1 Cor. 12-14

[John of Japan]

AGAIN....I ask you where in the Bible does it say to win souls with tongues?

I already told you and you ignored it. Charismatics believe that tongues are the sign of the fullness of the Holy Spirit. The Bible says in Acts 4:31, "And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness."

It's as simple as this. If you are not speaking the Word of God with boldness, you are not filled with the Spirit of God. Lay aside your Charismatic books and read the books on the Holy Spirit by the greatly used evangelists and soul winners of the past, like D. L. Moody, R. A. Torrey, John R. Rice and many others. They all say what I am telling you.

 

[12strings]

Seems like we can not get past tongues in this thread...

What about the Word of Wisdom...what do most believe this to be?

You should read Wayne Grudem's chapter that deals with gifts of the Spirit in his SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY. He gives a very balanced view of things, I think.

 

[awaken]

"The intellect gets no benefit" (A. T. Robertson). The text does not say the speaker does not understand what he is saying. That is your interpretation.

If you know what you are saying then why does Acts 14:13 tell you to PRAY for the interpretation?

Actually, no, I did not say that those in Acts 2 interpreted. I believe that they understood what they were saying, because the Bible says, "We do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God." (v. 11). God is not the author of confusion, which is what it would be if they spoke without understanding.

You are not making any sense! On the Day of Pentecost the disciples were speaking in tongues..not to the people, but to God. I have shown scriptures supporting this! Go back and read the thread!

True, He is not the author of confusion! The Jews (devout men) were confused. But it was Peter that straighten them out!

 

[awaken]

I already told you and you ignored it. Charismatics believe that tongues are the sign of the fullness of the Holy Spirit. The Bible says in Acts 4:31, "And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness."

I did not ignore it you are grasping at straws to try this. Because NOWHERE in that sciptures does it mention tongues!

It's as simple as this. If you are not speaking the Word of God with boldness, you are not filled with the Spirit of God. Lay aside your Charismatic books and read the books on the Holy Spirit by the greatly used evangelists and soul winners of the past, like D. L. Moody, R. A. Torrey, John R. Rice and many others. They all say what I am telling you.

You ignore what 1 Cor. 14 says about tongues!

 

[awaken]

You should read Wayne Grudem's chapter that deals with gifts of the Spirit in his SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY. He gives a very balanced view of things, I think.

So what does he say about the WORD of knowledge?

 

[awaken]

If you know what you are saying then why does Acts 14:13 tell you to PRAY for the interpretation?



You are not making any sense! On the Day of Pentecost the disciples were speaking in tongues..not to the people, but to God. I have shown scriptures supporting this! Go back and read the thread!

True, He is not the author of confusion! The Jews (devout men) were confused. But it was Peter that straighten them out!

Sorry! it was on another thread so I will repeat it here...


The people in the crowd said, "we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!" In other words, the disciples were praising God, telling Him of His wonders, as in Psalms 40:5 and 66:3:

"Many, O LORD my God, are the wonders you have done. The things you planned for us no one can recount to you; were I to speak and tell of them, they would be too many to declare." (Psalms 40:5)

"Say to God, "How awesome are your deeds! So great is your power that your enemies cringe before you."" (Psalms 66:3)

Why were the disciples praising God in tongues? Because this is one of the primary purposes for tongues:

"If you are praising God with your spirit, how can one who finds himself among those who do not understand say "Amen" to your thanksgiving, since he does not know what you are saying?" (1 Corinthians 14:16)
On the day of Pentecost the disciples were talking to God in the Holy Spirit (they were praying in the Spirit), they were not sharing the Gospel in tongues.

 

[awaken]

Really???? They didn't give/proclaim the Gospel? Then what kind of "wonderful works of God" (v. 11) did they talk about? Do you seriously believe they were not witnessing of Christ?? Wow, I've never heard that interpretation before, even from Charismatics.
Then you have misunderstood what original Pentecostalism and the Azuza Street Revival was all about. Headline from a New York Newspaper in 1906: "Faith Gives Quaint Sect to Convert Africa" (McClung, op cit, p. 13). You then have no right to claim them as your spiritual forbears.

Tongues as practiced by modern Charismatics is selfish and divisive. They don't use it to win souls, but for their own glory and selfish happiness. Furthermore it is divisive. Three times Japanese Charismatics have caused trouble in my churches in Japan. One time I have had a Japanese woman try to make me talk in tongues (didn't even know where a Bible command was to do so, because there are no such commands). Did they help the Japanese to be better believers? No. Did they help the Japanese believers to witness for Christ? No. They only caused trouble. If modern tongues were Biblical, they would edify, not divide.

Tongues do divide..but it is not of God! It is of satan...satan is trying to keep the truth about the manifestations of the spirit from the people. He is the author of confusion!

What are you talking about.."claiming them as your spiritual forbears"..I know very little about the Pentecostal movement. I was raised Baptist! Just because I am not a cessationist, does not mean I am Pentecostal.

 

[awaken]

It's not a miracle. It is simply special wisdom from God. The mistake most people make is assuming the spiritual gifts are all miracles, but the Bible does not say that.

WHo said it was a miracle?

 

[John of Japan]

If you know what you are saying then why does Acts 14:13 tell you to PRAY for the interpretation?

It's simple. Don't make it difficult and mystical. Have you ever interpreted into a foreign language? I do all the time. And if it is an important message I am interpreting, I pray for God's help.

You are not making any sense! On the Day of Pentecost the disciples were speaking in tongues..not to the people, but to God. I have shown scriptures supporting this! Go back and read the thread!

Sorry, but you are wrong. Peter clearly taught in his message that the event was a fulfillment of Joel 2:28-29, in which all believers would prophesy. So that is what the tongues (other languages) speakers in Acts 2 were doing, they were prophesying to others in tongues they had never learned about the wonderful works of God. You don't prophesy to God, do you? Of course not! So they were prophesying to others in their tongues (languages).

 

[John of Japan]

WHo said it was a miracle?

The usual Charismatic interpretation is that all of the gifts of the Holy Spirit are miraculous. Do you disagree?

 

[John of Japan]

I did not ignore it you are grasping at straws to try this. Because NOWHERE in that sciptures does it mention tongues!

EXACTLY!! That's precisely what I am saying. In Acts 2 they were baptized/filled with the Spirit and spoke in tongues (other languages). Then in Acts 4, Peter was filled with the Spirit but did not speak in tongues, and then all the disciples were filled with the Spirit and did not speak in tongues. So tongues are not a sign of the filling/baptism of the Holy Spirit as the Charismatics say. Therefore we do not need to speak in tongues, we need to witness for Christ to show we are filled with the Spirit.

"Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel" (v. 8).

"And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness" (v. 31).

You ignore what 1 Cor. 14 says about tongues!

Are you kidding? I live with tongues (known languages) every day of my life according to 1 Cor. 14: English, Japanese, Greek (which I teach and translate from), occasionally a touch of Hebrew or Chinese.

 

[John of Japan]

Tongues do divide..but it is not of God! It is of satan...satan is trying to keep the truth about the manifestations of the spirit from the people. He is the author of confusion!

The Holy Spirit unites true believers, He does not divide them. But tongues speakers tried to divide my churches three times.

What are you talking about.."claiming them as your spiritual forbears"..I know very little about the Pentecostal movement. I was raised Baptist! Just because I am not a cessationist, does not mean I am Pentecostal.

The modern Charismatic movement, which developed in the 1960s, has its roots in the Pentecostal movement, which came from the Azusa Street Revival. Pentecostals decided to carry their beliefs into the mainline denominations (including Baptist churches), and began to aggressively do so. The additions to Pentecostal doctrine that Charismatics made included inclusivism (everybody is good, Catholics, Lutherans, 7th Day Advenists, everybody), the terrible, heretical manifest sons of God doctrine, etc.

If you are not a cessationist, that means you come from that strain of church history. I suggest you study up on the history of your Charismatic movement. Nothing like it existed in church history until the 20th century, with the possible exception of the 2nd century Montanists.

Whethero

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Have any of you ever seen someone raised from the dead?

Do any of you know anybody that ever did it?

Me neither.

Smith Wigglesworth reportedly did it.

 

[The Archangel]

If you are not a cessationist, that means you come from that strain of church history. I suggest you study up on the history of your Charismatic movement. Nothing like it existed in church history until the 20th century, with the possible exception of the 2nd century Montanists.

Friend,

I think this may be a bit of an overstatement. I am not a cessationist, yet I agree with everything you've been saying here. And I strongly disagree with your opponent.

As far as tongues go, I whole-heartedly agree that tongues refer to known languages, not some kind of gibberish-speak. Also, I firmly agree that witnessing, sharing the Gospel, etc. is how we must engage our various cultures, not by miraculous so-called "sign gifts."

However, I do not think one has to be a cessationist to agree with what you've been posting here recently on this issue.

The way I answer the question about cessationism (or the lack thereof) and tongues is this:

If I were having a Jonah moment and the plane I was on was flying over Africa and I were somehow sucked out of the plane and survived the fall, is it possible that God could grant me to understand the language of the tribe I land upon, or is it possible He could grant that tribe to understand my language? Yes, absolutely. Is it likely that this type of thing will happen? No, not at all.

The problem with the "Charismatic" view of tongues we see today, as you have rightly noted, is this: It becomes a dividing line between Christians and it does split congregations. My thought is this: It isn't an issue of cessationism; it is an issue of Christian maturity. But, I don't buy the "private prayer language" thing either, unless, of course, it is a known language. If you, for instance, were here in the US and there was a cataclysm of sorts in Japan and you were in private and decided to pray in Japanese to feel closer to your adopted people, that would be proper. To be in private and speak gibberish is improper.

In any event, I think it too general to say that all non-cessationists are lumped in with the Azusa Street tradition of nonsense. It's like the "Good Witch" Glinda asked (with a modification): Are you a good cessationist or a bad cessationist?

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[awaken]

EXACTLY!! That's precisely what I am saying. In Acts 2 they were baptized/filled with the Spirit and spoke in tongues (other languages). Then in Acts 4, Peter was filled with the Spirit but did not speak in tongues, and then all the disciples were filled with the Spirit and did not speak in tongues. So tongues are not a sign of the filling/baptism of the Holy Spirit as the Charismatics say. Therefore we do not need to speak in tongues, we need to witness for Christ to show we are filled with the Spirit.

"Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel" (v. 8).

"And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness" (v. 31).

Are you kidding? I live with tongues (known languages) every day of my life according to 1 Cor. 14: English, Japanese, Greek (which I teach and translate from), occasionally a touch of Hebrew or Chinese.

Where in the Bible does it say you HAVE to speakin tongues everytime you are filled?

You were taught your language? Then it is not a manifestation of the Holy Spirit? Even unbelievers can learn a language!

 

[awaken]

Friend,

I think this may be a bit of an overstatement. I am not a cessationist, yet I agree with everything you've been saying here. And I strongly disagree with your opponent.

As far as tongues go, I whole-heartedly agree that tongues refer to known languages, not some kind of gibberish-speak. Also, I firmly agree that witnessing, sharing the Gospel, etc. is how we must engage our various cultures, not by miraculous so-called "sign gifts."

However, I do not think one has to be a cessationist to agree with what you've been posting here recently on this issue.

The way I answer the question about cessationism (or the lack thereof) and tongues is this:

If I were having a Jonah moment and the plane I was on was flying over Africa and I were somehow sucked out of the plane and survived the fall, is it possible that God could grant me to understand the language of the tribe I land upon, or is it possible He could grant that tribe to understand my language? Yes, absolutely. Is it likely that this type of thing will happen? No, not at all.

The problem with the "Charismatic" view of tongues we see today, as you have rightly noted, is this: It becomes a dividing line between Christians and it does split congregations. My thought is this: It isn't an issue of cessationism; it is an issue of Christian maturity. But, I don't buy the "private prayer language" thing either, unless, of course, it is a known language. If you, for instance, were here in the US and there was a cataclysm of sorts in Japan and you were in private and decided to pray in Japanese to feel closer to your adopted people, that would be proper. To be in private and speak gibberish is improper.

In any event, I think it too general to say that all non-cessationists are lumped in with the Azusa Street tradition of nonsense. It's like the "Good Witch" Glinda asked (with a modification): Are you a good cessationist or a bad cessationist?

Blessings,

The Archangel

Can you show scriptures to back up your opinion?

 

[awaken]

It's simple. Don't make it difficult and mystical. Have you ever interpreted into a foreign language? I do all the time. And if it is an important message I am interpreting, I pray for God's help.

Unbelievers can interpret! Again it can be taught! Sorry folks..but the Bible shows in the NT only believers can manifest the Holy Spirit!

Sorry, but you are wrong. Peter clearly taught in his message that the event was a fulfillment of Joel 2:28-29, in which all believers would prophesy. So that is what the tongues (other languages) speakers in Acts 2 were doing, they were prophesying to others in tongues they had never learned about the wonderful works of God. You don't prophesy to God, do you? Of course not! So they were prophesying to others in their tongues (languages).

Wrong again! Because prophecy is a seperate gift than tongues. In Acts 19 they spoke in tongues and prophesied.

Tongues + interpretation = prophesy

Nobody in Act 10 interpreted tongues. They were magnifying God just like Acts 2.

 

[awaken]

Every passage on tongues in the entire New Testament describes one or both of these two scenarios:

A person delivers a public message in tongues from God to a group of people (such as a church congregation), which is then interpreted through the Holy Spirit either by the speaker or by someone in the congregation. The Bible refers to this as the "gift" of tongues, and it's used in combination with the gift of interpretation. Bible scholars sometimes refer to this as the "public" use of tongues.

A person prays in the Holy Spirit to God. When a person prays in the Spirit, this does not need to be interpreted into the local language because God always understands what the Holy Spirit is saying (although sometimes God gives us the interpretation of what we said in order to edify us and instruct us). The Bible refers to this as "praying in a tongue" (see 1 Corinthians 14:14), "praying with my spirit" (see 1 Corinthians 14:15), "praying in the Spirit" (see Ephesians 6:18), and "praying in the Holy Spirit" (see Jude 1:20). Bible scholars sometimes refer to this as the "private" use of tongues.

In general, when a person prays to God in the Spirit, no-one can understand what he is saying. Therefore, if a person prays out loud in tongues in front of the whole congregation, then no-one in the congregation will receive any benefit from it because they can't understand what he is saying. For this reason, Paul said in the following passages that people should be considerate and take turns when they publicly speak in tongues, and if no interpretation comes forth then the speaker should sit down and continue praying in the Spirit quietly.

A few Bible commentaries seem to focus on Paul's "negative" comments concerning tongues in Chapter 14, as if to say that Paul did not have a high regard for speaking in tongues. But notice in chapter 14 that Paul had nothing but good things to say about tongues when they are used properly. The only time Paul criticized the use of tongues was when the private form of tongues was used publicly (as if delivering a message from God), which resulted in no benefit to the church congregation.

 

[awaken]

1 Corinthians 14:1-3
"Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy. For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit. But everyone who prophesies speaks to men for their strengthening, encouragement and comfort." (1 Corinthians 14:1-3)


Paul described speaking to God in tongues, so this is a reference to the private form of tongues. When we are speaking to God in the Holy Spirit, we are praying in the Spirit.
In the NIV this passage says, "he utters mysteries with his spirit," but notice how this phrase is translated in other versions of the Bible:
"and in spirit he doth speak secrets" (Young's Literal Translation)
"but in spirit he speaks mysteries" (Pocket Interlinear New Testament)
"but in his spirit he speaks mysteries" (New American Standard Version)
"howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries" (King James Version)
"but in the spirit he speaketh mysteries" (1901 American Standard Version)
"he utters mysteries by the Spirit" (New International Version, footnote)
"because he is speaking secrets in the Spirit" (International Standard Version)
"Yet in the Spirit he is speaking secret truths" (Wesley's New Testament)
"but he utters mysteries in the Spirit" (Revised Standard Version)
"in the (Holy) Spirit he utters secret truths and hidden things [not obvious to the understanding]" (Amplified Version)

In all of these versions, the translators had to decide whether or not the word "spirit" should be capitalized as "Spirit," and we can see that different translators made different decisions. However, the overwhelming agreement among these scholars is that when a person is praying "in tongues" then he is praying "in the spirit" or praying "in the Spirit." These phrases can all be used interchangeably because the Holy Spirit puts words into our spirits, not into our minds.

"Praying in tongues" and "praying with his spirit" and "praying in the spirit" and "praying in the Spirit" all mean the same thing.

 

[John of Japan]

Friend,

I think this may be a bit of an overstatement. I am not a cessationist, yet I agree with everything you've been saying here. And I strongly disagree with your opponent.

As far as tongues go, I whole-heartedly agree that tongues refer to known languages, not some kind of gibberish-speak. Also, I firmly agree that witnessing, sharing the Gospel, etc. is how we must engage our various cultures, not by miraculous so-called "sign gifts."

However, I do not think one has to be a cessationist to agree with what you've been posting here recently on this issue.

The way I answer the question about cessationism (or the lack thereof) and tongues is this:

If I were having a Jonah moment and the plane I was on was flying over Africa and I were somehow sucked out of the plane and survived the fall, is it possible that God could grant me to understand the language of the tribe I land upon, or is it possible He could grant that tribe to understand my language? Yes, absolutely. Is it likely that this type of thing will happen? No, not at all.

The problem with the "Charismatic" view of tongues we see today, as you have rightly noted, is this: It becomes a dividing line between Christians and it does split congregations. My thought is this: It isn't an issue of cessationism; it is an issue of Christian maturity. But, I don't buy the "private prayer language" thing either, unless, of course, it is a known language. If you, for instance, were here in the US and there was a cataclysm of sorts in Japan and you were in private and decided to pray in Japanese to feel closer to your adopted people, that would be proper. To be in private and speak gibberish is improper.

In any event, I think it too general to say that all non-cessationists are lumped in with the Azusa Street tradition of nonsense. It's like the "Good Witch" Glinda asked (with a modification): Are you a good cessationist or a bad cessationist?

Blessings,

The Archangel

Actually, friend, the Azusa Street Revival makes a lot more sense to me than modern Charismatics. I mean, a "laughing revival" and that kind of nonsense? But I was only speaking historically, not doctrinally, and the histories bear me out that it started with Azusa Street, went into classic Pentecostalism, and ended up as the Charismatic Movement in the 1960s. Try Aspects of Pentecostal Charismatic Origins, ed. by Vinson Synan, with articles all by Charismatics, and the book I've already mentioned by a Church of God scholar, L. Grant McClune, Azusa Street and Beyond.