independence, having power on your head, and the beauty, peace,
and harmony that results when total control meets total submission. They
actually identify with those concepts and therefore understand that gibberish
is absolutely contrary to everything the Bible wants us to become. How is
gibberish so contrary to everything Biblical? Because the head does not rule
well over its own body (Pv 16:32; 1 Co 14:32). The body is acting independently of the head.
Not only does the head not know what is being said, neither does the body have
any idea. (Obviously I’m treating gibberish as if the Cretians
are under the external control of devils. If they are not under the control of
devils the Cretians themselves are in control
and do know what they are saying – nothing.) The body has risen
to a position of dominance over the now meekly submissive head. The very head
that was commanded by God to rule the body is now disgraced, which means God is
disgraced (1 Co 11:3). We are told to rule our tongues in order to
carefully govern what we say and to ensure everything we say glorifies God. Gibberishers proudly and foolishly claim to have no control
over their mouths and no knowledge of what they say.
The body of a gibberisher
has completely usurped the prerogatives of his head. That is robbery,
rebellion, trespass, and witchcraft. (Having gotten this far in this book, you
should be able to explain why I chose each of those four words.) The man who
claims to be involuntarily speaking gibberish is no different from the man who
is drunk; he has lost control. The very idea that any Christian would think it
was Scriptural when some dopey preacher trying to get him to do gibberish says,
“Just go with ‘it’, let yourself go” is an appalling testimony to the
terrifying depths of depravity to which the church has sunk. And when a Swordbearer points out to them how dreadfully unscriptural
and anti-Scriptural the whole thing is, he then has to suffer through asinine
carnality as these Cretians angrily respond with,
“Well, I know how I feel when I’m doing it, and it feels good: It feels like
I’m loving Jesus!” That’s like a moron who brutally
rapes a two-year-old girl and then justifies it by angrily saying, “But how can
something that feels so good be bad?” (That comparison is somewhat specious but
I’ll allow it to make the point that feelings mean nothing, and
I’ll let it underscore how offensive the gibberish cult is to all the Bible
teaches us about discernment vs. carnal Reason.)
Let me point out how unimpressed I am when gibberishers try to defend themselves by saying they “don’t
agree with my assessment” of this topic in the Scriptures. It has nothing to do
with the fact that they haven’t the capability to coherently and consistently
discuss the Scriptures. You see, they don’t need to know any Scripture to
know they are faking it! They know they are deliberately faking it!
So when they try to tell me the Holy Spirit has taken control of them when they
wag their tongues, I not only know they are lying, I know they know they are lying. (Unless they are
possessed by a devil.) How do I know this with such certainty? Because the Scriptures determine truth and reality for me; because
I know the Scriptures; and because I believe the Scriptures.
They are Cretians.
In
closing, I have something to say about love. Love and brotherly love are
mentioned in 1 Jn 4:7,8 and defined in
1 Jn 5:2,3 and in 1 Jn
3:16. If we spare the rod and don’t rebuke each other we don’t really love
each other. But as much as the church needs a lot of spanking today, let’s be
careful about using that fact to justify, excuse, or condone hatred. We are
told to love our enemies. And we are told those enemies are fellow Christians (Mt
10:34-39). I have a hard time “feeling” like I love lousy, lazy, lying
Christians who are defrauding the church. But while I do not trust or base
anything on my feelings, I do analyze myself in an effort to discern if I am
acting out of selfish pride or Biblical love and compassion. For example, I
pray that my anger is a righteous anger motivated by a love of the truth
and not by a puffed-up, prideful love of self. I know that even when I am armed
with Scriptural truth, if I have not charity I am a tinkling cymbal, I am
nothing. I bring this up because I think it is important if the church is to
win the war.
Our heart (not our feelings) is crucial
to the war: The Lord looks for righteous men to stand in the gap. As
Abraham’s questioning of the Lord shows, if He can find even a handful of
righteous Christians He will spare the rest. That’s what Christ did for us, for
by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification
of life. That’s what Moses did (Nu 14:19,20).
I’m not trying to diminish the unique importance and necessity of what Christ
did, I’m trying to show why the love in 1 Jn 3:16 is
so important. If we ever want to be available to stand in the gap for the
church we must love the lousy, lazy, lying Christians who are
defrauding the church. Without that love we really aren’t trying to help (save)
them when we rebuke them – we’re trying to condemn them. Without that
love we are not Swordbearers in God’s eyes, we are
tinkling cymbals.
I think God accepted Moses’ plea for the church
because He saw the love in him required for forgiveness. Moses’ love was not a
mere formality; it was genuine. Yes, he got angry at his faithless, lazy,
fearful, willful brethren, but his rebukes and his discipline were those of an
angry parent whose anger and discipline are made righteous by the underlying
motivation of love.
Let us earnestly contend for correct doctrine
and let us reemphasize the rod and other forms of church discipline, but let us
also humbly ask God to give us love.