tongues

You should be able to fill in that blank for yourself. In the realm of spiritual things that answer is fairly clear. Let's look at some examples:
If Mohammed is not sent from God, then who is he sent from?
If the teachings of Buddha are not inspired of God, then who are they inspired of?
Getting closer to home now, if the doctrine of purgatory is not a doctrine from God, then from what is it a doctrine of?
If baptismal regeneration is not of God, then what is it of?
If salvation by tongues is not of God, then what is it of?
If tongues is not of God, then what is it of?

The answer, of course is the same in each case. If it is not of God, it is of the devil. All false doctrine is of the devil, and the Bible commands us to have nothing to do with it. Our measuring stick is the Word of God. You cannot demonstrate to a single individual (not even to those that believe in tongues) that tongues is necessary for salvation. This is a false doctrine--the Bible itself would call it a damnable heresy. It comes from the pit of Hell, originating from Satan himself. It denies the very grace of God, and does away with salvation through grace by faith.

If baptism and tongues are necessary for salvation, then why did Christ even spend the time dying on the cross? All you need to do is speak in tongues and be baptized. You have a religion of works, not of grace. You can't have both.
Either salvation is of grace or of works. For you it of works--tongues. Therefore Christ's death and resurrection was in vain.

Understand this verse clearly:
Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Salvation is either of grace or works. It is not both. Your salvation is of works. Tongues is a work. Put in that context it goes entirely against the direct teaching of the Bible, and thus it is of the devil. Plain and simple, isn't it?
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]SMM, still want to "side" with this kind of man?


MEE

 

Bob writes: ""I read back a few posts for something of yours that makes some kind of challenge based on a text - I did not find one.""

I have made some earlier but for the most part Walguy and DHK have made the deeper arguments and I have concured with them. I have not had to be technical or theological (like I could be anyway ) because DHK and Walguy have been. What I am looking for from you and/or anyone else is another argument for the key verses that make sense, other then what we have said.

In 1st Cor. 14 Paul calls "tongues" a "sign" for the unbeliever. To qualify what he means by unbeliever he quotes Isaiah, who is warning the people of Isreal of a coming judgement. The verse says by, "people of foreign tongues" and so on. The whole chapter of Isaiah where the quote is from speaks of a coming judgement. The "tongues" that people had were a warning to the jewish people that a judgement was coming, that is why they were a sign.

What else can those couple verses in 1 Cor. 14 mean if not what I have just said? That is all I am getting at.

Hi Carol, I thought you told me once that you thought I would still be in Heaven, even if if I don't speak in tongues? Maybe I remember that wrong. I do remember you would not call me your "brother" so perhaps that was your way of saying I am bound eternal punishment. Carol, Doesn't the "Blood" come before anything? Couldn't the blood save me in spite of anything else? especially something that I would make an effort to do? --- Just a thought my dear sister (and I do mean "sister")

Carol, people have used the verse at the end of 1 Corth. 12 that says "Do all speak in Tongues?" with you before. We all know the implied answer is no. Is your answer to this is that there was a gift and a baptism of the HS, with evidence of so by speaking in tongues. So two "tongues". The question is why would Paul detail "tongues" so much and not make the distinction for his readers? Also, why can't you believe that the gift has passed, as we have shown in the scriptures but believe the "evidence tongues" remain. Wouldn't that be a better position in light of the evidence we have shown that you never give an alternate meaning for? Hey I just gave you a way out How kind of me

Take care "sister" Carol,

In Christ,
Brian

 

Brian, if tongues are a sign for an "unbeliever" then the believer will speak in tongues. Right?

I'll just let you think about that!

Mark 16:16-17
16) He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17) And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

Yes Brian, the blood does mean everything. What you don't believe is that "the blood" is applied at water baptism. Of course, we know that you don't believe in water baptism, as a must. Right?

Remember at Paul's convertion: Acts 22:16)And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and WASH AWAY THY SINS, calling on the name of the Lord.

Brian, we know that water doesn't wash away sins, but this is where the sins are covered by the blood through water baptism...calling upon the 'name' which is Jesus Christ. Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is another subject and we won't go there!

Acts 2:38...Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,.... See, it's through water baptism and the name of Jesus Christ, that our sins are remitted. Baptisim is important...without it, the blood of Christ isn't applied to our sins.

You are correct about every person not having to have the gift of tongues, as Paul is talking about in Cor. 12. These people already had the Holy Ghost/Spirit, evidenced by speaking in other tongues. There is a difference, but all is done by the Spirit of God. They were just misusing the "gift of tongues," which is not required for salvation.


Why can't I believe that speaking in tongues has passed? Because is hasn't, as you have been led to believe. Brian, the Spirit of God had not left us. Tongues is the evidence that one has received the baptism of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 2:39) For the promise (Holy Ghost) is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

He's still calling!

MEE

 

I welcome some clarification on three points:

1). Seems that many who oppose tongues today argue from silence. "We don't see it mentioned after such and such, so it ended."

Curtis Hutson once said, "You don't base doctrine on what the Bible DOESN'T say; you base doctrine on what it DOES say."

2.) Are there other doctrines that we interpret this way? We base its relevance on what the Bible does not say.

3.) It seems that with tongues, its importance is often determined by the number of times it's mentioned. My question: Why should the number of times even matter? If God said something only once, it's inspired and should be viewed as important.

I realize this topic has been done to death and I'm not trying to convince anyone of one way or the other. But if someone can comment on the method of hermeneutics used to argue from silence, I would appreciate it.

Trust me, I really am trying to see how many in the Baptist church reach their conclusion. At this point in my thinking, I agree with Billy Graham and Tony Evans, both of whom say, "Forbid not to speak in tongues" -- today!

Thanks.

Roscoe

 

My last two questions about tongues (I hope )

1.) If tongues were used for revelation (equivalent to Scripture), then why don't we have the messages that were spoken in tongues recorded as Scripture? When I read Acts, I see people speaking in tongues, but I don't see the tongues interpreted and written down as Scripture for the Church.

2.) Many believe that revelation is given soley through apostles and prophets and preserved as Scripture. Then what about all the other people who spoke in tongues? Since tongues was revelation (many say), does this mean that all those people who spoke gave revelations and are therefore on the level of the apostles and prophets?

Forgive me is my questions are confusing. I'm writing in a hurry.

Roscoe

 

Carol wrote: ""Brian, if tongues are a sign for an "unbeliever" then the believer will speak in tongues. Right?""

Carol, that was funny but not scriptual. The unbeliever spoke of was Jewish or unbelieving Isreal as it were. Therefore, it was only intended for one group of inbelievers and so your interesting riddle goes down the tubes. Also, It doesn't speak of believers except for them to prophecy (speak before others). The unbelievers were being warned, What need of a warning now?

In Christ,
Brian

 

NIC posts

MEE posts

Why the contradiction MEE? What do you believe?
"A double minded man is unstable in all his ways."
DHK

 

Brian, I don't quite understand what you are saying.

Are you saying that speaking in tongues was just for the Jews? Also, what do you mean by "unbelievers being warned?" ...warned of what?

BTW, I'm getting the feeling that you don't like me anymore.

MEE

 

I can't answer from a Baptist perspective (actually I think I could if I needed to ), but I will offer a response typical of what you may hear from an everyday charismatic. I think I can say this since I spent about 20 years going to charismatic/Word of Faith churches.

The typical (if there is one!) charismatic answer would be that tongues and prophecy, as spiritual gifts, were not intended to be the same thing as Holy Writ. Rather they were intended to provide a degree of "revelation" (very loosely applied term, here) of God's will on a personal level or to an immediate audience. Most charismatics I know would not accept the idea of tongues and prophecy having the same level of authority as written Scripture. Rather, they would insist such utterances must be judged by the Scripture.

This is one reason why the argument that the closing of the canon made tongues unnecessary means little to many charismatic folk. Many of them would just say they never insisted that tongues meant the same as Scripture in the first place, so what's the point?

 

I know I'm sort of new here and all, but, for what it's worth, MEE, I still like you.

 

I know I'm sort of new here and all, but, for what it's worth, MEE, I still like you. </font>[/QUOTE]Thanks NIC, that means a lot! *BLUSH*

MEE

 

BRian ,
I am also not sure what you are saying , please clarify!

 

There were two purposes of tongues:

1 Corinthians 13:8-10 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

The first purpose was, like prophecy, to be a form of revelation to the church when the church did not have the complete revelation of God—the complete Bible. When the Bible was completed (made perfect), then “that which was in part” (prophecy, tongues, and revelatory knowledge) ceased. That happened at the end of the first century when the Book of Revelation was completed around 98 A.D. These spiritual gifts were no longer needed after that time. God’s revelation to mankind had been completed. All three of the gifts mentioned in 13:8 have to directly with God’s revelation to mankind, that is the Bible. When the Bible was made perfect, or completed, these gifts ceased.

The Second Purpose:
1 Corinthians 14:21-22 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

It is clear in these two verses that:
First, tongues is a sign to the nation of Israel. Paul quoted from the Book of Isaiah, showing them that tongues is a fulfillment of prophecy to Israel, that though the Jews would hear people speak in foreign languages still they would not believe Him. They would reject Him, and so they did. They rejected their Messiah.
So, verse 22 further explains that these languages (tongues) were a sign specifically to the unbelieving of the nation of Israel, not just the Jews in general, but the unbelieving Jews—to show to them that the gospel message was:
1. an authentic message sent from God, and delivered by the Apostles, and:
2. that this same message was for the Gentiles as well as the Jews.

Tongues were real foreign languages. They were never used in private. They were given as a gift to the local church for the edification and benefit of the whole church. Never did every member of the church have the gift of tongues, nor was every member, nor any member ever told to seek for the gift of tongues. The gift of tongues were always accompanied with someone who had the gift on interpretation.
DHK

 

I've stayed out of this for the past week or so...

I think I will continue to stay out of it...

It's a shame that just when it seems progress is being made in reaching towards *real* discussion some extremist brings in an extreme view making any *real* discussion impossible.

And, BTW, I am still convinced I am both Born-Again *and* a Tongue-Talking Spirit Baptized Believer...

But, it is **JESUS** and **JESUS** alone upon which my eternal salvation is contingent. Faith is both His Completed Work on Calvary, as proven by His Physical Bodily Resurrection from the dead. And, in His Promise to complete that Good Work which He has begun in me.

Sorry... But, until we settle the basics and basis for Salvation... Tongues *has* to take a very distant back seat.

And, furthermore I don't remeber anyone answering my questions about the state of salvation of the thef on the cross or the Ephesian Believers?

 

Hi Carol, atestring. What DHK wrote as the second purpose was what I was getting at. Carol, I still like btw, your my "sister" in our Lord and that won't go away because of a doctrinal difference How I wish you could call me your brother but alas you can't or won't because I don't speak foreign lauguages that I don't know . Anyway, back to the point, I was just showing that you are saying that "ALL" unbelievers didn't speak in tongues, so "ALL" believers should speak in tongues, on any level didn't fit the text. I do know you were mostly being funny.

To Ed or anyone, Give me another explanation to what DHK said the above verses in 1 cor. 14 mean. That is all I asked. If he and I are wrong then those verses must mean something else.

Carol, On another thread a while back I wrote what Acts 2:38 really meant and not what many twist it to mean. I won't go into it here but I will say to read it and see who Peter was talking to and what question he addressed (hint: It is not a verse directly meant for you and me). Your Baptism verse in Mark as well does not hold water in context of the time it was written. I can explain further if you would like.

Warning???? someone asked. The warning of another judgement on Isreal, for their unbelief. I will post some verses from Isaiah, where Paul quoted from.

Tongues was not some huge deal in terms of revelation. It was a huge deal in that the gospel could be shared from a person of one language to a person of another language. Without the complete writtem word much of what was "preached" as it were was revelation to those with the ears to hear.

More later, In Christ,
Brian

 

This is what Paul was quoting from Isaiah 28 (KJV):

11] For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
[12] To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
[13] But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
[14] Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.
[15] Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:
[16] Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.
[17] Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place.
[18] And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it.

In 70AD Isreal was wiped out and driven out of their land. The above pictures what was going to happen. Isreal had been warned and judged before for unbelief and it happened again in 70AD. "Tounges" were God's way of warning unbelieving Isreal what was coming. That is why Paul quoted Isaiah the way he did.

btw, Carol, Acts 2:38 has to do with "unbelieving Isreal", just thought I would point that out as long as I was posting this. Take care,

In Christian Love,
Brian

 

Thanks, Brian.

Roscoe

 

Hehehe.

I was wondering where you were, SMM.

Roscoe

 

Please clarify your position MEE. Answer clearly what NIC is asking. Thank you.
DHK

 

Please clarify your position MEE. Answer clearly what NIC is asking. Thank you.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]I did answer you and NIC, back on page fifteen. Why didn't you answer my question, on the same page?

MEE