Five Point Yoda

[Five Point Yoda @FivePointYoda]

@Eschatology22 @GMRench @AJKocman No it’s not. So dumb we have these takes.

[Five Point Yoda @FivePointYoda]

@UtahCollegeReps No

[Five Point Yoda @FivePointYoda]

@BasedMikeLee You deny the trinity. Not a Christian.

[Five Point Yoda @FivePointYoda]

@BasedMikeLee @justin_hart No. It’s false no matter how much one prays. Prayer does not make a thing true.

[Five Point Yoda @FivePointYoda]

@DrFrankTurek Why does it keep talking about individuals over and over?

[Melissa the Hopeful🏠Homemaker @BiblicalBeauty]

Steven Bartlett, host of the podcast, The Diary of a CEO, released an interview with Christian apologist, John Lennox, this week, and his closing comments to him were fascinating:

"One of the most compelling arguments for God that you've presented (and your way of seeing the world and being) is not actually necessarily anything you've written in your books or not not necessarily anything you've said. It is actually you.

You have a certain peace and contentment that I rarely see in people that I interview, but I often see, and I've almost always seen, in the Christians that I've interviewed, and this is a interesting phenomenon for me...it seems to be a trend that a lot of the Christian apologists that I've interviewed have that anchoring that so many of us are looking for."

What a great witness.

Link to interview below

[Five Point Yoda @FivePointYoda]

@Mariners No

[Five Point Yoda @FivePointYoda]

@thisisfoster @nbarnes84 @ZacharyGarris Every polity has downsides. The PCA is giving a lot of fodder for elder rule and congregationalism right now.

[Five Point Yoda @FivePointYoda]

@GuyTalksFinance @AndySwan @GrantCardone They can always spend less.

[Five Point Yoda @FivePointYoda]

@GMRench The whole “the church is the problem with our society” trope is so ridiculous.

[Five Point Yoda @FivePointYoda]

@GMRench This is so dumb

[Five Point Yoda @FivePointYoda]

@seanfeucht https://t.co/7wFgTNEJrj

[Wes Huff @WesleyLHuff]

Seeing some response to my statement on @MikhailaFuller's podcast about speaking in tongues. Some potentially helpful clarification:

First, I am not a cessationist (though I see myself being accused of it). I state in the interview that I believe that the spiritual sign gifts (tongues, prophesy, healing) still take place today, just not normatively like they were in the Apostolic era.

Nonetheless, I hold to the standard exegetical position that biblical tongues refer to known languages. In Acts 2, the foundational instance, foreign speakers understood the disciples in their own native languages, establishing the clearest precedent for interpreting the phenomenon throughout Scripture.

Secondly, while bliblical specialists and theologians debate whether tongues encompass human languages alone or include angelic speech, the consensus recognizes that a tongue functions as a language -- either immediately intelligible to hearers or requiring interpretation. The requirement that Paul places on interpretation in 1 Corinthians 14 indicates that tongues contain objective, propositional meaning subject to translation, and his statement that “every valid instance of tongues contains intrinsic, propositional meaning" reinforces this understanding.

A prominent scholarly argument identifies glossolalia as “the miraculous ability to speak unlearned human and (possibly) divine or angelic languages,” with the most common usage of “tongues” referring to ordinary human languages. The term γλῶσσα throughout the NT carries two primary meanings: the human organ or a human language, and careful word studies demonstrate that it never denotes non-cognitive utterance.

However, scholarly consensus isn’t absolute the core agreement across interpretations centers on cognitive content: tongues communicate meaningful, intelligible information rather than incoherent utterance.

Third, the early church evidence after the Apostolic era is virtually unanimous: the Early Church Fathers consistently interpreted the gift of tongues as the capacity to speak the many languages used across the earth. Their writings indicate the gift served an evangelistic purpose enabling communication with non-Christian populations.

The Patristics universally understood “tongues” in Acts and 1 Corinthians to refer to human languages, and ancient Christians understood the biblical gift of tongues as a miracle involving intelligible human languages. When the fathers described the phenomenon, they used concrete language: John Chrysostom wrote that believers “would suddenly speak in Persian, another in Latin, another in the language of the Indians or of some other people” (Homilies on First Corinthians, Homily 35), and Augustine stated that disciples “spoke in the languages of all the nations” (Sermon 269, Sermo CCLXIX.

The most significant, and almost exclusive, early figure associated with ecstatic speech for tongues was Montanus, a 2nd-century prophet whose followers emphasized speaking in tongues; he was actually excommunicated (not necessarily for his position on tongues) around AD 177. By the late 2nd century, ecstatic interpretations of tongues were present but only in context of ecclesiastical concern.

One interesting nuance appears with Philastrius in the 4th century, who understood angels as capable of conversing in all languages and believed the apostles received this same ability at Pentecost. However, this doesn’t represent a departure from the “knowable language” framework rather, the Early Church Fathers understood the gift of tongues as the ability to speak all languages spoken by people. The Church Fathers agreed the gift was the ability to speak all languages known to humankind, an ability they ascribed to angels, suggesting the “languages of angels” would not refer to a distinct heavenly language but rather to the capacity to communicate with anyone encountered.

The historical record shows no discussion among the fathers of ecstatic utterances, unknown languages, or supernatural unintelligible speech. The gift remained firmly anchored to practical, learnable human languages throughout Patristic interpretation.

So if you've stuck around this long, I think my position is both exegetically and historically sound.

[Five Point Yoda @FivePointYoda]

@realEstateTrent Just curious: what were the questions it produced?

[Five Point Yoda @FivePointYoda]

@GigaBasedDad Why give money to groups that eventually compromise and offer no tangible benefits of joining?

[Five Point Yoda @FivePointYoda]

@GigaBasedDad No one is starving

[Five Point Yoda @FivePointYoda]

@realEstateTrent We don’t allow our kids to be picky eaters. We make them good meals, so they can eat them at the proper time warm or eat them cold later. Takes about 1 month for them to learn to tolerate all types of food. Picky eaters are the fault of parents, not kids.

[Five Point Yoda @FivePointYoda]

@5solas Dude it’s literally calories in minus calories out. Theres no magical person who eats the same exact calories they burn and gets fat. It’s not possible.

[Five Point Yoda @FivePointYoda]

@LostMyHats Not at our church

[Five Point Yoda @FivePointYoda]

@mattyglesias No there’s not.

[Chief_Engineer @ChiefEngineerCE]

@SethAbramson That's what?

One week in a Somali Learing Center?

Weird when you guys suddenly care about taxes.