Reformed Presbyterians on here?

[Mikeuk]

The only serious problem is with the heresy known as succession , it’s unbiblical as I have demonstrated from Scripture, the believers source of authority. You believe your church has authority over scripture which is backwards.

hope this helps !!!

You mean your minority opinion of the meaning of scripture.

Most christians disagree including many Protestants , Church of England , episcopal, also a chunk of the Lutheran church.etc
But I guess it highlights a problem because not all of Lutheranism agree, and they have no way to resolve that between them,

Which is the problem I highlight. When you disagree with MANY Protestants, how do you resolve it?

And there are many verses dealing with ordination including Paul. I can think of at least 10

The essential role of bishops in Eucharist was clearly taught by John to his disciples.

I doubt if we will all agree.

But understanding why others have legitimate disagreement is part of living in harmony, and accepting we are all Christian’s.

 

[Alive]

You mean your minority opinion of the meaning of scripture.

Most christians disagree including many Protestants , Church of England , episcopal, also a chunk of the Lutheran church.etc
But I guess it highlights a problem because not all of Lutheranism agree, and they have no way to resolve that between them,

Which is the problem I highlight. When you disagree with MANY Protestants, how do you resolve it?

And there are many verses dealing with ordination including Paul. I can think of at least 10

The essential role of bishops in Eucharist was clearly taught by John to his disciples.

I doubt if we will all agree.

But understanding why others have legitimate disagreement is part of living in harmony, and accepting we are all Christian’s.

I would like to suggest a book for your reading. It is a history of the Church throughout the centuries and a very sobering and encouraging look at God's work in this earth.
John W. Kennedy's 'The Torch of the Testimony'

Actually--I think all christians should read it.

 

[civic]

You mean your minority opinion of the meaning of scripture.

Most christians disagree including many Protestants , Church of England , episcopal, also a chunk of the Lutheran church.etc
But I guess it highlights a problem because not all of Lutheranism agree, and they have no way to resolve that between them,

Which is the problem I highlight. When you disagree with MANY Protestants, how do you resolve it?

And there are many verses dealing with ordination including Paul. I can think of at least 10

The essential role of bishops in Eucharist was clearly taught by John to his disciples.

I doubt if we will all agree.

But understanding why others have legitimate disagreement is part of living in harmony, and accepting we are all Christian’s.

The RCC or any other denomination is not the church Jesus or the Apostles meant when talking about the gates of hell prevailing or the unity if the body of Christ, the one body, the one church. All believers everywhere make up the church universal regardless of denomination affiliation. That’s where the RCC add the cults get it all wrong declaring they are the one true church .

hope this helps !!!

 

[Eleanor]

Alas all you prove is that , you as indeed we regard scripture as being truth, valuable etc.

But sola scriptura is WAY more than that, it regards it as the supreme truth.
Now if sola scriptura is the supreme truth to be logically consistent it must say so.

Who made that rule?

And if God is sovereign, to be logically consistent Scripture must say so, but nowhere is it stated, "God is sovereign."
And if God is Trinity, to be logically consistent Scripture must say so, but nowhere is it stated, "God is Triune."

Not a good rule.

But worse than that it identifies truth outside it self which it calls the “ pillar and foundation of truth” which sounds supreme to me.
And that’s the church , the household of God,

Yes, God's people, the church, the body of Christ, is where his truth is deposited in written special revelation from God.

Much of what we all argue about is the meaning of scripture - eg symbolic or eucharist of real flesh,

i answer saying at the time of Jesus scripture was the OT. So the writing of NT , and the choice of it is way in the future,
Between the two the faith was handed down by tradition, and nothing says the resulting scripture is a complete record of oral tradition.

Nor does it need to say so.
But one thing we know, God does not contradict himself, so whatever is in his word written will be in agreement with oral tradition.
And if oral tradition is not in agreement with God's word written, then it is in error.

I can show that those taught by John the apostle believe a valid Eucharist of the real flesh is valid only if performed by a bishop in succession. That’s tradition. Faith handed down. Does anyone believe John got his own teaching wrong on meaning of John 6 .?

Tradition adds meaning to scripture where we disagree,

The prime point is - and I would rather remove the catholic issue here - if you reach an impasse where all disagree where can you go as a sola scriptura adherent.?

Whether we agree or disagree is not the issue. The issue is truth.
The truth of Scripture is ascertained from other Scripture, it all being in agreement with itself.
When that truth has been demonstrated from other Scripture, we have a choice of whether to believe it or not.

Credible evidence from credible sources outside Scripture may assist one in deciding which view to believe when two opposing views both seem to enjoy Scriptural support.
But one's salvation depends on precious few things in Scripture. And on these things, there is no plurality. To trust on the wrong object in one's faith is not to be saved.

Jesus answers that - just as in the OT time “ binding and loosing “ was giving definite answer to disputes on meaning of Torah so how to live it. We see that given to the apostles together and Peter alone, that’s why we can trust the judgement of councils. Indeed the choice of New Testament,
I am not here to tell anyone they are right or wrong whatever they may believe.
As far as I am concerned any who believe the creed are Christian’s and Jesus is with them
I am trying to explain why we all disagree is the meaning ( and content) of scripture.
And the disregarding of tradition -and authority in resolving disputes.

Which brings us to the RCC doctrine of the assumption of Mary, which enjoys no Biblical support, but is an official matter of faith and doctrine in the RCC.
The point being that authority and tradition are not a guarantee of truth.
While Scripture does guarantee its truth.
And what is not in Scripture has no authority for the Christian conscience.

it’s why Presbyterians like hahn and grodi left.

I am trying to get others to recognise the serious problem that when you only have sola scriptura, in doctrinal disputes there is nowhere to go except schism,

Which some see as a better choice than authority which is in error, myself being one of them.

and it happens too frequently in Protestant churches which is sad. Even the main reformers Zwingli Calvin and Luther didn’t agree on fundamental things,

And whom did the Scriptures support?

 

[Mikeuk]

I would like to suggest a book for your reading. It is a history of the Church throughout the centuries and a very sobering and encouraging look at God's work in this earth.
John W. Kennedy's 'The Torch of the Testimony'

Actually--I think all christians should read it.

I will read anything once… thanks,
however there is also a lot of creative history giving excessive weight to fringe elements, so I take it all with a pinch.

I give a lot of weight to early fathers describing the reality of the first Christian’s
eg Ignatius ( disciple with polycarp ) of John in his letter to smyrneans details the need for bishops in Eucharist of real flesh.
It’s also why romans thought Christian’s were cannibals! Or iraneus discussing both the importance of tradition and Rome.

But I dont know if you have noticed - I haven’t said anyone is wrong.
That’s not my purpose. I don’t call them apostate, heretic, cult or anything else,

to me - all who believe the nicene creed are Christian’s , and having been in several Protestant groups on my journey to Rome Jesus was certainly with them all. But they could not answer too many questions.

Most of our disagreements are about interpretation and how it is resolved.
The lack of mechanism is why Protestants schism.

We may never agree, but we can agree that there can be valid other viewpoints from where others are sat.
We can understand each other Better. And that is my purpose. Understand why we disagree.

A recent poster here called succession believers heretics , despite big parts of Protestantism accepting it!
Just saying he disagrees is less inflammatory,

 

[Deleted member 5]

But I dont know if you have noticed - I haven’t said anyone is wrong.

But you have told others they are wrong, in particular those who hold to Sola Scriptura. Saying you haven't isn't accurate, and is in fact, false.

A recent poster here called succession believers heretics , despite big parts of Protestantism accepting it!

Talk about stacking the deck, the above is a willfully truncated version of what "a recent poster" (yours truly) is really against, and it was and is much more than mere successionism.

Just saying he disagrees is less inflammatory,

That is the right of a poster here as you've been told several times. Calling a PERSON a name, or PERSONALLY insulting the PERSON as you have is against the rules. What you are doing, in essence, is sowing discord among brothers, while not exactly telling the truth about you telling others they are wrong.

Just here to set the record straight as you go from thread to thread to sow discord.

 

[civic]

You mean your minority opinion of the meaning of scripture.

Most christians disagree including many Protestants , Church of England , episcopal, also a chunk of the Lutheran church.etc
But I guess it highlights a problem because not all of Lutheranism agree, and they have no way to resolve that between them,

Which is the problem I highlight. When you disagree with MANY Protestants, how do you resolve it?

And there are many verses dealing with ordination including Paul. I can think of at least 10

The essential role of bishops in Eucharist was clearly taught by John to his disciples.

I doubt if we will all agree.

But understanding why others have legitimate disagreement is part of living in harmony, and accepting we are all Christian’s.

Bishops and elders are not Apostles. Therefor no succession of Apostolic authority passed down from them, so when John died so did the last living Apostle.

 

[Deleted member 5]

Bishops and elders are not Apostles. Therefor no succession of Apostolic authority passed down from them, so when John died so did the last living Apostle.

Correct.

 

[Mikeuk]

8

Bishops and elders are not Apostles. Therefor no succession of Apostolic authority passed down from them, so when John died so did the last living Apostle.

[edit by mod: no need for the snark]

meanwhile the doctrine of apostolic succession refers to a chain of bishops
some of Protestantism believes it is.

most Christian’s believe it.

BTW are you telling me apostle Paul wasn’t an apostle? he calls It an office so it is passed down. As was peters.
But why do you think Jesus wanted his church to disappear after one generation?

 

[civic]

8

[edit by mod: no need for the snark]

meanwhile the doctrine of apostolic succession refers to a chain of bishops
some of Protestantism believes it is.

most Christian’s believe it.

BTW are you telling me apostle Paul wasn’t an apostle? he calls It an office so it is passed down. As was peters.
But why do you think Jesus wanted his church to disappear after one generation?

Paul was personally chosen by the Risen Lord to be His Apostle.

No I posted what and who the church is earlier and the church will exist until He returns to be with His bride. Until then we are with our husband in spirit then it will be face to face.

 

[Alive]

I will read anything once… thanks,
however there is also a lot of creative history giving excessive weight to fringe elements, so I take it all with a pinch.

I give a lot of weight to early fathers describing the reality of the first Christian’s
eg Ignatius ( disciple with polycarp ) of John in his letter to smyrneans details the need for bishops in Eucharist of real flesh.
It’s also why romans thought Christian’s were cannibals! Or iraneus discussing both the importance of tradition and Rome.

But I dont know if you have noticed - I haven’t said anyone is wrong.
That’s not my purpose. I don’t call them apostate, heretic, cult or anything else,

to me - all who believe the nicene creed are Christian’s , and having been in several Protestant groups on my journey to Rome Jesus was certainly with them all. But they could not answer too many questions.

Most of our disagreements are about interpretation and how it is resolved.
The lack of mechanism is why Protestants schism.

We may never agree, but we can agree that there can be valid other viewpoints from where others are sat.
We can understand each other Better. And that is my purpose. Understand why we disagree.

A recent poster here called succession believers heretics , despite big parts of Protestantism accepting it!
Just saying he disagrees is less inflammatory,

Thus far, it seems that this is the one subject you are interested in discussing. I am just curious, if there may be things to discuss of our wonderful Savior that more folks agree on and thus be blessed?
What say you?

 

[Deleted member 5]

Paul was personally chosen by the Risen Lord to be His Apostle.

No I posted what and who the church is earlier and the church will exist until He returns to be with His bride. Until then we are with our husband in spirit then it will be face to face.

Correct, successionism has no bearing on whether or not the church continues to exist. There are no apostles today, and there is no such thing Biblically as a "pope." Vicar of Christ is in itself blasphemous.

 

[Deleted member 5]

With respect, I didnt start this,
This is part of my response to a group of systematic attacks on catholic posts.
With all sorts of inflammatory attacks calling us “ heretic, apostate, cult”
in violation of Carbons opening statement on the catholic forum.
It is Assuming that would be honoured that made posting worthwhile,


But you see the result, We are entitled to respond.

So in defence I note in the catholic section what the essence of all the disagreements are.
and the problem of What can be done if we all disagree
Which is also why many Presbyterians returned to Rome, eg Hahn.
I noted on the catholic threads that it is also the reason protestants disagree and schism,
they should look at each other not us,
and I posted here only because the OP noted his church had broken away! QED

Perhaps you would ask our detractors to post other than attacks on Catholics!

In the short time I have been here, I have as you noticed extensively challenged the scientists view of abiogebesis, of interest to all,

But I will now await @Carbon deciding what he sees as a future.

If anyone particular mods are allowed to call other christians names “ cult, apostate , heretic etc” I’m not going to waste my time and continue, Im here for a civil discussion regarding all Christian’s brothers , or none.

For the record no person has called any Christian names, except for you at me (as far as I know) which have been edited.

Rules allow for the calling of religious organizations what they biblically are, false, heretical, &c.

After numerous warnings to stop your bickering, you still continue to do so, and we don't bow to ultimatums from you or any member.

 

[Reformedguy]

Yes...just split off. And for biblical reasons even you would understand. In fact biblical reasons the RCC is crumbling under.

Recently ( the last 25 years or so ) the RCA like so many other churches has been under assault by forces that wish it to acknowledge "gay marriage" and other such blasphemies like homosexual clergy. "Minor attracted" ( pedophile ) persons.

All old hat too the RCA. You are infamous for such things. But rather than coming out of the RCA for these things you choose to hide and perpetuate them. Perhaps you should look to your own house. We are leaving the rot behind like we did the RCA so long ago.

Amen. I am Presbyterian but attended a RCA church. I went to church one Sunday and out of nowhere they ordained a woman minister and she served communion. Left that Sunday and never went back. I now attend a Orthodox Presbyterian church.

 

[Eleanor]

Yes...just split off. And for biblical reasons even you would understand. In fact biblical reasons the RCC is crumbling under.

To what are you referring here regarding the RCC?

Recently ( the last 25 years or so ) the RCA like so many other churches has been under assault by forces that wish it to acknowledge "gay marriage" and other such blasphemies like homosexual clergy. "Minor attracted" ( pedophile ) persons.

All old hat too the RCA. You are infamous for such things. But rather than coming out of the RCA for these things you choose to hide and perpetuate them. Perhaps you should look to your own house. We are leaving the rot behind like we did the RCA so long ago.

 

[Rella]

I am Evangelical Presbyterian and they are definitely reformed.

We split from Presbyterian USA about 15 or so years ago due to certain situations starting with gays in the pulpit...

The Five solas of the Reformation, which distinguished the Reformers from the teachings of Rome, include sola scriptura (Scripture alone), solus Christus (Christ alone), sola fide (faith alone), sola gratia (grace alone), and soli Deo gloria (glory to God alone). Summary

sola scriptura (Scripture alone) IMO is an oxymoron if you incorporate the Calvin beliefs, even as touched upon in the Westminster Confession of Faith into the mix...

You cannot have sola scriptura if you also embrace the Westminster Confession of Faith which in and of itslef is a contradiction if studied carefully.

 

[ChristB4us]

Nowhere is the Scripture does it even hint at or teach there would be any successor to the Apostles.

There can be other apostles. Scripture lists them as an office the Lord will provide for this purpose below.

Ephesians 4:7 But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ. 8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. 9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: 14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; 15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: 16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love. 17 This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind,...

It is apparent that the title "apostle" has been dropped down through the church's history, and maybe because they made a big deal out of it in regards to that office that they feel it is vanity to assume such a title in the service of Him, but that is not to say that God is not using someone as an apostle, even though he does not call himself that. We have these words from Paul as he was an apostle and yet this was written.

1 Corinthians 3:5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? 6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. 7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.

Confirmation that Paul was the only apostle either.

Acts 14:14Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,

Who is Barnabas?

Acts 4:36 And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,

Who were the former twelve apostles again?

Matthew 10:2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; 3 Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; 4 Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.

So it reads to me that assigning apostleship to those 11 with Matthias as replacing Judas Iscariot, is not quite the whole truth.

They and no one else are the foundation of the New Testament teaching/doctrine that Jesus promised to THEM and no one else that THEY the Apostles/Disciples would be guided into all truth. That is and was an exclusive promise Jesus made to THEM. That He would bring to THEIR remembrance everything He has taught THEM. Ephesians 2:20- built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.

1 Peter 2:4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, 5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. 6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

Who was Peter addressing as also as lively stones?

1 Peter 1:1Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, 5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. 6 Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations: 7 That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ: 8 Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory: 9 Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.

So what does an apostle exactly do along with prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers?

Ephesians 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

So obviously there are other apostles down through church's history just as there are other disciples, as those who follow Jesus 7 those that serve Jesus in edifying the body of Christ.

The RCC likes to limit who should be called saints, but all believers are saints.

The church today may shy away from the title of the apostle, but that does not mean God is not using anyone as an apostle for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.

 

[ChristB4us]

I am Evangelical Presbyterian and they are definitely reformed.

We split from Presbyterian USA about 15 or so years ago due to certain situations starting with gays in the pulpit...

The Five solas of the Reformation, which distinguished the Reformers from the teachings of Rome, include sola scriptura (Scripture alone), solus Christus (Christ alone), sola fide (faith alone), sola gratia (grace alone), and soli Deo gloria (glory to God alone). Summary

sola scriptura (Scripture alone) IMO is an oxymoron if you incorporate the Calvin beliefs, even as touched upon in the Westminster Confession of Faith into the mix...

You cannot have sola scriptura if you also embrace the Westminster Confession of Faith which in and of itslef is a contradiction if studied carefully.

My former Presbyterian church did that also in joining a Presbytery that was more Biblical ( self proclaimed and therefore should be discerned ), but iniquities still abounds within and red tape prevents addressing them for why I withdrew my membership from the church.

Not to mention that the local church has no power to prevent that new Presbytery to cease being Biblical as standing apart from LGBTQ+ ideology.

The "Biblical" Presbytery is that it should be based in that city to tend to the assemblies in that city. The point of the Presbytery is to subject every assembly to the word of God and if a Presbytery should go astray, guess what? The assemblies should hold them to be submissive to the word of God.

The practice of the Presbytery today is that they are not in that city where the assemblies of believers are at but afar off, distant. No one knows how those in that Presbytery get in that positions nor how they are elected, and worse, how to remove them when they go astray and so this is why some churches just switched Presbytery instead.

Problem here is that I see this as the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes as the name meaning conquest of the laity which the Church at Rome is guilty of for attempting to govern over all churches by order of Pope Clement when by his epistle t the Corinthians, trued to subvert and guilt trip the churches in giving a portion of their collections to his collectors from Rome as if Rome is entitles to it. Clement tried to play on them being jealous and envious for why they were refusing to give a portion from their bounties to his collectors from Rome.

The deeds of the Nicolaitanes is sexual immorality whereas the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes is obscure but the meaning of the name should identify its doctrines as ruling over the churches, thus replacing the word of God as Christ is the actual Head of the Church.

1 Corinthians 11:3But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Ephesians 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

to be continued....

 

[ChristB4us]

I am Evangelical Presbyterian and they are definitely reformed.

We split from Presbyterian USA about 15 or so years ago due to certain situations starting with gays in the pulpit...

The Five solas of the Reformation, which distinguished the Reformers from the teachings of Rome, include sola scriptura (Scripture alone), solus Christus (Christ alone), sola fide (faith alone), sola gratia (grace alone), and soli Deo gloria (glory to God alone). Summary

This Biblical Presbytery my former church has joined unto, are not discerning what place the Holy Spirit has in worship since the Holy Spirit is sent to dwell in us to testify of the Son thru us ( John 15:26-27 ) to glorify the Son ( John 16:14 ) and thus not Himself for that would be giving himself glory and thereby a false witness which the Holy Spirit cannot and therefore would not do as man are not to do that either per John 5:31 & John 7:18. it takes two witnesses to make a witness true per John 8:17. That is why the Holy Spirit is not mentioned to be honored as if He is another way to honor the Father by in John 5:22-23. The father is honored & glorified by only honoring & glorifying the Son as John 13:31-32 & Philippians 2:5-11 testifies to that mind of Christ we are to have in worship in that obedience.

Although scripture testifies to the Holy Spirit being God and of the Three Witnesses within that One God, all invitations to come to the Father is by the only way of the Son as specified.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

The modified Nicene creed of 381 A.D. introduce the "broadening of the way" in the worship place in coming to God, by including the worship of the Holy Spirit with the Father & the Son.

John 10:1Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.... 7 Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep. 8 All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them. 9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. 10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

Now they have successfully conquered the laity when scripture does not teach nor support that kind of worship.

With the focus on the Holy Spirit in worship, they suffer a thief to break through for why God permit those strong delusion to occur in the holy laughter movement, being drunk in the "spirit", Pensacola outpouring, Toronto's Blessings, the former Ernest Angeley's Healing Crusade. These phenomenon all started in the Welsh Street Revival in 1904-05 & culminated in with all of those phenomenon reported in the Azusa Street Revival in 1906-09 where the focus was on receiving the Holy Spirit with evidence of tongues. This is why that kind of tongue is not coming with interpretation because that gibberish nonsense is not of Him at all but a pagan supernatural tongues as found in the occult per Isaiah 8:19 and in Roman idolatry The History of Tongues: Pagan Practices

None of the gifts of the spirit are for private use; but to profit the assembly;

1 Corinthians 12:4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. 6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. 7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.

8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; 9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; 10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: 11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.

13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

14 For the body is not one member, but many.....

.....18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. 19 And if they were all one member, where were the body? 20 But now are they many members, yet but one body. 21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.

That is what tongue speakers that use tongues for private use are actually saying to the body of Christ as if tongues is an exception to all other gifts of the Spirit when in actuality, that tongue gained by seeking to receive the Holy spirit and thus Jesus by a sign so they can believe, are committing spiritual adultery.

Matthew 12:38 Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee. 39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: 40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

They actually believe the Holy Spirit makes intercessions for them by that tongue out loud and yet all Bible versions testify how the Holy Spirit will not speak from Himself but how He will speak only what He hears in John 16:13 whereas the KJV and a few modern bibles kept the truth in His words in Romans 8:26-27 that He cannot even utter His groanings out loud. But alas, most modern bibles seem to testify that the Holy Spirit utter some sounds when making His intercessions and even commit a grammatical error by switching out the "he" in the latter part of verse 27 with "the Spirit" when this he is separate from us in searching our hearts and separate from the Spirit in knowing the mind of that this "he" is Jesus Christ, because He is the only Mediator between God and men to give the Spirit's unbuttered intercessions, our intercessions, and His own intercessions to the Father so that when the Father says "yes..." to any of them, the Son answers the prayers so that the Father may be glorified in the Son for answers to prayers. John 14:13-14

So when anyone prays to the Holy Spirit and tongues without interpretation or chaos comes, that is why as God is not the author of confusion and they were offending God the father by climbing up another way to Him other than by the only way of the Son.

With all those spirits in the world and the spirits that are behind the idols, is why all invitations to come to the Father is by the only way of the Son. If a saved believer does not wish to suffer a thief to break through, they will be watching leaning on the Lord to keep their eyes on the Son in coming to God the Father for anything, but not for any more filling of the Spirit when they are complete in Christ ( Colossians 2:5-10 ) and therefore their focus is always on the Son, the Bridegroom for why they will not be seeking another drink of the One Spirit, and thus avoiding suffering a thief to break through, hence the spirits of the antichrist.

1 Corinthians 12:13;Matthew 9:17;2 Corinthians 11:1-4;1 John 4:1-6

Matthew 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Luke 13:24 Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.

That is a warning from Jesus for how bad it is in the churches today and why only a few heed His words to not suffer their house to fall in these movements of the spirit which many disguised it as a revival in these latter days but in reality, it is a falling away from the faith.

So trust Jesus Christ as your personal Good Shepherd to take heed to His words in discerning whether or not the Presbytery you are in is actually Biblical.