I Corinthians 1:7 shows that gifts continue

I suppose you can believe that if you wish, but the Bible teaches no such thing. When Paul quotes Isaiah about tongues as a sign, he uses it as a basis for arguing that tongues are a sign for unbelievers, not for Jews in particular.

Jesus is still the Messiah. There is no reason for the signs to cease.

First, tongues is not just a sign. It serves a purpose in the church--with interpretation, building up the body. So it is not ONLY a sign. It serves as a sign to unbelievers, but it also has functions to serve with believers. I Corinthians 12 does not talk about these gifts as 'signs' but rather as gifts to build up the body. So no matter where you go with eschatology and Israel, the church still needs to be edified, and therefore still needs the gifts.

Biblically, we know that God is not done with Israel. We see this in Romans 11.

This is an unbiblical statement.

The Bible teaches us that we need love. It teaches us that we need to obey Christ. It teaches us that we need grace. It teaches us that the church needs spiritual gifts. The Bible tells us about these things. We need the things the Bible tells us about. The Bible does not replace the things it tells us to have-- like spiritual gifts.

The Bible does not teach this. The Bible gives us instructions on tongues because we need them. The Bible does not replace its own teachings. That is nonsensical.

 

McNeely

Growing up Pentecostal, i was taught that tongues were real languages.

I also heard tongues that sound to me like real languages. I have heard many languages, studied 8 or 9, and have a degree in linguistics.

i've also heard tongues that sounded like a few repeated syllables. i would not say all tongues are real.

I've also heard prophecies that seemed vague, or were a number of KJV verses strung together.

on the other hand, i've also heard prophecies that gave extremely specific details about things the prophet could not naturally know about. I have even heard a prophecy (or interpretation of tongues, don't recall) that repeated back to me the words I had just thought. We were singing, "Give glory, and power, and honor unto Him, Jesus, the name above all names." Not knowing this was from a verse from Revelation when I was a teen, I asked myself "How do you give power to Jesus." (or perhaps I thought God.)

the prophecy, or interpretation was given, and said, you ask yourself, how do you give power to God (or Jesus, don't recall which) and went on to comment on that topic. That was one occasion that got my attention.

For me, i choose to obey the scripture. Covet to prophecy.

 

Signs are not only for the Jews as per the rest of scripture. Take a look at the book of Acts. In Acts 8, the Samaritans listened to Philip when they saw the signs and wonders that he did. Acts 15:12 tells of how Paul and Barnabas recounted the signs and wonders they did among the Gentiles. Look up the Greek word there for 'miracles' if you are using an old translation.

I Corinthians 1 tells us that the Jews desired a sign and Greeks sought for wisdom. These were things these groups of people wanted. If Greeks sought wisdom, it does not follow logically, that God had no place for signs among Greeks.

And the fact that when the Gospel was preached among the Gentiles, that tongues were present. So if you argue that tongues were only for Jewish unbelievers, why would they be seen among Gentiles when Gentiles first started to be converted.

You are drawing a conclusion from a verse that does not support your conclusion. Your conclusion contradicts other scripture.

First of all, if you think the unbelieving Jews were spiritually alive, go back and re-read the book of Romans. Secondly, Paul makes the point he wants to make in I Corinthians 14 when he quotes from Isaiah. If you conclude from this that tongues were only for Jews, your conclusion contradicts other scripture and is not supported by I Corinthians 14 either.

Jesus did signs for spiritually blinded Jews, which contradicts your argument here.

Also, your argument here contradicts what happened in Acts 10 when the Geniles heard the message.

What a bizaar position to hold to. The Bible says that Jesus is both Lord and Christ. Do you have any scripture that says that Jesus is not acting as the Anointed One?

That does not mean that He is not acting as the Messiah as well. Notice the High Priest is anointed as well.

Supposing I agree with your eschatological interpretation about the 7 years, I don't see where scripture says that Israel has been 'set aside.'

But all this is beside the point. No matter what your eschatology, none of this argues that tongues has ceased. The Bible does not say Israel being set aside makes tongues cease, or that Israel is being set aside.

Show me one verse that says that God's signs and wonders would be done away with--temporarily-- to come back after the rapture. I can't even find this pre-tribulational rapture stuff in scripture. Paul has Jesus coming back and the resurrection all occuring together.

You are filling in your eschatological theories with guesswork, either yours, or someone elses. There is no scripture to back up the idea that there will be this spiritual gift gap in history on your Bible prophecy chart.

The enemy could also sucker someone into believing that God's gifts aren't given any more by tricking them with some unbiblically-supported Bible prophecy theories, tricking them into rejecting true works of God.

Jesus said you would know false prophets by their fruits. He did not say you would know them by what time period they prophecy in.

I wrote,
First, tongues is not just a sign.

Show me scripture that says that the only role of tongues is as a sign. You can't because that idea CONTRADICTS scripture. I Corinthians 12 clearly shows that tongues is among the gifts that prophet the body of Christ. I Corinthians 14 shows us that tongues with interpretation edifies the CHURCH. So tongues has a role in the church, a role of edification. It is not ONLY a sign. It's function as a sign is to unbelievers. But it has a role, other than a sign, in the church, as a gift for edifying. In the church, it must be used with the gift of interpretation.


I said,
This is an unbiblical statement.

No one said the Bible is 'insuficient.' I just demonstrated that it is illogical to say we don't need the things the Bible tells us we needs because the Bible is sufficient. This line of reasoning is sophistry.

Also, II Timothy does not tell us that the Bible is all we need to be fully equipped. It tells us that the scriptures are given SO THAT the man of God might be thoroughly equipped.

A soldier is given a gun SO THAT he might be thoroughly equipped. That does not mean the gun is the only equipment he needs. He also needs bullets for the gun, a helmet, etc.

Those who use that verse to say that the Bible is literally all a Christian needs make an illogical argument, since the verse isn't saying that. They don't REALLY believe that either.

Who really believes that a Christian does not need faith? Who believes a Christian does not need love? The scriptures are given _so that_ the man of God might be thoroughly equipped. But that does not mean we don't need to have what the Bible says we need to have because we have the Bible.

I Corinthians 12 says that Spirit gives spiritual gifts to edify the body of Christ. That is Biblical teaching. I Peter 4 says that we are to use the gifts to minister to one another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. Notice the connection between gifts and grace. Grace--charis. Gift- charisma. The spiritual gifts are manifestations of God's grace. By using them well, we are good stewards of God's grace.

In this age of grace, it makes no sense to argue that God has removed His grace and manifestations of grace from the church.

The Bible teaches no such thing. It teaches the opposite. Open your Bible and read I Corinthians 12. Tongues are clearly for the body of Christ. I Corinthians 14 shows us this as well. Tongues are not A SIGN FOR believers, but they are for believers in that they are a gift for the church. If you do not believe that the body of Christ, spoken of in I Corinthians 14, is the church, I can look up other scripture to demonstrate this as well.

 

J. Jump wrote,

The verse says that Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom.

Based on this verse, does it make sense to conclude that no Jew in the world has ever sought after wisdom? No, of course not. That is just poor reasoning. Solomon clearly sought after wisdom. Decades later, Trypho, a Jew, would talk to Justin because he was a philosopher, and Justin would write a treatise about it. Some Jews sought wisdom. The verse does not say they didn't.

But a general characteristic of Greek people in their culture is that they sought after wisdom, and this is what happened when they heard the gospel. In Athens, the philosophers came to listen as if it were a philosophical idea.

What did Jews do? They asked for signs. They asked Jesus for a sign. No doubt they wanted Him to predict some future event, so that, if it did not come to pass, they could write Him off as a false prophet, according to the passage which speaks about prophets and the Prophet in the Old Testament.


The passage here is about what THE JEWS REQUIRE, NOT ABOUT GOD'S PURPOSES FOR SIGNS. Why do you care what the Jews require. The issue here is God's purposes for signs, not man's purposes. The Jews wanted Paul to give them a sign. What _they_ wanted has little to do with the use of signs among Gentiles.

Just look in the Bible for examples of signs and Paul did among Gentiles. For example, on the first misionary journey, among the pagan Lyaconians, Paul declared a crippled man healed. The pagans tried to sacrifice to him and Barnabas and he had to persuade them otherwise. Clearly this was a pagan audience, and yet God did signs among them.

As far as Samaritans go, Jesus said that they worshipped (bowed down toward) they know not what, and that salvation was of the Jews. So the half-Jew, half-Gentile argument is rather weak.


I wrote,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus did signs for spiritually blinded Jews, which contradicts your argument here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You responded

You are missing the point. You did not quote the part of your quote I was responding to when I mentioned 'spiritually blinded.' Here it is below.

You wrote,

Jesus did miracles for the spiritually blind Jews. He spoke in parables to people who could not understand. So your argument that God would not do signs for the spiritually dead because they would not understand does not wash.


Also, if you think the unbelieving Jews were spiritually alive, read the beginning of Romans 10.

There are two ways to be alive.

1. He that doeth these things-- the law--shall live by them.
2. The other way is 'the just shall live by faith.'

No one is justified by the works of the law, for all have sinned. So that leaves one way to live.

The unbelieving Jews did not 'live' because, as Romans 10 explains, he (Israel) 'sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law....'

So unbelieving Israel is spiritually dead, not spiritually alive, and yet they still saw the signs. So your argument about no signs for the spiritually dead is not valid. Read Romans 10.

This is the problem. You are not taking all of scripture into account. You are making conclusions not supported by the verses you quote, that contradict other scripture. For example, your argument that GOD does not do signs among Gentiles because the Jews demanded a sign. The conclusion does not follow.


I wrote,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, your argument here contradicts what happened in Acts 10 when the Gentiles heard the message.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You responded

Since the circumcised, here, are a part of the church, then you must conclude that tongues, here, were 'for the church.'


I wrote,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What a bizaar position to hold to. The Bible says that Jesus is both Lord and Christ. Do you have any scripture that says that Jesus is not acting as the Anointed One?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The issue is that you said that Jesus was not functioning as the Messiah. Christ is at God's right hand until all enemies are put under His feet. So the war is not over yet. Also, David was anointed BEFORE he became king. So if you are arguing that Christ has not defeated all His enemies and fully taken up His rule, then it still does not make sense to say that He is not functioning as the Messiah. Especially since kings can be anointed BEFORE they take over.

Btw, Ireneaus, argued that the passage you quote there is about God and that 'of this world' refers to the people of this world that believe not. He was combatting heretics who used this verse to argue for lesser gods.

Scripture does say He must reign until all enemies have been put under His feet.

Don't you go beyond the scripture here? Where does Paul or any other NT author say such a thing? The kingdom of God was taken from the Jewish leaders. But that does not man that God is not dealing with the nation of Israel. i heard recently that the ethnic group receiving the Gospel at the fastest rate now is Jews. I haven't seen the evidence to back it up, but some preacher claimed that recently. God is still at work in Israel. In fact, how can some of the eschatological events take place if God does not work in them before they believe? Do you think the nation of Israel as a state formed by accident?


I wrote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Show me one verse that says that God's signs and wonders would be done away with--temporarily-- to come back after the rapture. I can't even find this pre-tribulational rapture stuff in scripture. Paul has Jesus coming back and the resurrection all occuring together.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You responded

You did not such thing. You made a bunch of arguments about 7 years, etc. Like I pointed out, these verses say nothing about gifts ceasing temporarily and coming back during the tribulation. You have a bunch of theories about your time periods. I am asking for the scriptural proof to back them up.

Also, notice the title of the thread. Paul did not expect the Corinthians to come behind in any gift as they waited for the Lord's coming. His eschatology did not include a gap when the saints would come behind in spiritual gifts as they waited for the Lord's coming.


I wrote,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Show me scripture that says that the only role of tongues is as a sign.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Did you actually read my post before responding?

Again, I Corinthians 12 shows that tongues is one of the gifts that profits the BODY OF CHRIST.

This is clear from the passage. Do you believe I Corinthians 12 is scripture or not? Do you accept it as true or not?

If tongues profits the body, is that the same function of tongues as being a sign to unbelievers? Please answer this question. If the answer is 'no' then tongues has a function other than being a sign to unbelievers.

Show me where the Bible says that the ONLY function of tongues is as a sign.

If tongues edifies the church, that is another function of tongues. It contradicts your idea that tongues is ONLY for a sign to unbelievers (or as you think, the Jews.)

What about all those other verses in I Corinthians 14? Look at verses 26-28. Tongues with interpretation is to be spoken out IN THE CHURCH. Look at the beginning of the passage where we learn that if someone speaks in tongues, he edifies himself, but if there is an interpretation it edifies the church.

The church still needs to be edified. One Biblical command on tongues is 'forbid not to speak with tongues.' Do you obey this scripture?

I believe true spiritual gifts line up with scripture, too.

So do we agree that the Bible does not replace the things it tells us to have, like love faith, and spiritual gifts?

 

Dear Balion

Welcome to the forum. I hope you don't mind if I start off disagreeing with you.

The problem is, there is nothing in the context of the epistle that refers to pagan speaking in tongues. Sure, the Oracle of Delphi said some kind of jibberish that was hard to understand. But Paul makes no reference to this sort of thing in the epistles.

I just looked at verse 28, and it uses 'tongue' singular to refer to the genuine gift. The KJV says,

"If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret."

The next verse continues on to refer to interpretations.

If tongues were pagan, why would Paul say to let it happen?

A retired Greek professor I know says that this is about one person speaking in a tongue because Greek grammar demands it. The word translated 'man' here is 'tis' and means 'one.' So he considers the two or three to refer to the utterances spoken.

Since 'one' person is speaking here, it makes sense that he would be speaking one language, or 'tongue' in archaic language. One person usually speaks one language at a time. It is hard to speak in two languages at the same time.

It makes more sense to interpret 'tongue' as one language and 'tongues' as multiple languages. That is what the word means and it makes the most sense in the passage.

Also, in verse 14, Paul says if he prays in a tongue, singular, his spirit prays.

That definition does not tell the difference between prophecy and other gifts for proclaiming the word. In I Corinthians 12, Paul lists prophets at teachers as separate giftings. Romans 12 lists prophecy and teaching as separate gifts. Teachers teach principles and precepts. Prophesying is speaking (generally) as moved by the Holy Ghost, as Peter describes it.

That sounds like something JW's would do, add in 'a' before God like in John 1:1. I have a Greek interlinear in my lap, and I don't see an indefinite article there. It does not make sense to think that Paul would suddenly call a false god, 'God' in the passage when He has been using the term consistently to refer to God. even when he refers to false gods in chapter 8, he says that though there be that are called gods, we know that there is but one true God. I can't think of any time where Paul would refer to a pagan god with the word theos without some kind of explanation that they are not true gods. It does not seem consistent with Paul's usage throughout his writings. There is no reason to believe that this is what he means except that you think that is what he means.

What? If you believe this, you must never pray by yourself or read the Bible alone. The issue is not that self edification is wrong. Edify means build up, and building ones self up is good. Jude ends with an exhortation to build yourselves up in the most Holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost. David encouraged himself in the Lord.

The issue is that in church, we are to edify one another, not just edify ourselves. Therefore, as Paul argues, a message in tongues must be interpreted so that all may be edified. Don't you agree that this is Paul's argument in the passage, that tongues must be interpretted so that all may be edified?

The Bible says the gifts are given to 'profit withall.' But it never teaches that one cannot be built up by one's own gift. In fact, it teaches against this idea, because tongues is a gift and one who uses it can edify himself.

Do you have anything in the context ofthe book to point to that you think proves your theory? Or does your theory work if we only assume that 'tongue' refers to false tongues?

The problem is that 'tongue' refers to the real thing in verses 14 and 28.

 

J Jump
wrote

If someone disagrees with you, that is no reason to slander them. I backed up my arguments with reason and scripture. If I am wrong about something, and you can show me from the Bible, I will change my point of view. Can you say the same about yourself? What I see is that when someone makes an argument from scripture that you are wrong, you just write that person off as not caring what the Bible says.

Why don't you humble yourself enough to look up the verses people post to you and consider that you might be wrong?

Were the Jews alive? Why don't you bother to open to Romans 10. Paul tells us there two ways to be alive, by keeping the law, and by faith. He tells us Israel did not seek it by faith, so he did not obtain what he sought for. If Israel was not 'alive' by faith or by keeping the law, how can you argue that they were alive?

As far as I can tell, Romans is the book that goes into the most detail on what it means to be alive spiritually and how to get spiritual life. It's a major theme in the book. The just shall live by faith.

And just to clarify, I don't believe all Jews in Jesus time were spiritually dead. Some responded with faith. Some repented at the preaching of John. Some believed when Jesus came. Paul is dealing with the issue of Jews in general, particularly those who did not believe.

Let's examine your arguments so far. Paul said that the Jews require a sign. From this, you conclude that signs were only for Jews? The verse says no such thing. The Jews wanted signs. Would the desire of the Jews for signs mean that God would never give Gentiles signs? No, of course not. You need to make a stronger case. I point out the weakness of your case and give you an example of a sign done among Gentiles and you accuse me of not wanting to know what the Bible teaches. Who is the one who does not want to know what the Bible teaches? If you do want to know, don't attack the character of those who disagree. Instead, deal with the arguments. Study the Bible and post the scriptures and reasons for what you believe.

You are arguing that tongues are ONLY for a sign. I pointed you to passages of Scripture that show that tongues benefited the church and were given to edify the church. You did not even respond to this argument. Instead, you said I don't care what the Bible says.

You are the one not demonstrating a desire to know what the Bible clearly teaches. If you don't want to participate in the conversation, you can pull out in a dignified manner. But don't attack the character or motivation of those who disagree with you and put forth solid arguments.

For a passage on signs among the Gentiles, look at Romans 15:18-19

18 For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed,
19 Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the Gospel of Christ.

Notice the signs and wonders Paul preached among the Gentiles, part of what he did not make the Gentiles obedient. Paul used words and deeds to make the Gentiles obedient. 'Signs and wonders' are deeds. He also used 'words' when he fully preached the Gospel of Christ.

Now, show me the scripture that specifically says that no signs would be done for Gentiles, and that signs are ONLY for Jews. Don't show me a verse that says signs are for Jews, but rather a verse that says they are only for Jews and not for Gentiles.