Mrs Mav,

I have been away from the blogosphere thats all. I usually take a break now and then.

Kyle

(MN: Seekerman has responded. And as I said, I am giving him the last word. Read it if you like. It’s rather long. )

I said:

Even though I am critical of neo-pentecostals, and modern day charismatics, concerning their perverted spiritual excesses, even when it comes to their displays and manifestations of what they call “the spirit taking over,” I will also condemn those on the cessationists side, or those who lean in that direction, when it comes to them making mockery of a manifestation from the Holy Spirit.

Melvin said:

But you are assuming, without proof, that the activity people call a personal prayer language is of the Holy Spirit. In fact, that is the central issue - one you have not yet demonstrated as true.

My response:

Well, neither do the folks who post up this tee-shirt website give proof that tongues are false either. Neither do the folks, who responded in glee, to this particular website, give proof that tongues are false.

Just because I don’t give “proof,” in my statements, doesn’t mean that what I am saying is false.

I said:

And yeah I read the article on this site concerning how tongues aren’t supposedly a “private prayer language,” but unlike many on this site-I DON’T BELIEVE ANY OF IT! I have my own interpretation, of what the scriptures say.

Melvin said:

And what do you base that interpretation on? Your experience? Sketchy at best.

My response:

I haven’t told you what I base this experience, or belief on, as of yet. But if you read further on down, based on your line of questioning, it will most definitely be addressed.

Melvin said:

That’s my point. I am asking you to provide the support from scripture.

My response:

I have done so. As was said in the above, just continue to read further on down this page…

Melvin said:

While I understand your position, you will have to demonstrate to me that the Tongues mentioned in chapter twelve of First Corinthians are different than the tongues discussed in chapter 14.

My response:

They’re not different…

Melvin said:

If they are not different,

My response:

Uh-huh?

Melvin said:

then why are the Tongues from chapter 12 used for personal edification when Paul said they are for the edification of the church.

My response:

There’s no contradiction here, for Paul is saying in totality, and within context, that tongues alone can only personally edify, but if those same tongues were being manifested in a corporate body of worship/church setting-then it would be beneficial to all, if someone would interpret the tongues being expressed, so that the whole body of believers can be edified, uplifted and possibly extolled…

Melvin said:

Not a valid argument.

My response:

How so?

Melvin said:

This doesn’t take care of such questions as “If I don’t understand what I am saying, how are either me or the rest of the Body edified. The totality is that he says they are for OUR edification, not my edification.

My response:

Paul says in Chapter 14, or presupposes in chapter 14, that the reader understands how tongues can edify a person with this gift, for with the gift of tongues a believer’s: “…spirit prayeth…” even though their understanding is “unfruitful.” (verse 14).

Also in verse 2 of this very same chapter, Paul says: “For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.”

Seeing as how no man understands the tongues that are being spoken, including the person with the gift, it is incumbent upon that person, doing the speaking with the tongues, once they get amongst other believers, to interpret what the tongues are saying, so that others may be blessed.

Furthermore, a man speaking “in an unknown,” even if he is “speaking mysteries” even to himself, he is nevertheless being benefited, in that he is speaking directly “unto God.” (verse 2).

Man, you can’t receive no more powerful edification than that!!

The scripture said:

12: Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.

Melvin said:

Context says he’s not promoting some personal tongues in 14 but rather arguing against it. You still have not demonstrated otherwise. Why do you say it is beneficial to me in a private setting? How am I edified?

My response:

To the contrary, for what context says in verse 39 of this same chapter: “39: Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and FORBID NOT TO SPEAK WITH TONGUES.”

Melvin said:

If they are not the same, where, between 12 and 14 did Paul indicate he was introducing a second category of Tongues?

My response:

Well, someone who believes they are not the same will have to answer that question, for I am certainly not qualified, on that end…

I said:

Be careful in making mockery of those gifts that the Holy Spirit will endow to certain believers. Those who once “spoke in tongues,” but don’t do so anymore, and will fluff off the “tongues experience” as auto suggestion, and fakery, and the like, never had the true gift to begin with, truth be told.

Melvin said:

Again, show me from scripture that your assumption is true.

My response:

I’ve already done that…

Melvin said:

No, you simply made a statement as if the statement proves it.

I said:

Aaaahh, I don’t know about that.

Melvin said:

At least show me from Scripture that the posting I made is false. Show me the false statements I made and give me an indication of the false conclusions I reached. And tell me from Scripture why they are false.

My response:

In chapter 12 of 1 Corinthians, Paul says:

“4: Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
5: And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.
He includes within the pantheon of gifts, “divers kinds of tongues”:
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:”

Then he goes on to say in this very same chapter, in verse 30:

“Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?”

This verse suggests that not everyone speaks with tongues (nor interpret for that matter), but that there are those who do indeed speak with tongues within the body of Christ.

Melvin said:

The assumed answer is “No.”

My response:

Now where are you getting that from?

He said:

This doesn’t help your case.

Melvin said:

Oh really?

He said:

You guys usually say everyone should speak in tongues.

My response:

I don’t say that, neither does Paul in the above verse.

Melvin said:

But here, in the very verse you quoted, he says not everyone is going to.

My response:

That’s what I said earlier, and? I’m afraid I don’t get where you’re coming from…

Melvin said:

Unless you think all will interpret, heal, etc. How can you say that tongues is a personal prayer language we should all have if you agree that not everyone should speak in tongues?

My response:

In chapter 12, where Paul is discussing the gifts (not to be confused with the fruits of the spirit) of the spirit, he implicitly states that not everyone will have the same gift. In verses 4-11, Paul says:

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.

So, having said that, when Paul says in the same chapter, verses 27-28:

27: Now ye are the body of Christ, and MEMBERS IN PARTICULAR.
28: And God hath set SOME in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly TEACHERS, after that MIRACLES, then gifts of HEALINGS, helps, governments, diversities of TONGUES.

He’s stating that God has given those specific gifts to “MEMBERS IN PARTICULAR,” which denotes that not everyone will have the same gifts, or abilities, therefore those within the body of Christ ought not, for the sake of a better word, PLAYERHATE on one another, or think of themselves more highly than they ought to, just because they possess certain gifts, seeing as how, according to verse 25: “…there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.”

Why? Well, according to verses 13 to 24, it says:

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.
15: If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
16: And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
17: If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
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.
22: Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary:
23: And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.
24: For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked:”

But I somewhat digress.

My whole point here is to illustrate, that not everyone, according to the scriptures, will be blessed, or endowed, with the same spiritual gifts that Paul discusses.

This why he can so plainly state, in verses 29-31, when it comes to believers thinking that all Christians ought to have the same gift, and that one gift may be more preeminent than the other:

”29: Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?
30: Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?
31: But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.”

In other words, he’s letting folks know in summary, that despite having different spiritual gifts, we are all still one corporate body and spiritual entity, to where one portion of the body, isn’t superior, or inferior to the other end, but that we are all one in Christ, in that all spiritual gifts inevitably are designed, to edify the total body of Christ.

He’s not discussing, nor implying, that folks won’t ever speak in tongues.

I said:

Remember, Paul even stated that he spoke in tongues more than those members within the church at Corinth, in chapter 14.

Melvin said:

So? This in no way indicates that there is a private prayer language. As a missionary among the Gentiles, I would certainly understand that God gave him this particular gift. But where does it say that everyone has it?

My response:

I never said that “everyone has it,” just like everyone doesn’t have the gift of healing, teaching, etc…

I said:

In chapter 14 of Corinthians, Paul gets more specific on the gift of tongues, by describing its function, and potential edifying uses for the church, in verses 4, 5, which says:

“He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself

Melvin said:

And earlier he said it is for the edification of the Church, not self

My response:

And the context lies in a person with the gift of tongues, speaking within a church setting, praying that someone interprets those tongues, so that the whole church can be edified. So as you can see, there’s no contradiction there, for the scripture still says that “He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself”, does it?

In essence, he’s simply telling the person with the gift of tongues, to be wise and not selfish, seeing as how tongues can only edify the user of this gift, in that “in the spirit he speaketh mysteries” “unto God” (verse 2), and to use this gift around fellow believers, so that they too can be edified.

Scripture says:

“but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.”

Melvin said:

Eschew tongues unless there is someone to prophesy. He doesn’t even say “unless you are by yourself in which case it’s okay.

My response:

Check out what Paul says in verses 18 and 19, of Chapter 14:

“18: I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:

19: Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.”

In these verses, Paul’s suggesting that he speaks in tongues, ALONE, and speaks mysteries to God, to where only his spirit understands, but when he comes amongst a body of believers, or in a church setting, he would “rather speak five words with” his own “understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.”

I said:

Paul also identifies the use of tongues in verse 14, for personal edification. In this verse, he also describes what tongues perform as a function, for a person utilizing them (tongues) as a private prayer language:

“For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.”

Melvin said:

What good does it do if my understanding is unfruitful? How am I edified?

My response:

Your edified because you’re speaking directly, according to verse 2 of chapter 14, to God.

If you can’t see the edification in that, well, I can’t do nothing for you man.

I said:

Yet even though is “understanding is unfruitful,” when his “spirit prayeth,” he nonetheless said in verse 18:

“I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all.”

Melvin said:

Again, not a matter of a personal language. It simply says that he makes use of the gift of Tongues more than other folks - tongues for the edification of the body, not the “edification” of self.

My response:

To the contrary, what he’s truly saying, in context, based on the scriptures I’ve provided, is that spiritual gifts are to be used to edify the total body of Christ, and if you are to utilize tongues in a church setting, make sure there’s an interpretation of those tongues that follow, so that the whole body can be edified. Because remember, Paul even stated that tongues only edifies the person with the gift of tongues, who speaks in tongues, implying that this edification can only come about, if they were alone with the Lord, speaking mysteries, and praying unto God.

I said:

But having said that, he outright states that when he is amongst a body of believers, he’d rather for they to be blessed as well, and not only himself, when it comes to utilizing, or displaying tongues in a church setting. This is something verse 19 plainly highlights when it says:

” Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.”

Melvin said:

Certainly. He wants to teach, not prophecy or speak and wait for an interpretation.
Again, you have not supported you claim that we should all speak in tongues, or that tongues are good for us.

My response:

Again Melvin, no where did I say in any of these two posts of mine, that tongues are for everyone, because I did say that one can be saved, without having this particular gift, now did I? On the same token, concerning whether tongues are good for us, well, I’ll let the apostle answer that dilemma, where he said in verse 39: “Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.”

I said:

All of these verses, in their totality, suggest that Paul did indeed speak with tongues, outside of the church, but again, he is warning folks with this gift, not to be myopic/shortsighted, and hold up the service with their spiritual displays, which can be selfish, in and of itself. Rather, he is saying that if you must come in church, speaking in tongues, then please let it be done so that others in the church can be blessed as well-which is where interpretation comes in.

Melvin said:

An excellent eisegetic accomplishment here. Apparently it says and means what you want it to say and mean. Surely you can see that most of your conclusions are based on assumptions you make?

My response:

Oh nooooooooooooooooo. Paul is saying exactly what I am expressing in the above statement, for remember, Paul said in verse 26: “ How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, everyone of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.” Not only does he admonish the saints for performing certain gifts in the church, for not too noble and Godly reasons, he cements the fact that this is where he’s coming from, when he says in verse 40, concerning these things: “Let all things be done decently and in order.”

I said:

I’ve been in several tongue talking,
charismatic and neo-pentecostal churches, where folks would stand up and interrupt the church services, with an inordinate amount of tongue talking, while the pastors were afraid to discipline, or quiet down these individuals, for fear of “quenching the spirit.”

What Paul is saying, again, is to utilize whatever gifts you do have, for the glory of God, and for the edification of the church, as well as bringing certain ones to salvation, which is evident in verses 23, 24, and 25, which says:

” If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?

“But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all:

And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.”

Melvin said:

But according to you it’s okay to do the private prayer language thing even if there are no unbelievers around.

My response:

Of course, for tongues can be a hindrance to evangelism, if there’s no interpretation of those tongues. In the case of an unbeliever, it is best if prophesy is invoked.

Melvin said:

I’m still not seeing how you get from what Paul says to what you want it to say.

My response:

Just read the scripture, where the truth is plainly stated…

I said:

Simply put, with the fear of sounding redundant, prophesying and interpreting those tongues, from what Paul is teaching, edifies both the church, and can lead a sinner to Christ.

Melvin said:

I agree. But that has nothing to do with the idea of a private prayer language in which my understanding is unfruitful.

My response:

Who said it does. For remember, even Paul says that tongues only edifies the person utilizing the gift, which implies that tongues can be a private prayer language, even if your understanding is unfruitful, for in the end, you’re not speaking to men, but to God, where the spirit speaks mysteries…

I said:

This is why Paul says, AGAIN, in verse 19, concerning this practical approach:
“Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue. ”

Melvin said:

Again, no indication of a conrast between a private prayer language and the gift of tongues used in unison with Interpretation of Tongues.

My response:

This is because Paul is instructing folks solely on how to utilize tongues, if they were to bring that gift from their private times with the Lord, to a corporate church setting, not on how to pray and be edified by this gift, once your alone. Again, he already states that tongues only edifies the person with the gift, but if they interpret what their gift expresses, once they’re in the presence of a believer, or believers, then the tongues can be maximized at it’s best. Why is that? It is maximized at its best, seeing as how other folks can be blessed in understanding the mysteries your spirit is speaking “unto God.”

I said:

This isn’t to say that they weren’t saved, for I do believe that you can be saved without ever speaking in tongues, unlike how certain neo-pentecostals and charismatics believe, but to fluff it off so cavalierly, and to make fun of this gift, by way of tee-shirts, and other extremes, to me, is sacreligious, and decadent, in and of itself…

Melvin said:

I’m not making fun of the gift. I am making fun of the people who claim to have the gift and use it to impress the sheeple. I am making fun of those who think that there is a private prayer language and then fall all over themselves trying to make the Scripture say what they want it to say.

My response:

Well then, this is an unfortunate thing for you, as well as for those who don’t have proper understanding of the matter…

Melvin said:

Only if what you are saying is true. If it is not true, then you are engaged in a lie.

My response:

Oh, what I am saying is indeed true. I have no doubt about that.

Melvin said:

So far you have presented nothing but an eisegetical panoply to attempt to support it.

My response:

Oh no, I have thoroughly dissected in an exegetical way, that which Paul was teaching in regards to tongues, with scriptures to support my view on the matter…

Melvin said:

You even managed to present Scripture that contradict what you said.

My response:

I realize that you may like to believe this.

I said:

Again, I’m grown up enough, and secure enough in my faith, to where folks can honestly critique tongues, and buttress those critiques with cogent and salient arguments, without stepping up and becoming disgruntled. But when the honest assessment on tongues, devolve into such mockery, again, I think it has gone too far.

Melvin said:

Nothing wrong with making fun of something that’s wrong. Of course I sholdn’t be cruel to the folks in the deception. But hey, wrong is wrong.

My response:

I agree with your sentiments here, HOWEVER, I don’t think the gift of tongues, in that it can be utilized as a private prayer language, is WRONG!

Melvin said:

But if the rebuttal of tongues is accurate, the mockery is not bad.

My response:

Okay?

Melvin said:

You have yet to demonstrate how the critique and conclusion about Tongues is inaccurate.

My response:

Yes, I have.

Melvin said:

No, you haven’t. You have just given the typical eisegetical defense of the practice. You have presented assumptions as if they were proof.

My response:

How so? The scriptures and the interpretations I provided, were spot on, salient, cogent and to the point.

Melvin said:

And saying “Because I know what I experienced” is not an argument. Scripture trumps experience every time.

My response:

I’m more sophisticated and experienced in the word of God, logic, as well as argumentation, to ever rely on such an excuse, to bolster my points…

Melvin said:

But you didn’t present Scripture either.

My response:

This isn’t what the evidence suggests, implies, or outright states. As a matter of fact, the evidence exclaims otherwise.

I said:

Lastly, when it comes to this issue of spiritual gifts, which includes tongues, it would be wise to adhere to what scripture says on these matters, in 1 Corinthians verses 20-22:

“Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.

“In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.

Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.”

Melvin said:

If you are a believer, what is the point of you speaking in tongues when you are by yourself?

My response:

So that you can speak solely “unto God,” according to verse 2 of Chapter 14, which can be a very sublime, and awesome experience for the person who truly possesses this gift, as opposed to those who claim to have it, because of peer pressure, auto suggestion, etc…

Melvin said:

The verse you present plainly says that Tongues are for the benefit of the UNBELIEVER not the believer.

My response:

And I also quoted a scripture where it says that tongues edify the believer who utilizes this gift, alone, but if they were in a church setting, they ought to utilize this gift (which is intended to benefit the church as a whole, despite the fringe benefits Paul describes for the believer with this gift), for the betterment, spiritual nourishment, and edification, of the total body of believers, so that the body of Christ can receive edification. Amen.

Haven’t commented in a while. The tongues blog is very interesting. You both make correct comments in the matter, but Mel (i’m not saying this for a response), I agree with seekerman that the personal prayer language in private is useful to “the believer”. when we know not what we should pray for as we ought the Spirit helps our inability with groanings that cannot be uttered. As you suggest what good is the personal prayer language if you don’t have the understanding, it is possible for someone to have the gift of tongue and prophecsy. These gifts usually go hand in hand. I have both. I’ve prayed in tongues and receive the interpretation with understanding.

(MN: Fine. I assume that when you speak in tongues there are unbelievers present.

But aside from that, you are not saying the same thing that Seekerman is saying. You are saying that you personally have the gift of Tongues and Interpretations of tongues. Seekerman is saying that he has a private prayer language - - as, according to Seekerman, everyone should (i.e. all should speak in tongues). I have yet to see a separation between the tongues discussed in Chapter 12 and the tongues discussed in Chapter 14 of 1 Corinthians. Seekerman has inserted a lot into the text based on his experience. He has not shown from the text that what he says is so.

By the way, if I am speaking words then that is not consistent with what the Romans reference says about helping our inability with groanings. “Ho shay shondala mo bo bo” is not utterings that can’t be uttered. They are uttered. They are not examples of Romans 8. Or am I missing something? )

Melvin, if you read throughout all of my posts on tongues, no where have I ever personally claimed to speak in tongues, nor have I ever stated that everyone ought to speak in tongues. Rather, I said that tongues is one of the gifts of the Spirit, and is possibly a sign, but not THE sign of someone who is born again-hence not everyone will speak in tongues…

Right now, it appears as if you’re performing an eisegesis on my statements.

(MN: Look in my responses and you will see that I did not say that you did speak in Tongues. However, the fellow who has joined our discussion says he has not only spoken in tongues but has also provided an interpretation.

Whether you have spoken in tongues or not changes little if anything in the discussion between you and me. I agree that Tongues is one of the gifts of the Spirit. The Bible says so in various places. The question is: Are people practicing it the way the Bible instructs us to under the circumstances it lays out? The second question is: Is there a private prayer language?

I believe you have stated that there is a personal prayer language. What eisegesis have I done on your comments? )

Mel, uttered means: spoken, voiced, expressed, articulated. As our human inability in spiritual matters can sometimes cause us agony or grief, the groaning (tongue groanings with regard to travailing in prayer) can not be articulated by our own words but the Spirit prays directly to the Father for us. Now you may have the last word.

(MN: And where, exactly, do you get the idea of “tongue groaning”? Again, “Ooh shalla bang bang, tonto comesina honda” is speaking, not groaning. It’s uttering, not groaning. The reference you point us to states that the stuff is too deep for us to utter, it’s in groanings only. Groanings are not words. How is speaking words, even nonsense words, the same as groaning? )

Melvin said to me:

“Look in my responses and you will see that I did not say that you did speak in Tongues.”

Then explain this:

“Seekerman is saying that he has a private prayer language - - as, according to Seekerman, everyone should (i.e. all should speak in tongues).”

(MN: You’re right. Apparently I misunderstood you. I guess at this point I have to ask: Do you believe that there is a private prayer language? If you do, and don’t “practice” this language, why not? If you don’t, and you see the rest of the issues the same way I do, I’m not sure what this back and forth is about. )

Melvin,

Your just jealous.

A sha ba ka ta ha ha!

I got more where that came from.

Kyle

Kyle, you’re a mess bro……….BOY have I missed you

Hey GaryV,

A sho ta ka ba la to to ha.

LOL! I love this Website

Kyle

Tsk, tsk, tsk…

Melvin said:

I guess at this point I have to ask: Do you believe that there is a private prayer language?

My response:

I’ve already addressed this in my previous posts…

Melvin said:

If you do, and don’t “practice” this language, why not?

My response:

I’ve tacitly addressed this in my previous posts…

Melvin said:

If you don’t, and you see the rest of the issues the same way I do, I’m not sure what this back and forth is about.

My response:

I addressed this point in my previous posts…

(MN: Okay. Would anyone out there care to help me see where he has addressed my questions? Maybe I’m just dense and can’t read plain language. Apparently Seekerman is not willing to exhibit even a bit of graciousness and help me out by simply answering the questions. And that seems rather curious. Which is easier, typing “I addressed this point in my previous posts” or typing either “yes” or “no”? I would think Seekerman would understand that I was not able to get these simple answer out accurately and he would help me. But I guess I’m wrong. So, again, would someone be willing to wade through his previous writings (yes it will be painful) and get an answer for me? No? I guess I just won’t worry about it then. I guess I’ll have to assume that he does believe there is a “special” prayer language for the believer to use and that he doesn’t use it. But it’s not that important. )

Seekerman,

Just answer the question. Oh! I got it Melvin. It’s YOU that can’t understand him because he’s speaking to you in his “tongue” that only he and God can understand. Now all we need is an interpreter just like the Bible says. You see Mel if you were actually saved and had the anointing then you could understand what Seekerman was saying. I suggest you go straight to your television and turn it on to TBN right now and learn from the anointed ones. With a little practice you will be able to interpret Seekerman and you will find the answer.

A boo ta ka la sho na da da

Ah! I bet you didn’t see that one comin did ya? Interpret that I dare ya.

Kyle

(MN: Can anyone tell me why Seekerman is doing all of this writing instead of simply typing “Yes I believe there is a private prayer language,” and “No, I don’t practice a private prayer language?” I’m assuming this is where he stands. But again, I’m not clear on the answers by reading through his responses. )

-Seekerman,

*Yeah what’s up?

-Just answer the question.

*I did, in my previous posts. For someone to keep asking me the same question, or questions, that I answered previously, isn’t a dance I wish to continue.

-Oh! I got it Melvin. It’s YOU that can’t understand him because he’s speaking to you in his “tongue” that only he and God can understand.

*What it is, is that you lack understanding, if you yourself can’t understand the words I’ve written previously. Simply put, the comment you’ve just made, is more of a tell tale sign that your a base ignoramus, as oppose to it saying anything negative about me.

Answering you, or engaging with you, would be similar to engaging a fool in his follies, or casting pearls before swine.

-Now all we need is an interpreter just like the Bible says.

*The only interpreter you need, is spiritual illumination from the Holy Spirit, for what I see manifesting from you is anything but Holy.

-You see Mel if you were actually saved and had the anointing then you could understand what Seekerman was saying.

*No, because I do believe that Christians can honestly disagree on a myriad of theological issues, just as long as certain core/orthodox/fundamental principles, aren’t compromised.

And as far as being saved, or not saved, well-I think that may can apply to you, more so than it does Mel.

-I suggest you go straight to your television and turn it on to TBN right now and learn from the anointed ones. With a little practice you will be able to interpret Seekerman and you will find the answer.

*First of all, I’m not a fan of TBN, nor what they have to put forth, and for you to align me with such cats, is tantamount, from where I’m standing, to slander.

Lastly, from what I’m reading, and discerning from you, you are no better than the folks on TBN, in your false spiritual posturing, only you come from the opposite extreme.

Other folks may be impressed with you, and your “insight,” but from where I’m standing, you’re as deep as a puddle.

-A boo ta ka la sho na da da

*Yeah, yeah, and Yabba Dabba Doo, to you too.

-Ah! I bet you didn’t see that one comin did ya? Interpret that I dare ya.

*No I didn’t see it coming, seeing as how it’s hard to interpret anything, or reason with anyone, who is an apparent reprobate.

-Kyle

*Seekerman…

What? Is this the best you got?

Seekerman,

“*No I didn’t see it coming, seeing as how it’s hard to interpret anything, or reason with anyone, who is an apparent reprobate.”

Reprobate? Pretty strong language, don’t you think?

I hope you mean this definition:

Not standing the test, not approved; that which does not prove itself such as it ought.

And not this one:

A morally unprincipled person;One who is predestined to damnation;Morally unprincipled; shameless; Rejected by God and without hope of salvation.

Brother Kyle is a regular and very well-versed in the scriptures. It’s been a while since he posted, and I’m sure he was just having a bit of fun with you. This is probably his way of asking you to define your position more clearly (which is something we’re all waiting on.) If you feel, as definition 1 states, that Brother Kyle is untested, then you have every opportunity to prove it through scripture. However, I sense that you may have been rather offended by how he expressed himself. I don’t think he meant any harm by it though. Just my two cents…

Solus Christus,

R4C

That’s why I love you Mav