Die Uitverkiesing: Twee kante van dieselfde muntstuk

Wanneer ons praat oor die uitverkiesing en of almal ingesluit is al dan nie, dan is daar altyd twee groepe verse ter sprake vanuit die twee kampe wat mekaar opponeer. Die groep wat in uitverkiesing glo sal al die verse ophaal wat spreek daarvan dat God mense voor die grondlegging gekies en voorbeskik het tot redding. Hieruit bewys hulle dat daar 'n groep mense reeds voor die Skepping uitgekies is deur God om gered te word. Die ander groep wat die siening opponeer sal verse aanhaal wat spreek van God se algemene benadering tot die hele mensdom om almal te red. Dat dit Sy begeerte is dat elke mens gered word. Dat elke mens se redding afhang van sy keuse en geloof in Christus.

Die uiteinde van so debat is die rondgooi van verse wat die opponerende posisie ondersteun. Die resultaat is dat dit dan beteken die Bybel is dualisties en het twee waarhede oor die onderwerp. Maw. God praat uit twee monde oor die saak. Uit beginsel weet ons dit kan nie so wees nie en dat daar net een waarheid is. Die vraag is dan nou hoe staan die twee groepe verse in die Bybel saam onder een sambreel van waarheid? In die onderstaande skrywe deel ek my siening wat in die Bybel aangaan en hoe daar eintlik geen kontradiksie is nie en hoe die twee groepe Skrifte (Versoening aangebied aan Almal en Uitverkiesing) twee kante van dieselfde muntstuk is

Die totale konteks van die Bybel kan na my mening soos volg vertolk word:

1. Daar is twee "vensters" in die Bybel waardeer dinge beskou word. Die een is ons venster (die hier en nou binne tyd) en die ander een is God se venster (buite tyd en binne sy raadsplan). Die Bybel praat soms in die hier en nou en ander kere weer vanuit God se perspektief. Binne ons wêreld sê die Bybel, "bekeer jou en glo die evangelie....Almal wat moeg en oorlaai is kom.....Almal wat wil kom...Elke sondaar, tollenaar of ryk man, kom...glo die evangelie." Die oproep is aan ALMAL. Die wat glo sal gered word.

2. Voor ek so bietjie oor God se perspektief ietsie sê, net iets oor voorbeskikking soos die Bybel dit leer: God sien die begin en einde en bepaal die begin en einde. Hy het Jesus se dood beskik nog voor Satan of Adam en Eva geskep was. Dit beteken Hy het aktief die begin en die einde bepaal en die uitkoms vas gemaak. Dinge gebeur nie "random" nie. Dit gebeur soos in God se raadsplan reeds vooraf beskik deur Hom. Nie weens vooraf gesiene menslike keuses nie, maar weens sy eie genadige keuses vir Sy eie redes en eer. Hy weet alles omdat Hy die aktiewe bepaler daarvan is. Nie omdat Hy reageer op gebeure voor Hom soos 'n skaakspel nie.

3. Oor die tweede "venster": Op sommige plekke in die Bybel trek God die gordyn so effens oop op Sy wêreld en hoe Hy dinge sien buite tyd en binne sy raadsplan (Eph. 1:4,5,11; Rom. 8:29-30). Die blik is 'n "arial view" op die mensdom. Dit is buite tyd, dit sien die begin en einde en dit weet reeds wat gaan gebeur omdat God die aktiewe bepaler is van alle ding. Vanuit die venster sê God: "Hy het ons in Hom uitverkies voor die grondlegging van die wêreld. Hy het ons voorbeskik om ons as Sy kinders vir Homself aan te neem deur Jesus Christus, na die welbehae van sy wil. Die wat Hy vantevore geken het, dié het Hy ook vantevore verordineer om gelykvormig te wees aan die beeld van sy Seun. Die wat Hy vantevore verordineer het, dié het Hy ook geroep; en die wat Hy geroep het, dié het Hy ook geregverdig; en die wat Hy geregverdig het, dié het Hy ook verheerlik." Vanuit God se venster is alles reeds voorbeskik en sal dit uitwerk ooreenkomstig Sy raadsplan en vir Sy welbehae.

Om op te som:

4.1. Daar is twee tale in die Bybel. Die hier en nou binne ons wêreld terwyl God se plan besig is om uitgevoer te word. Binne die hier en nou is ons boodskap aan die wêreld: "Want God het die wêreld so lief gehad dat Hy sy Seun gegee het sodat elkeen wat in Hom glo die ewige lewe sal hê." Daarom...word met God versoen. Hy het die wêreld lief....kom na my toe almal wat wil. Bekeer en glo die evangelie....Ons bid julle om Christus wil: Laat julle met God versoen."

4.2. Dan is daar God se taal vanuit Sy raadsplan en vanuit 'n ewige verlede en ewige toekoms aan Sy kerk en Sy volk: "Julle is myne. Ek het julle by die naam gekies nog voor die grondlegging om aan my te behoort....Ek het julle gekies; nie julle vir My nie...Ek lê my lewe af vir die skape (julle).....U het Hom mag oor alle vlees gegee sodat Hy aan almal wat U Hom gegee het, die ewige lewe kan gee...Hulle het reeds vantevore aan U behoort...Hy het ons in Hom uitverkies voor die grondlegging van die wêreld....Hy het ons voorbeskik om ons as Sy kinders vir Homself aan te neem deur Jesus Christus, na die welbehae van sy wil.....ens. (nog baie sulke verse).

Wat is die kerk se hooftaak nou: Verkondig die evangelie aan alle mense en nooi elke mens uit om te bekeer, versoen te word met God en in te kom en ook deel te hê aan God se ewige koninkryk.

Die uitverkiesing is God se boodskap aan Sy kerk en aan die wat aan Hom behoort. Die boodskap van die uitverkiesing en predestinasie is God se boodskap van vastigheid, hoop en versekering dat die kerk 'n vaste fondasie en hoop het. Die kerk kan die evangelie met SUKSES verkondig want God het mense tot redding beskik. Die kerk sal wen want dis gebaseer op God se plan wat reeds vasgemaak en gekoop is met die bloed van Sy eie Seun. Dit wat God gekoop het met die bloed van sy Seun is ewiglik Syne. Nie een druppel van die bloed van Jesus is en was verniet nie. Dit was vir 'n spesifieke doel en vir spesifieke mense by die naam. Die menslike wil is nie sterker as God nie en Hy sal mense red ongeag hul sondige weerstand. God sal Sy kerk bou. Elke mens wat Hy beplan het om te red sal gered word. Die mens kan nie Sy plan teenstaan en frustreer nie. GOD GAAN EN SAL WEN. Sy vooraf beskikte plan SAL slaag. Elke mens wat Hy vooraf beskik het sal gered word.

Op die einde van die dag weet ek nie hoe ons kan wegkom van die Bybel af wat 'n duidelike boodskap gee van 'n Soewereine God wat Almagtig, Verhewe en in Beheer is en wie reeds die begin en einde van alles bepaal het nie (Isaiah 46:1-13).

Daar sal ook altyd 'n spanning wees tussen die twee "vensters." Tussen ons belewenis van die hier en nou teenoor God voorbeskikte wil. Vir God is dinge 'n uitgemaakte saak wat gaan gebeur. Hy het reeds voor die grondlegging gekies wie is Syne en wie nie. Die realiteit moet nog uitgewerk word in die wêreld waar ons keuses gaan maak. Waar die evangelie verkondig moet word aan alle mense sodat die wat voorbeskik is tot geloof  kan kom.

My laaste kommentaar is oor TULIP. Dit is nie iets wat jy gebruik om die evangelie te verkondig nie. Ek praat nie met mense op straat, aan wie ek die evangelie bring, oor TULIP nie. Ek vertel hulle van God wat hemel en aarde geskep het en hoe ons teen Hom gesondig het deur Sy wet te breek. Hoe Hy gekies het om ons te red terwyl ons nog sondaars was deur Sy eie Seun te offer aan die kruis as 'n soenoffer vir ons sondes sodat elkeen wat van hul sonde bekeer en op Jesus ALLEEN vertrou gered kan word. TULIP is eerder iets vir dissipelskap, geestelike volwassenheid en lering in die kerk.

On the issue of God decreeing everything; including all evil

"God decrees that it shall be sinful for the sake of the good that he causes to arise from the sinfulness thereof, whereas man decrees it for the sake of the evil that is in it." ~Jonathan Edwards

God did not decree evil in the sense that he delights in evil as evil. Rather he wills that evil come to pass that good may come of it.

"God is more glorious for having conceived and created and governed a world like this with all its evil. The effort to absolve him by denying his foreknowledge of sin or by denying his control of sin is fatal, and a great dishonor to his word and his wisdom." ~John Piper

The mere fact that God created the tree of knowledge of good and evil shows clear intent purpose and a plan for evil on His part. If God created the possibility of evil and never decreed it to happen and decreed its outcome, the whole universe would spin out of His control into total diabolic chaos. It would mean there are things in the universe who are beyond God's control and comes from another divine source, which God has no control over. The creation of the possibility of evil shows that God decreed evil to happen, but that He ordained both the event and the good outcome of it. We see this in the foreordaining of the death of Jesus before the world was created. Why would God foreordain Jesus to die as the Lamb slain before the foundations of the world if He did not create and decree the definite possibility of sin? It would have been impossible for Satan and man to sin if God, who created everything from nothing, did not create them and the environment they would exist in with the definite possibility to sin. The fact that God foreordained Jesus to die before He created anything shows that He decreed sin and it would happen, but He also planned the good outcome. If we do not say this, it means there was a possibility that sin would never happen. The question then arises; was there a possibility that Satan would not fell, that man would not sin and that Jesus would never die? The answer is no; Satan would fell, man would sin and Jesus would die. Can you see why we have to conclude in that ultimate sense that God did decree sin to happen and also did decree the outcome? The outcome of sin shows that God is not the author of any evil, but is good all the time. No evil can be attributed to Him as His intentions in everything is good and for His glory alone. It is quite a glorious Being who are able to ordain sin to happen without being the author thereof and even work it out to be better than the initial sinful event.

The Days of Creation in Genesis One

How long were the days of Genesis One?

Yes, it was. Scripture says so irrespective of what science says. Modern Science tries to look back through a telescope into eternity past and they try to tell us that the universe is billions of years old. They have no starting point and no reference to measure accurately. Most of their methods are based on assumptions and predictions. They predict this by using various dating methods which by their own admission is not accurate and has changed. This quote is from the American Institute of Biological Sciences: "The first radiometric dates, generated about 1920, showed that the Earth was hundreds of millions, or billions, of years old. Since then, geologists have made many tens of thousands of radiometric age determinations, and they have refined the earlier estimates." So by their own admissions, an error of billions of years in a space of 94 years is not too bad and quite accurate (smile).

However, Genesis gives us a clear picture of creation. The Bible does not tell us exactly the date of the Beginning (Genesis), but it clearly start with a 24-hour day and 7 day week. That is the pattern established right from the beginning until today. All the ages of people right from the beginning is addressed in the Bible as real days. The date of the earth can possibly be between 6000-10000 years, because of some gaps here and there in some of the genealogies and because not all people's ages follow each other exactly, but there is no indication in the Bible of an earth of millions or billions of years.

To accommodate scientific speculations some modern theologians has created the "Day Age Hypothesis" which means the days in Genesis 1 is not literal and can be 1000's of years because the Bible says a 1000 years is for God as one day. Although there is a verse like that in the Bible, it has nothing to do with the fact that a literal day may span over 1000's or millions. The Bible use this term to indicate that God is outside of time and secondly, to indicate an infinitely long time. For us, 1000 years are like an eternity. This term then indicates how far beyond us is God and that time is not an issue for him. Furthermore, on what basis can this thousand-year-term be applied to Genesis 1 when the Bible describes the days in Genesis 1 as spanning a normal day from morning to evening. One cannot willy-nilly apply this term whenever the word day is used.

How then do we know when Scripture means a 24 hour day? Scripture explains itself through context and cross-referencing. Right through the Old Testament, the word "yom" (Hebrew for a day) is used for a literal day unless it is otherwise defined by the context within which it is used. For example, "the day of judgement" refers to a time period in the future without any specific timeframe. But when I say to you, "there was evening and there was morning, the first day," how else do you want to understand that but as a normal day. It is a clearly marked off as a 24-hour day and does not refer to an undefined time period in the future. The words "evening" and "morning" is the language used for a 24-hour day. The word "yom," when used with numeric adjectives such as one, two, three, etc., always means a literal 24-hour day in non-prophetic biblical literature. Snoke (an old earth propagandist) actually conceded: “It is true that we can find no other passage in Scripture in which days are numbered and have a generic sense” (Snoke, David (2006), A Biblical Case for an Old Earth, p. 145). But he then explains that Genesis one might be the only instance in all of Scripture in which this is the case. Really? On what basis can he say this is the only exception? Does sound Biblical exegesis not apply to all Scripture?

When God finished His creation in six days it says He rested on the seventh day. The same rest day was instituted to man as a day to commemorate God's creation and to physically rest from six days of labour. God did not create the seventh-day for Him to rest because He does not need to rest, but for humanity to rest and worship Him. Later we know that the seventh day was instituted as the Sabbath day. If these days was not literal days, when was a 24-hour day created and when did God introduce the seven-day week cycle as we know it today. Therefore, looking at Genesis, we can see that the seven-day cycle as we know it today was created right from the beginning. The language the Bible uses in Genesis 1 describes a 24-hour, seven-day week as we know it today.

If scientists come to different conclusions, we as Christians must follow Scripture irrespective of what they say. By calling ourselves a Christian we mean that God is the Creator of the universe and that we submit and obey His Word above all. We stand under the Word and not equal or above the Word. The same apply to science.

For more information you may read the following articles:

1. The How, Why, and When of Creation.
2. The Fallacy of the "Framework Hypothesis."
3. Blog Series: Creation vs. Evolution
4. Popular Compromises of Creation - The Day-Age Theory
5. Syncretism and the Age of the Earth

Die gevaar van die moderne "worship-movement"

Can we host the Presence of God?

Die doel van die skrywe is om die gevare van die moderne aanbiddingsbeweging uit te lig. Hiermee word nie alle musiek en style afgeskryf nie. Die artikel het ook geensins ten doel om iets te sê oor wat is Bybelse aanbidding nie. Dit is eerder 'n kort oorsig oor hoe kragtig musiek is om mense op 'n verbeeldingsvlug te neem na 'n onbekende wêreld deur sensoriese en emosionele manipulasie.

Gordon Fee het die volgende gesê: "Show me a church’s songs and I’ll show you their theology." Is dit nie waar nie? Kerke se teologiese grondslag word in die meeste kere uitgedruk in die lirieke en styl van hul musiek. Die moderne "worship-movement" is 'n baie sterk beweging onder veral vandag se jongmense en millennials. Die volgende aanhalings beskryf die beweging se doel: "Hosting the presence of God and release His power in the atmosphere around you." (Bill Johnson van Bethel Redding Kerk; tuiste van Jesus Culture). "Are you ready to go deeper and higher in God’s presence? The revelation by Minister Ronney Laws of Worship Arise International on music, worship & praise and the Tabernacle of David is taking the country by storm! Congregations are being transformed by the liberating truth that there is more to worship than what we’ve been experiencing on a typical Sunday."

Die beweging word ook versterk en ondersteun deur die kontemporêre gospel musiek bedryf. Die een voed die ander en visa versa. Die worship-fenomeen is een van die grootste misleidings van veral jongmense en middeljariges na die charismatiese en "seeker sensitive" kerke. Groepe soos Jesus Culture en Hillsong speel 'n leidende rol. 'n Moderne kerk sonder 'n behoorlike verhoog en "worship-band" word net nie gereken as kerk nie. Daar word gereken dat kerke wat nie 'n "band" met 'n verhoog het nie outyds en vervelig is. Kerke wat "hymns," Psalms en skrifberymings sing met klavier, orrel, klassieke kitaar en vioolmusiek het agter geraak. Kerke sonder 'n worship-band loop dood en is nie gewild nie. Kerke wat eerder fokus op gebed en aanbidding uit die hart sonder aanhitsing is nie gewild nie. Kerke wat klem lê op gesonde leer en Woord-fokus is vervelig. Die "worship" beweging is gebaseer op vermaak, tegnologie, ligte, dromme, kitare, "attitude" en moet cool wees. Die verhoog, en alles wat daarop gebeur, speel 'n leidende rol in die erediens. Dit gaan alles oor vermaak van die massas en hoe om hulle opgewek en vermaak te laat voel. Die idee is om mense die "worship experience" te laat ervaar. "Prais & Worship" is 'n ervaring wat gebruik word om die kerk aan die lewe te hou. Vermaak, herhaling van treffende slagspreuke in lirieke, emosionele meesleuring en mistieke geestelike ervarings is die kern van die "worship-experience." Die aanhangers hiervan ervaar allerhande verbeeldingsvlugte in die vorm van visioene, drome, gesigte, stemme en verskeie ekstatiese ervarings wat lei tot uitbundige uitbarstings van babbel tale, profesieë en beelde met sogenaamde geestelike betekenis. Ek is seker die lesers van die artikel het al ervaar hoe maklik mens sensories en emosioneel op 'n verbeeldingsvlug geneem kan word na 'n onbekende wêreld deur musiek. Die gevaar is dat alles toegeskryf word aan die werk van die Heilige Gees.

Die beweging het 'n baie sterk houvas op mense. Die ervaring moet ook soms al hoe groter word om aan die massas se verwagtinge te voldoen. Kerke spandeer baie geld aan klanktoerusting, beligting, rookmasjiene, musiek instrumente, akoestiek en "attitude" wat alles bydra tot die "worship-experience." Sonder dat baie mense besef is dit 'n poging om die werk van die Heilige Gees na te boots en kunsmatig aan te hits. Dit skep die teelaarde vir vals werke van Satan deur mense se emosies en ervarings te manipuleer met musiek om hulle op 'n verbeeldingsvlug te neem na 'n onbekende wêreld. Dit is wat die Bybel beskryf as die Satan wat hom voordoen as 'n engel van die lig (2 Cor. 11:14). As jy mooi lees wat hier beskryf is sal jy agterkom hoe min die "worship-movement" werklik verskil van al die ekstatiese dreun-sang beginsels van heidense godsdienste deur die eeue. Al verskil is dat dit verwesters en gemoderniseer is om meer aanvaarbaar en "mooi" te wees vir ons moderne westerse kultuur.

'n Vriend wat in die musiek bedryf is en al navorsing oor die mag van musiek gedoen het, het die kommentaar geskryf:

"Ek het destyds met my insette by o.a. ATKV liedjieskole en die gebruik van musiek by jeugleiersprogramme redelik diep geloer na die invloed van klank en musiek op mense en hul emosies. My oplees was wyd en het gedraai by 'chanting' wat in alle 'gelowe' voorkom, Japanese navorsing oor klank en genesing, 'white noise,' 'entrainment' hartritme, toonaarde en emosie ens. ens. Daar is nogal soms heelwat van dieselfde musiekelemente teenwoordig by sommige gemeentes se eredienste en pop/countrykonserte wat dieselfde emosienele effek op mense het. Stem beslis saam dat die woordinhoud van liedere 'n duidelike teolgie-aanwyser is. (Johann van der Watt)

Is die gawe van tale onaardse klanke of mense-tale?

Wat is die gawe van tale volgens die Bybel?

In die skrywe verduidelik ek wat ek glo die Bybel leer aangaan die gawe van tale en wat dit was.

Daar is geen mens, engel, profeet of apostel en God self wat ooit in enige ander taal as mense tale gepraat het nie. Daar is geen Skrif gesag vir die idee van 'n geheime babbel taal wat mens deur die Gees kan praat wat nêrens op aarde bestaan nie. Op grond van wat wil mense die verskynsel regverdig? In die hele Bybel is daar geen voorbeeld nog doktrine van so iets. Ek weet nie op wat se gesag kan enige persoon die teologie so breedvoerig omskryf soos dit vandag gedoen word as daar geen so teologie in die Bybel bestaan soos dit vandag beskryf word nie. Dit is buite Bybels. Dit het ook nie in die kerk bestaan vir 1900 jaar tot en met die uitbreek van die charismatiese beweging in die laat 1800's tot vroeë 1900's. Die hele konsep van 'n onaardse geestelike taal bestaan net geensins in die Bybel nie. God stig gelowiges deur begrip en insig deur mense tale wat aan die hoorders uitgelê kan word of verstaan kan word. Nog nooit was dit anders.

Dit is nie 'n kuns om nou te babbel nie. Maar dit is beslis 'n wonderwerk om vlot in Russies te praat sonder dat ek dit ooit geleer of geken het. Dit is nog 'n groter teken en wonderwerk vir die hoorders wat weet ek ken glad nie Russies nie. Nog minder weet ek wat ek sê terwyl my hoorders dit verstaan en hoor in perfekte Russies. Dit noem mens 'n teken en wonderwerk. Nie 'n gebabbel wat maklik opgemaak kan word nie. Wat is nou 'n groter wonderwerk en teken as om vlot Chinees te kan praat terwyl ek nog nooit van te vore die klanke gemaak het nie. Om die evangelie in suiwer Chinees te spreek, of wat se wêreld taal, is 'n ware teken en wonder. Dit is 'n ongetwyfelde magtige wonderwerk. Ek het al gebabbel toe ek in die charismatiese kerke was. Dit is nie 'n kuns nie. Die dag toe ek met myself eerlik is het ek geweet die is 'n klomp snert. 'n Geraas wat geen doel en stigting het nie. Maar laat daar nou 'n vreemde onbereikte persoon inkom in wie se taal die Bybel nog nie is nie en niemand kan hom of haar taal verstaan of praat nie en iemand staan op en preek 'n perfekte evangelie boodskap in daai persoon se taal. Dit is 'n teken en wonder. En dit is wat in die Bybel gebeur het.

Die Charismatiese beweging: 'n Groot bedreiging vir die evangelie in Suid Afrika.

Die Charismatiese beweging is 'n groot bedreiging vir die evangelie en gesondheid van die kerk in Suid Afrika. Wat is die kern drywers agter die beweging en hoekom is dit so gewild in Suid Afrika? My gevoel is dit is grootliks gekoppel aan 'n soeke na vervulling, vernuwing en vryheid van tradisionele kerk. Die charismatiese beweging met sy musiek, ligte, wondertekens, profete, apostels en tale spreek die leemte aan. Die ironie is dat net Christus die leemte kan aanspreek. Ek dink ons sit met 'n groot persentasie mense wat bely hulle is Christene, maar nie werklik vir Christus, wat die volheid van God is, ken nie. Jesus het gesê as jy van Hom drink en eet sal jy nooit weer dors kry nie (John 4:13-14; 6:35, 53-54). As mense dus vir Jesus die Here ken en deel het aan Hom, waarom die naarstiglike dors en honger na meer? Die Bybel openbaar die wil van God. Daai wil van God is dat die volheid van God SLEGS op twee pilare rus. CHRISTUS soos geopenbaar deur die WOORD van God. God het verskeie elemente ter ondersteuning van die twee pilare gegee waardeer enige persoon God drie-enig volkome kan ken en vervuld kan wees. Gebed deur CHRISTUS soos geopenbaar in die WOORD alleen tesame met die GEMEENSKAP van die gelowiges in die liggaam van Christus is dit wat God gegee het sodat die kind van God volkome vervuld en toegerus kan wees vir elke goeie werk. Die SAKRAMENTE van die doop en die nagmaal is uiterlike tekens van die evangelie wat God aan Sy kinders gegee het om hulle te voed en herinner aan Sy genade. God het gelowiges in die liggaam toegerus met GAWES om die liggaam te dien sodat die liggaam opgebou kan word tot die eenheid in Christus. Die elemente is wat God gegee het en is genoeg sodat elke kind van God 'n vervulde verhouding met Hom kan hê.

Die beweging is baie aanpasbaar en neem enige kultuurgroep se lewenstyl op en skep idees wat daarby pas. In die westerse wêreld met sy tegnologie en musiek is die groot dryfveer die "worship experience" wat nagejaag word en waardeer sekere mistieke ervarings bekom word wat aan die Heilige Gees toegeskryf word. Die probleem met die ervarings is dat dit nie kan versadig nie en dat dit soos 'n dwelm word. Die "worship-drug" moet al hoe groter en meer intens raak om aan die behoeftes te voldoen. Die "worship-drug" is soos 'n weeklikse inspuiting. Dit is soos petrol op die vuur. Dit het 'n groot effek maar is van korte duur. As dit uitgebrand is, moet daar meer petrol op die vuur gegooi word om dieselfde effek te kry. Mens raak ook gou verveeld en dan moet die musiek en ervaring vernuwe en opgedateer word. Dit word 'n bose siklus wat nooit sal ophou nie. Elke paar dekades verander en intensiveer die "worship experience" om aan die gebruikers daarvan se behoeftes te voldoen.

Ek kom uit die beweging. Ek het dit beleef in die geringste tot die ekstreme vorme daarvan. Dit doen groot skade aan die liggaam van Christus. Dit laat mense se geloof skipbreuk lei wanneer al die beloftes nie waar word nie. Of wanneer mense begin besef dit waarmee hulle besig is, is grootliks slegs in hul kop en voldoen nie aan al die verwagting nie. Na 'n tyd besef mens dit waarmee jy besig is, is nie eg nie alhoewel jy dit vir 'n tyd geglo het. Dit was maar net "mind over matter." Dan is die teleurstelling groot. Dan wonder mens oor jou geloof, want jou hele verhouding met God was gebou op al die ervarings en beloftes. Nou is dit skielik weg. Wat nou. Dan kom jy agter jy het op sand gebou en nie op die Rots wat Christus is nie (Matt. 7:24-27).

Dit is 'n beweging wat nie gedefinieer word deur 'n spesifieke groep met 'n spesifieke doktrine nie. Dit is redelik vry en neem baie vorme aan ooreenkomstig die groep waarin dit posvat. Dit is 'n vermenging van die kultuur van die groep mense met sekere kern idees en praktyke. Dit word hoofsaaklik gedryf deur die begrip "baptism of the Holy Spirit" wat daarop neerkom dat elke gelowige nadat hy wedergebore is, nog iets kort wat dan die ekstra ervaring is genaamd "babtism of the Holy Spirit." Die doping met die Gees bring daarmee saam verskeie gawes en ervarings waarvan die vernaamste tale en profesie is. Die doping met die Heilige Gees word voorgehou as die ware geestelike lewe wat alle Christene mis. Die ervaring waarna die meeste mense soek wat in die beweging is, is om in tale te kan praat. Daar word aan mense vertel dat hulle die ervaring met die Heilige Gees moet soek en dat elke gelowige die geheime taal kan bekom wat dan 'n spesiale gebedslyn direk na die hemel is. Jy kan jou indink hoe belowend so gedagte klink en dit skep 'n soeke by baie onkundige mense na die ervaring om sodoende ook in tale te kan praat. Aan die anderkant is daar baie mense wat nie Christus ken nie wat dan die ervaring soek as bewys van hul kindskap.

Dit is ook 'n vorm godsdiens wat soek na uiterlike tekens en bewyse dat God teenwoordig is. Baie mense verwys graag na die tradisionele kerke as godsdienstig en ritualisties. My ervaring van die beweging is dat dit baie meer vormgedrewe is as wat hulle glo tradisionele kerke is. Aanbidding moet 'n sekere vorm aanneem anders is God nie daar nie. Die "worship" moet gelaai en emosioneel wees anders het die Heilige Gees nie gewerk nie. Die atmosfeer moet reg wees ander sal wonderwerke en bekerings nie gebeur nie. Geloof moet genoeg wees anders werk God nie. Mense moet in tale praat anders is die Heilige Gees nie teenwoordig nie. Profete moet opstaan en die toekoms voorspel, anders praat God nie. Die ironie is God praat beslis, maar hoofsaaklik deur Sy foutlose Woord. Hande moet opgelê word as daar gebid word ander is daar die gevoel dat die wonderwerk nie gaan plaasvind nie. Olie moet gesmeer word op strategiese plekke anders gaan die Satan kan inkom. Negatiewe uitsprake moot nie gemaak word nie, want dit lok die bose. Positiewe verklarings moet gemaak word, want dit skep lewe. Die Shofar moet geblaas word. Gebedsmarse moet onderneem word soos daar op strategiese punte gebid word en die Satan bestraf word. Al die uiterlike praktyke skep 'n vals gevoel van nabyheid aan God. As die praktyke nie teenwoordig is nie, is die kerk "boring." Daar is so baie sulke praktyke en die lys is oneindig. Sodra kerk nie aan die eienskappe voldoen nie, word dit nie as 'n Bybelse kerk gesien nie.

Dit word grootliks aangevuur deur 'n onversadigbare honger na die bonatuurlike. Jesus het gesê dit is 'n bose geslag wat soek na wonders (Matt. 16:4). Hoekom? Want dit vind nie genoegsaamheid in Christus alleen soos geopenbaar deur die Woord nie. Jesus het verder gesê dit is 'n owerspelige geslag. Dit verwys na afgodery. Die menslike begeertes en luste is die dryfveer vir die soeke na die bonatuurlike. Dit is self-versadigde drange na die mistieke en bonatuurlike wat die motief is. Die motief is nie om God te dien in eenvoud en nederigheid nie. Dit is ook rebellie, want dit wil dinge hê soos hulle wil. Wat as God besluit daar sal nooit weer wonderwerke wees nie? Sal die mense tevrede wees om God te dien bloot vir wie Hy is omdat Hy alleen lofwaardig is. Ek dink nie so nie. 'n Persoon het eendag vir my vrou genoem dat sy nie na 'n kerk sal gaan waar daar nie wonderwerke is nie. Het ons die reg om sulke eise aan God te stel? Is God verplig om aan ons allerhande ervarings, tekens en wonders te gee? Ek dink nie so nie. Daar is net nie 'n einde aan die mense se eise nie. Daarom dat Jesus gesê het so geslag is 'n bose geslag. Die onbesnede hart is 'n bodemlose put van afgodery wat gedryf word deur sy eie onversadigbare drange. Dit veroorsaak dat die Bybel verdraai word om by sy voorkeure aan te pas. Die uiteinde is die skep van 'n ander "jesus" wat is soos hulle Hom wil hê (2 Cor. 11:4; Gal. 1:6-9). Dit is afgodery. Die soeke na tekens en wonders is 'n onversadigbare lus wat gedryf word deur 'n bose hart wat die self verafgod.

Was the gift of tongues human languages or "gibberish?"

From the outset, let me give a definition of what I believe the Bible teaches about the gift of tongues.

The gift of tongues was the supernatural ability empowered by the Holy Spirit to speak in a human language not previously learned or known by the speaker and understood by the hearer or interpreted by someone with the purpose to proclaim the wonders of God. There is not one person, angel, Jesus, the Father or the Holy Spirit who ever spoke in any other language in the Bible as human languages. The only examples of the gift  of tongues is recorded in the book of Acts (Acts 2:4; 10:44-48;19:2-4). None of these cases was gibberish. If the gift of tongues was such an essential teaching as it is taught and practiced today, God would give us a clear example of the gift of tongues. Although it is not such an essential gift as is claimed to be today (1 Cor. 12: 29-31; 13:1, 13; 14:1, 5, 6, 19), there are some examples as stated before, but it was human languages.

The below excerpt comes from an article by Apologetics Press, Inc. It is posted with permission and the original article is called "Modern-Day Miracles, Tongue-Speaking, and Holy Spirit Baptism: A Refutation by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Tongue-Speaking 

First, in 1 Corinthians 14, the term “unknown” (in regard to tongues) was italicized in the KJV because it does not appear in the original Greek text (14:2,4,13-14,19,27). By inserting this word into their translation, the translators were attempting to aid the English reader. They undoubtedly were hoping to convey the idea that the languages to which Paul referred wereunknown to the speaker, i.e., the speaker had no prior training by which to learn or know the language. He spoke the language strictly by God’s miraculous empowerment. “Unknown” certainly was not intended to convey the idea that the tongues were unknown to all humansand, as such, were non-earthly, non-human languages.

Second, the events reported at the very beginning of the Christian religion (Acts 2) set the precedent for understanding that tongue-speaking entailed no more than the ability to speak a foreign human language (which the speaker had not studied) to people from a variety of geographical locales (e.g., Parthians, Medes, Arabians—Acts 2:9-11). The unbiased Bible student must conclude that what is described in detail in Acts 2 is the same phenomenon alluded to in 1 Corinthians 14. All tongue-speaking in the Bible consisted of known human languages (ideally known to the very audience being addressed) that were unknown (i.e., unstudied, unlearned) by the one who was speaking the language.

Third, there is simply no such thing as an “ecstatic utterance” in the New Testament. The tongue-speaking of 1 Corinthians 14 entailed human language—not incoherent gibberish. A simple reading of the chapter demonstrates that known human languages are under consideration. For example, Paul paralleled tongue-speaking with the use of the trumpet in warfare. If the bugler sounded meaningless noise, the military would be thrown into confusion. It was imperative for the bugler to blow the proper notes and tones, i.e., meaningful musical “language,” so that the army would understand what was being communicated (whether to charge, engage, or retreat). Sound without sense fails to achieve the very purpose of tongue-speaking. Paul then stated:

So likewise ye, unless ye utter by the tongue speech easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye will be speaking into the air. There are, it may be, so many kinds of languages in the world, and no kind is without signification. If then I know not the meaning of the language, I shall be to him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh will be a barbarian unto me (1 Corinthians 14:9-11, emp. added).

Obviously, Paul was referring to human languages—those that exist “in the world.” He envisioned a scenario where two individuals, who spoke different languages, are attempting to communicate with each other. If one speaks in Spanish and the other in German, as they attempt to speak to one another, each would be a “foreigner” to the other. Neither would understand what the other was attempting to say. Hence the need for tongue-speaking, i.e., the ability to speak human language unknown to the speaker but known to the recipient.

Later in the chapter, Paul quoted Isaiah 28:11-12 where God threatened the Israelites with the fact that their failure to listen to Him (by means of the words spoken by His prophets) meant that He soon would be communicating to them through the language of their Assyrian conquerors—conquerors whom God would send against them. This powerful illustration presupposes the fact that in both Isaiah and 1 Corinthians, human languages are under consideration. After quoting Isaiah, Paul drew the conclusion that tongue-speaking was intended by God to be directed to unbelievers. Why? Because it would prove to the unbeliever that the tongue-speaker, who did not possess the natural ability to speak that language, was being empowered by God to speak in the language spoken by the unbeliever. The unbeliever would recognize the divine origin of the tongue-speaker’s ability, and thereby be willing to consider the words being spoken as the instructions of God. Again, an examination of 1 Corinthians 14 yields the result that no contextual justification exists for drawing the conclusion that the Bible refers to, let alone endorses, the notion of “ecstatic” speech.

Tongues of Angels?

But what about Paul’s passing reference to the “tongues of angels” in 1 Corinthians 13:1? Would not this reference prove that tongue-speaking could involve languages beyond those spoken by humans? In the first place, consider the role, purpose, and activity of angels described in the Bible. The word “angel” (Greek—angelos; Hebrew—malak) simply means “messenger”—one who “speaks and acts in the place of the one who has sent him” (Bietenhard, 1975, 1:101; Botterweck, et al., 1997, 8:308; Grundmann, 1964, 1:74ff; Gesenius, 1847, p. 475; Arndt and Gingrich, 1957, p. 7). It does not mean merely “to send,” but rather “to send a messenger/message” (Ringgren, 1997, 8:310). It is true that angels in both the Old and New Testaments carried out a wide range of activities beyond message-bearing, including: worshipping God (Revelation 5:11-12); comforting, aiding, and protecting (Daniel 6:22; Matthew 4:11; Luke 22:43; Acts 5:19; Hebrews 1:14); and executing judgment and inflicting punishment and death (e.g., Matthew 13:49; Acts 12:23). But it still remains true to say that the meaning of the term “angel” is a messenger—one who communicates a spoken message. Therefore, their principal role in God’s scheme of things was to function as messengers to humans (Grundmann, 1964, 1:74). Consequently, angels always are represented in Scripture as communicating in human language.

In the second place, what logical reason exists for humans to speak in an alleged “angelic” language that is different from human language? What would be the spiritual benefit? The Bible certainly makes no provision for humans to communicate with angels in such a language, nor would there be any need for an angel to communicate to a human in a non-earthly language. The whole point of 1 Corinthians 12-13 was to stress the need to function in the church in ways that were meaningful and understandable. Since God, by His very nature, never would do anything that is superfluous, unnecessary, or frivolous, it follows that He would not bestow upon a human being the ability to speak in a non-human language. The ability would serve no purpose! The Bible simply offers no rationale nor justification for identifying the “tongues of angels” in 1 Corinthians 13:1 with some heavenly, otherworldly, non-earthly languages.

In the third place, if, in fact, the “tongues of angels” refers to known human languages, what was Paul’s point? Since angels were God’s appointed spokesmen, they naturally would perform their assignment in such a way that God would be represented as He would want to be. God’s own angelic emissaries would have complied with their responsibility in such a way and manner that they would have God’s approval. In other words, angels would naturally articulate God’s message as well as it could be expressed (i.e., perfectly). When God inspired mere humans to communicate His will, He integrated their own educational background, stylistic idiosyncrasies, and vocabulary into their oral and literary productions. No such need would have existed for angels. Their communications would have been unfiltered through human agency. Their announcements would have been the epitome and pinnacle of eloquence and oratorical skill.

Perhaps, then, Paul was not drawing a contrast between human and nonhuman languages at all. Before referring to the “tongues of angels,” he referred to “the tongues of men.” Why would Paul say, “Though I speak with the tongues of men”? After all, isn’t that precisely what all adult humans do? We humans speak at least one human language! Paul must have been referring, then, not to the ability to speak a human language, but to the ability to speak allhuman languages. No tongue-speaker in the first-century church had the ability to speak all human languages. In fact, the textual evidence indicates that most tongue-speakers probably had the ability to speak only one human language—which he, himself, did not understand—thus necessitating the need for an inspired interpreter (1 Corinthians 12:30; 14:26-28). Paul could apparently speak more languages than any of the others (1 Corinthians 14:18). If the “tongues of men” referred to the number of human languages (rather than referring to the ability to speak a human language), then the “tongues of angels” would refer—not to the ability to speak an angelic language—but to the ability to speak human languages the way angels do.
Here, then, would have been Paul’s point: even if a tongue-speaker could speak every human language known to man, and even if that tongue-speaker could speak those human languages with the efficiency, skill, and perfection that God’s angelic messengers have spoken them in history, without love, the ability would be wasted. With this understanding of the text, Paul was not contrasting human with nonhuman language. He was encompassing both the quantity (if I could speak all human languages) and the quality (if I could speak them perfectly) of speaking human language.

One final point on the matter of the “tongues of angels” merits mention. Even if the expression actually refers to angelic tongues that are nonhuman, it still is likely that tongue-speakers were incapable of speaking such languages. Why? Paul was speaking hypothetically and hyperbolically. No human being (with the exception of perhaps Jesus) has ever been able to speak in all human languages. For Paul to suggest such was to pose a hypothetical situation. It was to exaggerate the facts. So Paul’s meaning was: “even if I were capable of speaking all human languages—which I’m not.” Likewise, no human being has ever been able to speak the tongues of angels. So Paul’s meaning was: “even if I were capable of speaking the languages of angels—which I’m not.” This conclusion is supported further by the verse that follows the reference to the “tongues of angels.” There, Paul used two additional hypothetical events when he said, “if I…know all mysteries and all knowledge” and “if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains” (1 Corinthians 13:2). But no one on the planet (with the exception of deity) has understood all mysteries and all knowledge, nor has had faith that could literally remove mountains. Again, Paul was merely saying, “even if I could do such things—which I can’t.”

Fourth, Paul stated very clearly that tongue-speaking was a sign to unbelievers—not believers (14:22). Tongue-speaking was to be done in their presence, to convince them of the truth being spoken, i.e., to confirm the Word. The tongue-speaking being practiced today is done in the presence of those who already believe that tongue-speaking is occurring and, when an unbeliever, who is skeptical of the genuineness of the activity, makes an appearance in such an assembly, the claim often is made that tongue-speaking cannot occur because of the presence of unbelief. Once again, the New Testament teaches the very opposite of those who claim the ability to speak in tongues today.

Fifth, the recipient of a miraculous gift in the New Testament could control himself (14:32). He was not overwhelmed by the Holy Spirit so that he began to babble or flail about. Tongue-speaking today is frequently practiced in a setting where the individuals who claim to be exercising the gift are speaking uncontrollably at the very time that others are either doing the same thing or engaging in some other action. This overlapping activity is in direct violation of three of Paul’s commands: (1) that each individual take their turn one at a time; (2) that no more than three tongue-speakers speak per service; and (3) that tongue-speakers remain silent if no interpreter is present (14:27-28).

The claim by many today to be able to speak in tongues is simply out of harmony with New Testament teaching. Anyone can babble, make up sounds, and claim he or she is speaking in tongues. But such conduct is no sign today. It is precisely the same phenomenon that pagan religions have practiced through the centuries. In the New Testament, however, no one questioned the authenticity of tongue-speaking. Why? The speaker was speaking a known human language that could be understood by those present who knew that language and knew that that particular speaker did not know that language beforehand. As McGarvey observed about Acts 2: “Not only did the apostles speak in foreign languages that were understood by the hearers, some understanding one and some another, but the fact that this was done by Galileans, who knew only their mother tongue, was the one significant fact that gave to Peter’s speech which followed all of its power over the multitude” (1910, p. 318). If and when self-proclaimed tongue-speakers today demonstrate that genuine New Testament gift, their message could be accepted as being from God. But no one today has demonstrated that genuine New Testament gift.

The original article addresses modern day miracles and Holy Spirit Baptism as well. The main reason for the confussion about tongues is primarily due to a wrong understanding of the Baptism and the Person and work of the Holy Spirit. Please read the whole article below to get a better understanding of the Person and Work of the Holy Spirit and the Gifts of the Spirit.

"Modern-Day Miracles, Tongue-Speaking, and Holy Spirit Baptism: A Refutation by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

To what extend is God sovereign? Did God decree everything? Did he decree Sin or only good things? Does He know everything because He ordained it?

Did God know that Adam would sin before He created him and therefore ordained the fall? Why did God allow Satan to tempt Adam and Eve? Did God ordain everything; good and evil? Does He know everything because He ordained it

The short answer is that God knew every single detail before He created the world. He wrote the script of this world before He created anything. Therein He ordained what will happen and what He will allow; all sinful and good activities. Everything works together to accomplish His plan foreknown by Him before He create anything. He is the author and creator of all good, but He also ordained all evil by allowing and preventing what He willed. Everything works together to accomplish His good purposes; good and evil. It is only and infinite wise and almighty God that can produce good out of all evil. He is the author of all good things and he willed all bad things by allowing it. There are evil deeds which He stops and there are those He does not stop, thereby wills it. Satan and man is the author of all evil, but that which God wills, He allows to happen to accomplish His good purposes. God could stop Satan, but He did not. In many other cases He did stop Satan. He could have stopped Adam and Eve, because many other evil activities He does prevent from happening. He could have stopped Cain from killing Abel, but He did not. He allowed him to fall into that sin. Cain was the author, but God allowed that activity to take place. Throughout history there are cases where God step in and prevent sin and many other cases He allows it. This shows His will. Some sins he willed to happen and others is outside of His decree and He prevents it from happening.

Not one molecule move a millimetre outside of the decree and will of God. No human will exists without God ordaining any decision made. There is not one millimetre in this universe that exist without the knowledge and will of God. Even the energy to commit a murder is given by God. He is not the author thereof but allows it. Man, under the control of Satan, is the author of all evil. All sinful activities that He has not ordained, He will stop. Those He ordained, He will allow to happen to accomplish His good purposes. If there was any molecule or activity outside the will and control of God, then there was no surety that Jesus would come and die for sin. The Bible would not be trustworthy, neither God. He would not be all wise, almighty, all knowing and all seeing. Mary could say no to the birth of Jesus, Joseph could refuse to marry Mary and Judas could chose not to betray Jesus and so the OT prophecies would be false. Even Pilate could release Jesus instead of Barabbas. But God ordained Pilate to follow a lie and murder Jesus by an evil plot by the Romans and the Jews. Who made sure they would choose according to God's plan. God did. What if Pilate chose to release Jesus and not crucify him. Then God had a problem because He could not control Pilate's will and choices. Then the most essential part of the Bible, the salvation plan, falls flat. But Pilate partook in a lie and an evil plan to commit a murder of an innocent Man. Who ordained that murder to take place and even made sure it would happen and that the evil choices will be made in order for Jesus to die? God did. Otherwise there was a chance that Jesus would not die and then God had a problem. Then His creation fails because the fall has already taken place and the whole creation would be lost forever. That whole evil plot was ordained by God to take place, but man committed the sin. God did not make the sinful decisions, but He ordained it to happen to make sure it would happen. If this is not true, the Bible would be lies, because who would ensure it would happen if God did not have control over the will of man, all actions, good and evil, in the entire universe.

If God did not ordained everything then there was a CHANCE that Adam and Eve would not fall. We cannot reason about God from a human perspective as if He is a man. God is infinitely more and above man. Not only was the fall know by God, but He ordained it to happen. Therefore it would happen. If we reason about God from a human perspective, it means God reacts on events as it plays out before Him. If God only foreknew about the fall but had no control over it, it means there MIGHT be a fall and as a backdoor God ordained His Son to die. That means there was a CHANCE that Adam and Eve would not fall and then God will have to cancel the death of Jesus. He just prepared for POSSIBILITIES. That means, the Bible as we have it today, which is God's ordained will, can be overruled by human decisions and actions.

We must also acknowledge there is a mystery here. It is clear that we cannot reason out this whole situation around sin, but we must accept the facts in the Bible. Some of it we would not be able to explain completely. But it remains a fact, God ordained all good and evil before He created the universe to accomplish His good purposes. This is what the Bible reveals.

What the Bible say can be summarised as follows:

What does it mean that God is sovereign?

The Sovereignty of God is the biblical teaching that all things are under God's rule and control, and that nothing happens without His direction or permission. God works not just some things but all things according to the counsel of His own will (see Eph. 1:11).

What are the decrees of God?

God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass:(a) yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,(b) nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

(a) Eph. 1:11; Rom. 11:33; Heb. 6:17; Rom. 9:15, 18. (b) Jam. 1:13, 17; I John 1:5. (c) Acts 2:23; Matt. 17:12; Acts 4:27, 28; John 19:11; Prov. 16:33.

Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions,(d) yet hath He not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.(e)

(d) Acts 15:18; I Sam. 23:11, 12; Matt. 11:21, 23. (e) Rom. 9:11, 13, 16, 18.

God's decrees are eternal.
Acts 15:18; Eph. 1:4; 3:11; 1 Pet. 1:20; 2 Thess. 2:13; 2 Tim. 1:9; 1 Cor. 2:7.

God's Decrees Concern Everything.
Dan. 4:34, 35; Acts 17:26; Eph 1:11; Prov. 16:33; Matt. 10:29, 30; Eph. 2:10, 11; Phil. 2:13; Acts 2:23; 4:27, 28; 13:29; 1 Pet. 2:8; Jude 4; Rev. 17:17; Gen. 37:28, with Gen. 45:7, 8, and Gen. 50:20. See also Ps. 17:13, 14; Isa. 10:5, 15.

They are Sovereign.
Isa. 40:13, 14; Dan. 4:35; Matt. 11:25, 26; Rom. 9:11, 15-18; Eph. 1:5, 11.

They are absolute and unconditional.
2 Thess. 2:13; Isa. 46:10; Eph. 1:11; Ps. 33:11; Prov. 19:21; Isa. 14:24, 27 ; 46:10; Rom. 9:11; Isa. 46:9.

They include the means.
Eph. 1:4; 2 Thess. 2:13; 1 Pet. 1:2.

They preserve human responsibility.

Gen. 50:20; Acts 2:23; 3:18; 4:27, 28.

They determine the free actions of men.

Acts 4:27, 28 ; Eph. 2:10.

They secure conversion and the conditions for final salvation.

Eph. 2:8 ; Phil. 2:13; 2 Tim. 2:25.

They render events certain.

Matt. 16:21; Luke 18:31-33; 24:46; Acts 2:23; 13:29; 1 Cor. 11:19.