-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Bible Tongues is not what being done today
- Thread starter John3v36
- Start date
Three groups that are identified with the Charismatics that I can think of immediately are: Oneness Pentecostal, United Pentecostal, and a group called, Jesus Only. I also met one of the Apostolic Church groups that believed tongues were necessary for salvation. This is in spite of many church hoppers, Charismatic individuals not tied to any church that also believe tongues are necessary to salvation. It is a common belief.
DHK
Robert,
Btw, if Paul saw some things in the third heaven and was not allowed to tell what he saw, it does not logically follow that angelic speech may not be spoken. Paul does not tell us that he heard angelic speech int he third heaven. He does not even tell us if the third heaven is a heaven the angels are allowed into. So the verse you quote does not prove anything about the tongues of angels.
Btw, if Paul saw some things in the third heaven and was not allowed to tell what he saw, it does not logically follow that angelic speech may not be spoken. Paul does not tell us that he heard angelic speech int he third heaven. He does not even tell us if the third heaven is a heaven the angels are allowed into. So the verse you quote does not prove anything about the tongues of angels.
DHK,
Pretty tricky quoting, there, DHK. At least you kep the whole sentence in tact even if you did add some space in between with a carriage return. Read the whole post. I am not questioning God. It makes sense that Paul would limit the use of tongues to 'two or three.' What does not make sense is that he would do this if the Corinthians were faking tongues. It doesn't make sense that Paul would tell the Corinthians to do fake tongues if he had just taught that everything was to be done for edification. From your past posts, you do not seem to think the reason Paul wrote the Corinthians had to interpret was because they were faking, right? So why would you accuse me of questioning God for disagreeing with the idea?
Also, 'Charismatic' is used by church historians to refer to the movement that started in the 60's. 'Pentecostal' is used to describe the movement that started toward the beginning of the 10th century. The only group I have encountered that teaches that you have to speak in tongues to be saved are Oneness Pentecostals. They do not believe in the Trinity and are considered to be heretical by a lot of mainstream Pentecostals. My generalizations apply mainly to the US, but are probably true in most countries overseas.
A typical, 'mainstream Pentecostal' church teaches that the baptism with the Holy Spirit is generally something you receive after salvation, and is evidence by speaking in tongues. They do not deny that those who do not speak in tongues are saved. The Oneness Pentecostals are a small minority within Pentecostalism.
Charismatics have a lot more variety in their beliefs. Many of them believe in the 'initial evidence' doctrine about tongues. Some do not. A typical Charismatic belief on this is the same as the Pentecostals, with Spirit baptism, evidenced by tongues, following salvation. This is the way it is taught in Word of Faith circles, for example. They seem to be the Charismatics who buy up the most airtime on TV in the US, at least.
In the Third Wave Movement, there is a variety of beliefs. You will find some who do not believe in the 'initial evidence' doctrine, and you may eve find someone who do not emphasize baptism with the Holy Spirit as a one-time event. Then you can find some with the typical Charismatic or Pentecostal view.
The people who believe you must be baptized to be saved, generally, are the Oneness Pentecostals. They refer to themselves as 'Apostolic' or 'Pentecostals.' I have never heard of a church of this kind calling itself 'Charismatic' but there may be some exceptions to the rule. The teaching that you have to speak in tongues to be saved (and be baptized 'in Jesus' name' only) is common in this movement, but it is not commonly taught by churches outside of this movement. And this movement is not part of the 'Charismatic Movement' that started in the 60's. It split off from the main Pentecostal movement several decades earlier.
Pretty tricky quoting, there, DHK. At least you kep the whole sentence in tact even if you did add some space in between with a carriage return. Read the whole post. I am not questioning God. It makes sense that Paul would limit the use of tongues to 'two or three.' What does not make sense is that he would do this if the Corinthians were faking tongues. It doesn't make sense that Paul would tell the Corinthians to do fake tongues if he had just taught that everything was to be done for edification. From your past posts, you do not seem to think the reason Paul wrote the Corinthians had to interpret was because they were faking, right? So why would you accuse me of questioning God for disagreeing with the idea?
Also, 'Charismatic' is used by church historians to refer to the movement that started in the 60's. 'Pentecostal' is used to describe the movement that started toward the beginning of the 10th century. The only group I have encountered that teaches that you have to speak in tongues to be saved are Oneness Pentecostals. They do not believe in the Trinity and are considered to be heretical by a lot of mainstream Pentecostals. My generalizations apply mainly to the US, but are probably true in most countries overseas.
A typical, 'mainstream Pentecostal' church teaches that the baptism with the Holy Spirit is generally something you receive after salvation, and is evidence by speaking in tongues. They do not deny that those who do not speak in tongues are saved. The Oneness Pentecostals are a small minority within Pentecostalism.
Charismatics have a lot more variety in their beliefs. Many of them believe in the 'initial evidence' doctrine about tongues. Some do not. A typical Charismatic belief on this is the same as the Pentecostals, with Spirit baptism, evidenced by tongues, following salvation. This is the way it is taught in Word of Faith circles, for example. They seem to be the Charismatics who buy up the most airtime on TV in the US, at least.
In the Third Wave Movement, there is a variety of beliefs. You will find some who do not believe in the 'initial evidence' doctrine, and you may eve find someone who do not emphasize baptism with the Holy Spirit as a one-time event. Then you can find some with the typical Charismatic or Pentecostal view.
The people who believe you must be baptized to be saved, generally, are the Oneness Pentecostals. They refer to themselves as 'Apostolic' or 'Pentecostals.' I have never heard of a church of this kind calling itself 'Charismatic' but there may be some exceptions to the rule. The teaching that you have to speak in tongues to be saved (and be baptized 'in Jesus' name' only) is common in this movement, but it is not commonly taught by churches outside of this movement. And this movement is not part of the 'Charismatic Movement' that started in the 60's. It split off from the main Pentecostal movement several decades earlier.
****The 1st and 3rd gifts Paul mentions in Romans 12 repeat 2 of the gifts listed in I Cor 14, so it is clearly the same thing he is talking about. In this passage Paul gives examples of two kinds of gifts: communicating gifts (prophecy, teaching, exhortation) and serving gifts (service, contributing, giving aid, acts of mercy). The third category of gifts which he mentioned in I Cor are conspicuous by their absence. Remember, tongues were not the only sign gift. There was also healing and miracles. This entire class of gifts is missing from this discussion of Spiritual Gifts. Why would Paul do that if the sign gifts were still important? Why wouldn't he give examples of all three basic categories instead of only two? Either they were no longer important by this time, or Paul and the Holy Spirit are guilty of some serious sloppiness.*****
It is not wise to accuse the Holy Spirit of sloppiness, or to a lesser degree, Paul. There are other logical reasons for these gifts not being mentioned in the passage. Paul wrote on topics that addressed problems among his audience. Maybe there was no problem with tongues among the Romans as there were among the Corinthians. Your view of things would have tongues operating during the time Galatians was written, since it was likely written a good while before the Corinthian epistles. But the epistle of Galatians does not mention tongues among the Galatians. That does not mean they did not occur in Galatia. Tongues just wasn't a topic that needed addressing.
I mentioned the 'extreme dispensationalist' who relegated baptism to a 'transitional period' and argued it was not necessary for Gentiles. Does the fact tht certain later epistles do not mention water baptism prove that baptism is not necessary? Of course not. Doctrine about baptism was already established in scripture, so we do not have to see the doctrine repeated in later epistles to be true. Doctrine about tongues is already established in I Corinthians, so we do not have to see the doctrine repeated in Romans to be true. If God said it or inspired it, then it is true, whether or not it is repeated over and over again. How many times does God have to say somethign before we believe him.
Can you show me any scripture that indicates that unless God keeps repeating a doctrine in multiple scriptures that the doctrine ceases to be true? I can't find any scripture that leads us to that conclusion, and reason certainly doesn't demand that doctrine has to be repeated in later books to remain true.
Another possible answer to your question can be found in I Corinthians 1 and Romans 1. I Corinthians 1 says that the Corinthians came behind in no spiritual gift. In romans 1, Paul expressed his desire to see the Romans that he might impart unto them some spiritual gift. So it is clear that the Corinthians excelled in having a number of gifts, in spite of some of their other problems. The Romans apparently lacked some spiritual gifts. So the fact that Romans 12 does not mention tongues, miracles, etc. does not prove that the Romans were not supposed to have these gifts! It is clear from the book that Paul felt they needed some other gift(s)!
Furthermore, the fact that Romans only mentions certain gifts does not prove that these were the only gifts in operating in Rome. Paul mentions some gifts in Romans that he does not mention in Corinthians. He mentions exhortation, giving, and showing mercy as gifts. but he does not list these in his gift lists in I Corinthians. Does that mean that the Corinthians did not have these gifts? No. They may have had them. In fact, if they fell behind in no spiritual gift, we should expect that they did not have all the gifts. If the Corinthians had gifts not mentioned specifically in I Corinthians, then it stands to reason that the Romans might have had some gifts not specifically mentioned in the list.
And another point I would like to raise is that Paul does not divide gifts into 'communicating gifts', 'serving gifts', and 'sign gifts.' These categories were put on gifts by later Bible commentators. So we should not consider these categories to be inspired, or use them as a means of intepreting scripture. The Bible does not separate gifts into categories like 'sign gift' and teach that the sign gifts category will pass away.
Also, it is clear from I Corinthians that prophecy is a sign. So prophecy is a sign gift! Prophecy is mentioned in Romans 12.
***Peter, in contrast to Paul, doesn't deal in specifics at all, but only in categories. He mentions 2: speaking gifts and service gifts. Again, no mention of the sign gifts at all. Why would Peter have also left out this entire category of gifts? Either it was by design, because they were no longer important, or we have more carelessness and sloppiness by an Apostle and the Holy Spirit who inspired him.****
Your concusions are unwarranted. Show me scripture where the Holy Spirit is required to fulfill your expectations and mention every gift in operation at a certain period of time durign the history of the writing of scripture. I cannot find it. You have no right to call either Paul or the Holy Spirit sloppy if gifts were in operation that were not mentioned. And if you were not reading the passage with a preconcieved idea that gifts ceased, then you would not have come to this conclusion in the first place.
Btw, 'serving' is a broad category. Using the gift of healing or miracles can be serving. Remember that scripture does not teach these categories of gifts that you are imposing on scripture. 'Prophecy' would fit into your 'communication gift' category. But it is also a sign, so it would have to go into your 'sign gift' category as well. If a gift fits into one of your man-made categories, that does not mean that it cannot fit into another. If you consider miracles to be a sign gift, that does not mean that it cannot fit into your 'service gift' category.
Do you believe that there are prophecies of Revelation that are yet to be fulfilled. How can you believe the gifts ceased if the two Witnesss will prophecy and do miraculous acts? If those gifts ceased, then they ceased. If they didn't, then they didn't. How do you explain the two witnesses?
********
But it is not only those passages and their silence about tongues that argues powerfully for the decline and disappearance of this gift.*******
This is the problem. You are arguing from silence. This silence only speaks if you have a preconcieved notion you want to read into the silence. Like I mentioned before, we see an explosion of references to gifts in the final book of the Bible.
******
There is also the exegesis of I Cor 13, where Paul used specific terms and specific voices of Greek verbs to indicate that tongues would end at a different time and in a different way than prophecy and knowledge, showing that tongues would die out of their own accord, which is exactly what happened.***
********
I would like to point out htat no one in this thread has made any argument from scripture that healing or miracles are supposed to pass away. Notice that I Corinthians 13 does not mention this.
I read your argument earlier. Based on the information you gave, the fact that different verb tenses are used seems like a weak argument for the idea that tongues would cease at a different time. I recall reading MaCarthur's argument onthat, and he didn't takeit as far as you did if I remember correctly. there are people who have been reading Greek for decades who do not interpret this passage the way you do.
If I can get my ISP straightened out, I might ask an email friend of mine who is a retired Classics department head who has been reading Greek for most of his life. He also reads hebrew and has some interesting insights into scripture.
********
Finally, there is the matter of the other sign gifts, which I have raised numerous times before without getting an answer. Tongues were not the only sign gift. There were also people in the early Church with the gift of healing, people who God had given power to instantaneously heal any person of any ailment, including severe birth defects and even death. If all of the gifts are still active, where are the people today with the gift of healing? Miraculous healing still happens in response to prayer at God's discretion, but it's pretty obvious that there are no people today who have the ability to call on God's power to produce miraculous healing at their own discretion, which is what the GIFT of healing was.
********
Can you show me you definition of the gift of healing from scripture? What I see is that the apostles did not just go out and do miracles and healing according to their own will after they were persecuted soon after Pentecost. instead, they prayed that God would stretch out His hand to do signs and wonders. He answered their prayer and God did signs and wonders through them. They didn't just do them at their own will like Superman flies in the comic book. They still had to pray and do them according to God's will. Peter also knelt down and spent some time in prayer before Dorcas/Tabitha was raised from the dead. He didn't just go in there and do it automatically, without seeking God's help first. The Bible also takes special not of when God did extraordinary miracles through the hands of Paul. It is also clear that Paul did not always heal everybody. Once he left a co-worker sick on an island. And he apparently had some kind of eye ailment __early__ in his ministry, before he did a lot of the miracles recorded in the book of Acts. So it wasn't like miracles just dried up late in the first century. The apostles had to cooperate with God in their gifts, pray, etc. Their gifts weren't always just automatic, like Superman's X-ray vision. They had to act according to the will of God.
That being said, I Corinthians 12 lists the working of miracles as separate from gifts of healings. Why do you see these kind of instantaneous miracles as falling into the healings category instead of the working of miracles category?
**********
It is all of these things together that argue so powerfully for the cessation of the sign gifts as a normal part of Church activity by the end of the 1st century, not merely the absence of another mention after I Cor.
**********
So far we have an argument from silence and arguments about the ceasing of tongues from I Corinthians 13 that still do not indicate a date when tongues will cease. The silence is not an argument at all. The I Corinthians 13 argument offers no evidence that tongues have ceased.
It is not wise to accuse the Holy Spirit of sloppiness, or to a lesser degree, Paul. There are other logical reasons for these gifts not being mentioned in the passage. Paul wrote on topics that addressed problems among his audience. Maybe there was no problem with tongues among the Romans as there were among the Corinthians. Your view of things would have tongues operating during the time Galatians was written, since it was likely written a good while before the Corinthian epistles. But the epistle of Galatians does not mention tongues among the Galatians. That does not mean they did not occur in Galatia. Tongues just wasn't a topic that needed addressing.
I mentioned the 'extreme dispensationalist' who relegated baptism to a 'transitional period' and argued it was not necessary for Gentiles. Does the fact tht certain later epistles do not mention water baptism prove that baptism is not necessary? Of course not. Doctrine about baptism was already established in scripture, so we do not have to see the doctrine repeated in later epistles to be true. Doctrine about tongues is already established in I Corinthians, so we do not have to see the doctrine repeated in Romans to be true. If God said it or inspired it, then it is true, whether or not it is repeated over and over again. How many times does God have to say somethign before we believe him.
Can you show me any scripture that indicates that unless God keeps repeating a doctrine in multiple scriptures that the doctrine ceases to be true? I can't find any scripture that leads us to that conclusion, and reason certainly doesn't demand that doctrine has to be repeated in later books to remain true.
Another possible answer to your question can be found in I Corinthians 1 and Romans 1. I Corinthians 1 says that the Corinthians came behind in no spiritual gift. In romans 1, Paul expressed his desire to see the Romans that he might impart unto them some spiritual gift. So it is clear that the Corinthians excelled in having a number of gifts, in spite of some of their other problems. The Romans apparently lacked some spiritual gifts. So the fact that Romans 12 does not mention tongues, miracles, etc. does not prove that the Romans were not supposed to have these gifts! It is clear from the book that Paul felt they needed some other gift(s)!
Furthermore, the fact that Romans only mentions certain gifts does not prove that these were the only gifts in operating in Rome. Paul mentions some gifts in Romans that he does not mention in Corinthians. He mentions exhortation, giving, and showing mercy as gifts. but he does not list these in his gift lists in I Corinthians. Does that mean that the Corinthians did not have these gifts? No. They may have had them. In fact, if they fell behind in no spiritual gift, we should expect that they did not have all the gifts. If the Corinthians had gifts not mentioned specifically in I Corinthians, then it stands to reason that the Romans might have had some gifts not specifically mentioned in the list.
And another point I would like to raise is that Paul does not divide gifts into 'communicating gifts', 'serving gifts', and 'sign gifts.' These categories were put on gifts by later Bible commentators. So we should not consider these categories to be inspired, or use them as a means of intepreting scripture. The Bible does not separate gifts into categories like 'sign gift' and teach that the sign gifts category will pass away.
Also, it is clear from I Corinthians that prophecy is a sign. So prophecy is a sign gift! Prophecy is mentioned in Romans 12.
***Peter, in contrast to Paul, doesn't deal in specifics at all, but only in categories. He mentions 2: speaking gifts and service gifts. Again, no mention of the sign gifts at all. Why would Peter have also left out this entire category of gifts? Either it was by design, because they were no longer important, or we have more carelessness and sloppiness by an Apostle and the Holy Spirit who inspired him.****
Your concusions are unwarranted. Show me scripture where the Holy Spirit is required to fulfill your expectations and mention every gift in operation at a certain period of time durign the history of the writing of scripture. I cannot find it. You have no right to call either Paul or the Holy Spirit sloppy if gifts were in operation that were not mentioned. And if you were not reading the passage with a preconcieved idea that gifts ceased, then you would not have come to this conclusion in the first place.
Btw, 'serving' is a broad category. Using the gift of healing or miracles can be serving. Remember that scripture does not teach these categories of gifts that you are imposing on scripture. 'Prophecy' would fit into your 'communication gift' category. But it is also a sign, so it would have to go into your 'sign gift' category as well. If a gift fits into one of your man-made categories, that does not mean that it cannot fit into another. If you consider miracles to be a sign gift, that does not mean that it cannot fit into your 'service gift' category.
Do you believe that there are prophecies of Revelation that are yet to be fulfilled. How can you believe the gifts ceased if the two Witnesss will prophecy and do miraculous acts? If those gifts ceased, then they ceased. If they didn't, then they didn't. How do you explain the two witnesses?
********
But it is not only those passages and their silence about tongues that argues powerfully for the decline and disappearance of this gift.*******
This is the problem. You are arguing from silence. This silence only speaks if you have a preconcieved notion you want to read into the silence. Like I mentioned before, we see an explosion of references to gifts in the final book of the Bible.
******
There is also the exegesis of I Cor 13, where Paul used specific terms and specific voices of Greek verbs to indicate that tongues would end at a different time and in a different way than prophecy and knowledge, showing that tongues would die out of their own accord, which is exactly what happened.***
********
I would like to point out htat no one in this thread has made any argument from scripture that healing or miracles are supposed to pass away. Notice that I Corinthians 13 does not mention this.
I read your argument earlier. Based on the information you gave, the fact that different verb tenses are used seems like a weak argument for the idea that tongues would cease at a different time. I recall reading MaCarthur's argument onthat, and he didn't takeit as far as you did if I remember correctly. there are people who have been reading Greek for decades who do not interpret this passage the way you do.
If I can get my ISP straightened out, I might ask an email friend of mine who is a retired Classics department head who has been reading Greek for most of his life. He also reads hebrew and has some interesting insights into scripture.
********
Finally, there is the matter of the other sign gifts, which I have raised numerous times before without getting an answer. Tongues were not the only sign gift. There were also people in the early Church with the gift of healing, people who God had given power to instantaneously heal any person of any ailment, including severe birth defects and even death. If all of the gifts are still active, where are the people today with the gift of healing? Miraculous healing still happens in response to prayer at God's discretion, but it's pretty obvious that there are no people today who have the ability to call on God's power to produce miraculous healing at their own discretion, which is what the GIFT of healing was.
********
Can you show me you definition of the gift of healing from scripture? What I see is that the apostles did not just go out and do miracles and healing according to their own will after they were persecuted soon after Pentecost. instead, they prayed that God would stretch out His hand to do signs and wonders. He answered their prayer and God did signs and wonders through them. They didn't just do them at their own will like Superman flies in the comic book. They still had to pray and do them according to God's will. Peter also knelt down and spent some time in prayer before Dorcas/Tabitha was raised from the dead. He didn't just go in there and do it automatically, without seeking God's help first. The Bible also takes special not of when God did extraordinary miracles through the hands of Paul. It is also clear that Paul did not always heal everybody. Once he left a co-worker sick on an island. And he apparently had some kind of eye ailment __early__ in his ministry, before he did a lot of the miracles recorded in the book of Acts. So it wasn't like miracles just dried up late in the first century. The apostles had to cooperate with God in their gifts, pray, etc. Their gifts weren't always just automatic, like Superman's X-ray vision. They had to act according to the will of God.
That being said, I Corinthians 12 lists the working of miracles as separate from gifts of healings. Why do you see these kind of instantaneous miracles as falling into the healings category instead of the working of miracles category?
**********
It is all of these things together that argue so powerfully for the cessation of the sign gifts as a normal part of Church activity by the end of the 1st century, not merely the absence of another mention after I Cor.
**********
So far we have an argument from silence and arguments about the ceasing of tongues from I Corinthians 13 that still do not indicate a date when tongues will cease. The silence is not an argument at all. The I Corinthians 13 argument offers no evidence that tongues have ceased.
DHK
Oneness Pentecostals and 'Jesus' Only's are the same thing. 'Jesus Only's' is slang for them because they do not believe in the Trinity. They believe in Jesus only. These groups refer to themselves as 'Apostolic.' This is all the same group. The United Pentecostals are Oneness Pentecostals or 'Apostolic' as they call themself. They are the largest denomination of this persuasion. Again, these are not a part of the 'Charismatic movement.' They split off of the mainstream Pentecostal movement. The Charismatic Movement started in the 60's.
Butw, 'Apostolic' does not mean the same thing in South Africa. there, a lot of Pentecostals are called 'Apostolic.' It was one of the words to describe the movement in the time of the Azusa Street Revival. T he newsletter form the revival was The Apostolic Faith. John G. Lake and perhaps some others took the title 'Apostolic' as a title for Pentecostalism to South Africa. In the US, after the Oneness Pentecostal movement started, they started calling their churches 'Apostolic' so it fell out of favor as a church name among Trinitarian Pentecostals.
Oneness Pentecostals and 'Jesus' Only's are the same thing. 'Jesus Only's' is slang for them because they do not believe in the Trinity. They believe in Jesus only. These groups refer to themselves as 'Apostolic.' This is all the same group. The United Pentecostals are Oneness Pentecostals or 'Apostolic' as they call themself. They are the largest denomination of this persuasion. Again, these are not a part of the 'Charismatic movement.' They split off of the mainstream Pentecostal movement. The Charismatic Movement started in the 60's.
Butw, 'Apostolic' does not mean the same thing in South Africa. there, a lot of Pentecostals are called 'Apostolic.' It was one of the words to describe the movement in the time of the Azusa Street Revival. T he newsletter form the revival was The Apostolic Faith. John G. Lake and perhaps some others took the title 'Apostolic' as a title for Pentecostalism to South Africa. In the US, after the Oneness Pentecostal movement started, they started calling their churches 'Apostolic' so it fell out of favor as a church name among Trinitarian Pentecostals.
L
liebeskind
Guest
I am sorry LINK, but why were the gift of LANGUAGES (tongues) and those that were speaking it rebuked in Corinthians, and given "INSTRUCTION" on how to operate when it comes to this. NO instruction were given for OTHER gifts, N
THER!And YES he did rebuke:
1 Corinthians 14:37
37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual , let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord .
LOOK AT THE FACTS MY FRIEND, CLEAR HERMENEUTICS!
1. Paul gave instructions, asking them not to speak in gibberish at the same time!
2. Let someone interpret what one is saying!
3. It can only be three at the most!
NOW ASK YOURSELF THIS QUESTION MY FRIEND, AND PLEASE GIVE THE READER AN ANSWER!
1. Did the Apostles need instruction from the HOLY GHOST when it came to speaking in Other Languages than their own? If So please give the New Testament reference!
2. Did the Apostles speak at the same time or did they speak in order as Paul (via Holy Ghost)instructed the Corinthians to do? If they had to speak in order, please give the New Testament reference!
3. Did anyone at Pentacost hearing the Apostles, need an interpreter to understand there own Languages? If So please give the New Testament reference!
4. The four (4) occasion where Languages (tongues) were spoken (Acts 2:4, Acts 10:46, Acts 19:6, Acts 22:2), did the Apostle(s) or those speaking have to do it "in order", did they need an "interpreter" or was there one present, did those whom here them speaking not understand there own language? If So please give the New Testament reference!
For simple questions because I know that the Bible is simple and I thank God that I have not had any schooling on this, I think that schooling some times takes the simplicity of Eesho M'sheekha from the WORD!
Now what does this have to do with the present time? Everything, even the bible tells you that the Prophecy was fulfilled: Let's read what the Holy spirit said through Apostle Peter:
Acts 2:16
16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
Now I have to say the the word "that" above in the verse is in ITALICS in the KJV meaning it is not in the Greek Codices. BUT, the word "this" is NOT in ITALICS and is in the Greek Codices, and it is defined as such:
Strong's Greek Definition for # 5124
5124 // touto // touto // too'-to //
neuter singular nominative or accusative case of 3778 ; pron
AV - this 199, therefore + 1223 44, that 22, for this cause + 1223 14,
wherefore + 1223 7, it 5, not tr 1, misc 25; 317
1) that (thing), this (thing)
Wow, did you see that?
So Peter flat out said that "THIS IS THAT ", and he did not add "AND GOING TO BE", what was spoken by the Prophet Joel!
Now you will not find one example after the Book of Acts of anyone speaking in Languages (tongues) giving by the Holy Ghost? I think not, because it was fulfilled.
All the gifts of the Apostles will not be done in today's time! If you know anyone claiming to have these gifts, please let me know, and I will show you someone who is False, how would I do that, test them, simply test them, and the only grades they can get is an "A" or and "F".
A = Acts of the Apostles
F = False Prophets
Nothing in Between!
Ron
[ December 16, 2004, 09:59 AM: Message edited by: Ronald H. ]
Apparently the gist of what MacArthur was saying went right over your head. Within the quote, he quoted two letters from radio stations (as a result from judgemental Charismatics all bent out of shape), advising him not to be so "judgemental" but to be more loving, etc. He went on to say (using examples from the Bible) that the Bible commands us point out the truth, and to point out false doctrine, error. That is the obligation of any preacher. But the anemic Christians today don't want to hear the truth of the Word of God. And if it offends them they turn around with their snarly carnal mouths and attack the messenger with the same old line: "Your judging, Your judging, Your judging!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" How many times have I heard it before!
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]DHK, I was still replying to the first MacArthur I didn't bother reading the 2nd MacArthur quote/letter you posted. So.... no, it didn't go over my head.
As far as your (or MacArthur's?) bottom remark about telling the truth and judging goes. Why not throw the truth out there, let God led, and then let the Holy Spirit convict. BTW, you said that the bible commands us to point out truth, false doctrine and error..... But out of the 2 commandments that Jesus said to hang all the law and the prophets were to love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Music4Him
****The 1st and 3rd gifts Paul mentions in Romans 12 repeat 2 of the gifts listed in I Cor 14, so it is clearly the same thing he is talking about. In this passage Paul gives examples of two kinds of gifts: communicating gifts (prophecy, teaching, exhortation) and serving gifts (service, contributing, giving aid, acts of mercy). The third category of gifts which he mentioned in I Cor are conspicuous by their absence. Remember, tongues were not the only sign gift. There was also healing and miracles. This entire class of gifts is missing from this discussion of Spiritual Gifts. Why would Paul do that if the sign gifts were still important? Why wouldn't he give examples of all three basic categories instead of only two? Either they were no longer important by this time, or Paul and the Holy Spirit are guilty of some serious sloppiness.*****
It is not wise to accuse the Holy Spirit of sloppiness, or to a lesser degree, Paul. There are other logical reasons for these gifts not being mentioned in the passage. Paul wrote on topics that addressed problems among his audience. Maybe there was no problem with tongues among the Romans as there were among the Corinthians. Your view of things would have tongues operating during the time Galatians was written, since it was likely written a good while before the Corinthian epistles. But the epistle of Galatians does not mention tongues among the Galatians. That does not mean they did not occur in Galatia. Tongues just wasn't a topic that needed addressing.
I mentioned the 'extreme dispensationalist' who relegated baptism to a 'transitional period' and argued it was not necessary for Gentiles. Does the fact tht certain later epistles do not mention water baptism prove that baptism is not necessary? Of course not. Doctrine about baptism was already established in scripture, so we do not have to see the doctrine repeated in later epistles to be true. Doctrine about tongues is already established in I Corinthians, so we do not have to see the doctrine repeated in Romans to be true. If God said it or inspired it, then it is true, whether or not it is repeated over and over again. How many times does God have to say somethign before we believe him.
Can you show me any scripture that indicates that unless God keeps repeating a doctrine in multiple scriptures that the doctrine ceases to be true? I can't find any scripture that leads us to that conclusion, and reason certainly doesn't demand that doctrine has to be repeated in later books to remain true.
Another possible answer to your question can be found in I Corinthians 1 and Romans 1. I Corinthians 1 says that the Corinthians came behind in no spiritual gift. In romans 1, Paul expressed his desire to see the Romans that he might impart unto them some spiritual gift. So it is clear that the Corinthians excelled in having a number of gifts, in spite of some of their other problems. The Romans apparently lacked some spiritual gifts. So the fact that Romans 12 does not mention tongues, miracles, etc. does not prove that the Romans were not supposed to have these gifts! It is clear from the book that Paul felt they needed some other gift(s)!
Furthermore, the fact that Romans only mentions certain gifts does not prove that these were the only gifts in operating in Rome. Paul mentions some gifts in Romans that he does not mention in Corinthians. He mentions exhortation, giving, and showing mercy as gifts. but he does not list these in his gift lists in I Corinthians. Does that mean that the Corinthians did not have these gifts? No. They may have had them. In fact, if they fell behind in no spiritual gift, we should expect that they did not have all the gifts. If the Corinthians had gifts not mentioned specifically in I Corinthians, then it stands to reason that the Romans might have had some gifts not specifically mentioned in the list.
And another point I would like to raise is that Paul does not divide gifts into 'communicating gifts', 'serving gifts', and 'sign gifts.' These categories were put on gifts by later Bible commentators. So we should not consider these categories to be inspired, or use them as a means of intepreting scripture. The Bible does not separate gifts into categories like 'sign gift' and teach that the sign gifts category will pass away.
Also, it is clear from I Corinthians that prophecy is a sign. So prophecy is a sign gift! Prophecy is mentioned in Romans 12.
***Peter, in contrast to Paul, doesn't deal in specifics at all, but only in categories. He mentions 2: speaking gifts and service gifts. Again, no mention of the sign gifts at all. Why would Peter have also left out this entire category of gifts? Either it was by design, because they were no longer important, or we have more carelessness and sloppiness by an Apostle and the Holy Spirit who inspired him.****
Your concusions are unwarranted. Show me scripture where the Holy Spirit is required to fulfill your expectations and mention every gift in operation at a certain period of time durign the history of the writing of scripture. I cannot find it. You have no right to call either Paul or the Holy Spirit sloppy if gifts were in operation that were not mentioned. And if you were not reading the passage with a preconcieved idea that gifts ceased, then you would not have come to this conclusion in the first place.
Btw, 'serving' is a broad category. Using the gift of healing or miracles can be serving. Remember that scripture does not teach these categories of gifts that you are imposing on scripture. 'Prophecy' would fit into your 'communication gift' category. But it is also a sign, so it would have to go into your 'sign gift' category as well. If a gift fits into one of your man-made categories, that does not mean that it cannot fit into another. If you consider miracles to be a sign gift, that does not mean that it cannot fit into your 'service gift' category.
Do you believe that there are prophecies of Revelation that are yet to be fulfilled. How can you believe the gifts ceased if the two Witnesss will prophecy and do miraculous acts? If those gifts ceased, then they ceased. If they didn't, then they didn't. How do you explain the two witnesses?
********
But it is not only those passages and their silence about tongues that argues powerfully for the decline and disappearance of this gift.*******
This is the problem. You are arguing from silence. This silence only speaks if you have a preconcieved notion you want to read into the silence. Like I mentioned before, we see an explosion of references to gifts in the final book of the Bible.
******
There is also the exegesis of I Cor 13, where Paul used specific terms and specific voices of Greek verbs to indicate that tongues would end at a different time and in a different way than prophecy and knowledge, showing that tongues would die out of their own accord, which is exactly what happened.***
********
I would like to point out htat no one in this thread has made any argument from scripture that healing or miracles are supposed to pass away. Notice that I Corinthians 13 does not mention this.
I read your argument earlier. Based on the information you gave, the fact that different verb tenses are used seems like a weak argument for the idea that tongues would cease at a different time. I recall reading MaCarthur's argument onthat, and he didn't takeit as far as you did if I remember correctly. there are people who have been reading Greek for decades who do not interpret this passage the way you do.
If I can get my ISP straightened out, I might ask an email friend of mine who is a retired Classics department head who has been reading Greek for most of his life. He also reads hebrew and has some interesting insights into scripture.
********
Finally, there is the matter of the other sign gifts, which I have raised numerous times before without getting an answer. Tongues were not the only sign gift. There were also people in the early Church with the gift of healing, people who God had given power to instantaneously heal any person of any ailment, including severe birth defects and even death. If all of the gifts are still active, where are the people today with the gift of healing? Miraculous healing still happens in response to prayer at God's discretion, but it's pretty obvious that there are no people today who have the ability to call on God's power to produce miraculous healing at their own discretion, which is what the GIFT of healing was.
********
Can you show me you definition of the gift of healing from scripture? What I see is that the apostles did not just go out and do miracles and healing according to their own will after they were persecuted soon after Pentecost. instead, they prayed that God would stretch out His hand to do signs and wonders. He answered their prayer and God did signs and wonders through them. They didn't just do them at their own will like Superman flies in the comic book. They still had to pray and do them according to God's will. Peter also knelt down and spent some time in prayer before Dorcas/Tabitha was raised from the dead. He didn't just go in there and do it automatically, without seeking God's help first. The Bible also takes special not of when God did extraordinary miracles through the hands of Paul. It is also clear that Paul did not always heal everybody. Once he left a co-worker sick on an island. And he apparently had some kind of eye ailment __early__ in his ministry, before he did a lot of the miracles recorded in the book of Acts. So it wasn't like miracles just dried up late in the first century. The apostles had to cooperate with God in their gifts, pray, etc. Their gifts weren't always just automatic, like Superman's X-ray vision. They had to act according to the will of God.
That being said, I Corinthians 12 lists the working of miracles as separate from gifts of healings. Why do you see these kind of instantaneous miracles as falling into the healings category instead of the working of miracles category?
**********
It is all of these things together that argue so powerfully for the cessation of the sign gifts as a normal part of Church activity by the end of the 1st century, not merely the absence of another mention after I Cor.
**********
So far we have an argument from silence and arguments about the ceasing of tongues from I Corinthians 13 that still do not indicate a date when tongues will cease. The silence is not an argument at all. The I Corinthians 13 argument offers no evidence that tongues have ceased.
It is not wise to accuse the Holy Spirit of sloppiness, or to a lesser degree, Paul. There are other logical reasons for these gifts not being mentioned in the passage. Paul wrote on topics that addressed problems among his audience. Maybe there was no problem with tongues among the Romans as there were among the Corinthians. Your view of things would have tongues operating during the time Galatians was written, since it was likely written a good while before the Corinthian epistles. But the epistle of Galatians does not mention tongues among the Galatians. That does not mean they did not occur in Galatia. Tongues just wasn't a topic that needed addressing.
I mentioned the 'extreme dispensationalist' who relegated baptism to a 'transitional period' and argued it was not necessary for Gentiles. Does the fact tht certain later epistles do not mention water baptism prove that baptism is not necessary? Of course not. Doctrine about baptism was already established in scripture, so we do not have to see the doctrine repeated in later epistles to be true. Doctrine about tongues is already established in I Corinthians, so we do not have to see the doctrine repeated in Romans to be true. If God said it or inspired it, then it is true, whether or not it is repeated over and over again. How many times does God have to say somethign before we believe him.
Can you show me any scripture that indicates that unless God keeps repeating a doctrine in multiple scriptures that the doctrine ceases to be true? I can't find any scripture that leads us to that conclusion, and reason certainly doesn't demand that doctrine has to be repeated in later books to remain true.
Another possible answer to your question can be found in I Corinthians 1 and Romans 1. I Corinthians 1 says that the Corinthians came behind in no spiritual gift. In romans 1, Paul expressed his desire to see the Romans that he might impart unto them some spiritual gift. So it is clear that the Corinthians excelled in having a number of gifts, in spite of some of their other problems. The Romans apparently lacked some spiritual gifts. So the fact that Romans 12 does not mention tongues, miracles, etc. does not prove that the Romans were not supposed to have these gifts! It is clear from the book that Paul felt they needed some other gift(s)!
Furthermore, the fact that Romans only mentions certain gifts does not prove that these were the only gifts in operating in Rome. Paul mentions some gifts in Romans that he does not mention in Corinthians. He mentions exhortation, giving, and showing mercy as gifts. but he does not list these in his gift lists in I Corinthians. Does that mean that the Corinthians did not have these gifts? No. They may have had them. In fact, if they fell behind in no spiritual gift, we should expect that they did not have all the gifts. If the Corinthians had gifts not mentioned specifically in I Corinthians, then it stands to reason that the Romans might have had some gifts not specifically mentioned in the list.
And another point I would like to raise is that Paul does not divide gifts into 'communicating gifts', 'serving gifts', and 'sign gifts.' These categories were put on gifts by later Bible commentators. So we should not consider these categories to be inspired, or use them as a means of intepreting scripture. The Bible does not separate gifts into categories like 'sign gift' and teach that the sign gifts category will pass away.
Also, it is clear from I Corinthians that prophecy is a sign. So prophecy is a sign gift! Prophecy is mentioned in Romans 12.
***Peter, in contrast to Paul, doesn't deal in specifics at all, but only in categories. He mentions 2: speaking gifts and service gifts. Again, no mention of the sign gifts at all. Why would Peter have also left out this entire category of gifts? Either it was by design, because they were no longer important, or we have more carelessness and sloppiness by an Apostle and the Holy Spirit who inspired him.****
Your concusions are unwarranted. Show me scripture where the Holy Spirit is required to fulfill your expectations and mention every gift in operation at a certain period of time durign the history of the writing of scripture. I cannot find it. You have no right to call either Paul or the Holy Spirit sloppy if gifts were in operation that were not mentioned. And if you were not reading the passage with a preconcieved idea that gifts ceased, then you would not have come to this conclusion in the first place.
Btw, 'serving' is a broad category. Using the gift of healing or miracles can be serving. Remember that scripture does not teach these categories of gifts that you are imposing on scripture. 'Prophecy' would fit into your 'communication gift' category. But it is also a sign, so it would have to go into your 'sign gift' category as well. If a gift fits into one of your man-made categories, that does not mean that it cannot fit into another. If you consider miracles to be a sign gift, that does not mean that it cannot fit into your 'service gift' category.
Do you believe that there are prophecies of Revelation that are yet to be fulfilled. How can you believe the gifts ceased if the two Witnesss will prophecy and do miraculous acts? If those gifts ceased, then they ceased. If they didn't, then they didn't. How do you explain the two witnesses?
********
But it is not only those passages and their silence about tongues that argues powerfully for the decline and disappearance of this gift.*******
This is the problem. You are arguing from silence. This silence only speaks if you have a preconcieved notion you want to read into the silence. Like I mentioned before, we see an explosion of references to gifts in the final book of the Bible.
******
There is also the exegesis of I Cor 13, where Paul used specific terms and specific voices of Greek verbs to indicate that tongues would end at a different time and in a different way than prophecy and knowledge, showing that tongues would die out of their own accord, which is exactly what happened.***
********
I would like to point out htat no one in this thread has made any argument from scripture that healing or miracles are supposed to pass away. Notice that I Corinthians 13 does not mention this.
I read your argument earlier. Based on the information you gave, the fact that different verb tenses are used seems like a weak argument for the idea that tongues would cease at a different time. I recall reading MaCarthur's argument onthat, and he didn't takeit as far as you did if I remember correctly. there are people who have been reading Greek for decades who do not interpret this passage the way you do.
If I can get my ISP straightened out, I might ask an email friend of mine who is a retired Classics department head who has been reading Greek for most of his life. He also reads hebrew and has some interesting insights into scripture.
********
Finally, there is the matter of the other sign gifts, which I have raised numerous times before without getting an answer. Tongues were not the only sign gift. There were also people in the early Church with the gift of healing, people who God had given power to instantaneously heal any person of any ailment, including severe birth defects and even death. If all of the gifts are still active, where are the people today with the gift of healing? Miraculous healing still happens in response to prayer at God's discretion, but it's pretty obvious that there are no people today who have the ability to call on God's power to produce miraculous healing at their own discretion, which is what the GIFT of healing was.
********
Can you show me you definition of the gift of healing from scripture? What I see is that the apostles did not just go out and do miracles and healing according to their own will after they were persecuted soon after Pentecost. instead, they prayed that God would stretch out His hand to do signs and wonders. He answered their prayer and God did signs and wonders through them. They didn't just do them at their own will like Superman flies in the comic book. They still had to pray and do them according to God's will. Peter also knelt down and spent some time in prayer before Dorcas/Tabitha was raised from the dead. He didn't just go in there and do it automatically, without seeking God's help first. The Bible also takes special not of when God did extraordinary miracles through the hands of Paul. It is also clear that Paul did not always heal everybody. Once he left a co-worker sick on an island. And he apparently had some kind of eye ailment __early__ in his ministry, before he did a lot of the miracles recorded in the book of Acts. So it wasn't like miracles just dried up late in the first century. The apostles had to cooperate with God in their gifts, pray, etc. Their gifts weren't always just automatic, like Superman's X-ray vision. They had to act according to the will of God.
That being said, I Corinthians 12 lists the working of miracles as separate from gifts of healings. Why do you see these kind of instantaneous miracles as falling into the healings category instead of the working of miracles category?
**********
It is all of these things together that argue so powerfully for the cessation of the sign gifts as a normal part of Church activity by the end of the 1st century, not merely the absence of another mention after I Cor.
**********
So far we have an argument from silence and arguments about the ceasing of tongues from I Corinthians 13 that still do not indicate a date when tongues will cease. The silence is not an argument at all. The I Corinthians 13 argument offers no evidence that tongues have ceased.
L
liebeskind
Guest
Originally posted by Ronald H.:
I am sorry LINK, but why were the gift of LANGUAGES (tongues) and those that were speaking it rebuked in Corinthians, and given "INSTRUCTION" on how to operate when it comes to this. NO instruction were given for OTHER gifts, N
And YES he did rebuke:
1 Corinthians 14:37
37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual , let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord .
LOOK AT THE FACTS MY FRIEND, CLEAR HERMENEUTICS!
1. Paul gave instructions, asking them not to speak in gibberish at the same time!
2. Let someone interpret what one is saying!
3. It can only be three at the most!
NOW ASK YOURSELF THIS QUESTION MY FRIEND, AND PLEASE GIVE THE READER AN ANSWER!
1. Did the Apostles need instruction from the HOLY GHOST when it came to speaking in Other Languages than their own? If So please give the New Testament reference!
2. Did the Apostles speak at the same time or did they speak in order as Paul (via Holy Ghost)instructed the Corinthians to do? If they had to speak in order, please give the New Testament reference!
3. Did anyone at Pentacost hearing the Apostles, need an interpreter to understand there own Languages? If So please give the New Testament reference!
4. The four (4) occasion where Languages (tongues) were spoken (Acts 2:4, Acts 10:46, Acts 19:6, Acts 22:2), did the Apostle(s) or those speaking have to do it "in order", did they need an "interpreter" or was there one present, did those whom here them speaking not understand there own language? If So please give the New Testament reference!
For simple questions because I know that the Bible is simple and I thank God that I have not had any schooling on this, I think that schooling some times takes the simplicity of Eesho M'sheekha from the WORD!
Now what does this have to do with the present time? Everything, even the bible tells you that the Prophecy was fulfilled: Let's read what the Holy spirit said through Apostle Peter:
Acts 2:16
16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
Now I have to say the the word "that" above in the verse is in ITALICS in the KJV meaning it is not in the Greek Codices. BUT, the word "this" is NOT in ITALICS and is in the Greek Codices, and it is defined as such:
Strong's Greek Definition for # 5124
5124 // touto // touto // too'-to //
neuter singular nominative or accusative case of 3778 ; pron
AV - this 199, therefore + 1223 44, that 22, for this cause + 1223 14,
wherefore + 1223 7, it 5, not tr 1, misc 25; 317
1) that (thing), this (thing)
Wow, did you see that?
So Peter flat out said that "THIS IS THAT ", and he did not add "AND GOING TO BE", what was spoken by the Prophet Joel!
Now you will not find one example after the Book of Acts of anyone speaking in Languages (tongues) giving by the Holy Ghost? I think not, because it was fulfilled.
All the gifts of the Apostles will not be done in today's time! If you know anyone claiming to have these gifts, please let me know, and I will show you someone who is False, how would I do that, test them, simply test them, and the only grades they can get is an "A" or and "F".
A = Acts of the Apostles
F = False Prophets
Nothing in Between!
Ron
Ron,
Your interpretation, if we can call it that, contradicts scripture. I Corinthians 12 lists speaking in tongues as a gift of the Sirit given to the body of Christ. So your theory that it was only for the apostles on the day of Pentecost contradicts scripture.
Like I mentioned in an earlier post, the uses of tongues in Acts and in I Corinthians are in different contexts. The three occuraces in Acts were used in the context of evangellism. In Acts 2, 3000 people were about to repent and be baptized. In Acts 10, Cornelius and his friends and kinsmen were being evangelized. In Acts 19, a number of people were being evangelized. i Corinthians 14 is about having church meetings that edify the body. the context is different. It is 100% clear from I Corinthians 14 that paul is talkinb bout a genuine gift of the Spirit. he says that he that speaks in tongues edifies himself. That would make no sense if he were talking about fake tongues. He teaches that if tongues are interpreted they can edify the body. You are saying something that goes directly against what the passage teaches. Please read I Corinthians 14 carefully and think about what you are saing before proceeding with this conversation.
Let us look at the quote from Acts 2, in which Peter quotes Joel:
16. But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
17. And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
18. And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:
19. And I will shew wonders in heaven above, a
Your interpretation, if we can call it that, contradicts scripture. I Corinthians 12 lists speaking in tongues as a gift of the Sirit given to the body of Christ. So your theory that it was only for the apostles on the day of Pentecost contradicts scripture.
Like I mentioned in an earlier post, the uses of tongues in Acts and in I Corinthians are in different contexts. The three occuraces in Acts were used in the context of evangellism. In Acts 2, 3000 people were about to repent and be baptized. In Acts 10, Cornelius and his friends and kinsmen were being evangelized. In Acts 19, a number of people were being evangelized. i Corinthians 14 is about having church meetings that edify the body. the context is different. It is 100% clear from I Corinthians 14 that paul is talkinb bout a genuine gift of the Spirit. he says that he that speaks in tongues edifies himself. That would make no sense if he were talking about fake tongues. He teaches that if tongues are interpreted they can edify the body. You are saying something that goes directly against what the passage teaches. Please read I Corinthians 14 carefully and think about what you are saing before proceeding with this conversation.
Let us look at the quote from Acts 2, in which Peter quotes Joel:
16. But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
17. And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
18. And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:
19. And I will shew wonders in heaven above, a