For those who speak in tongues...

If the Scripture that I have presented to you didn't support what I say, then you would have something to say about it. But you don't. Your only rebuttal is: "I am not convinced." So what.
So you are not convinced. Does it matter that you are not convinced. Neither are skeptics, agnostics, and unbelievers of all kinds.
"A man convinced agaist his will is of the same opinion still." But you don't even fall into that category. Hundreds of people read this and they see that Atestring is not convinced. So what!

If you had anything convincingly to say you would take the Scriptures and give a rebuttal to what I have said through the Scriptures to you. But you cannot do that. Your only answer is a lame: "I am not convinced."
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Dkh
I have never been pursuasded that the doctrine of total depravity is 100 % accurate but you are making me wonder.
I think you just get a thrill when you argue.
I realize that is hard on you when someone does not agree with you. life can be tough.


BTW on the comment about total depravity I am just kidding so please don't accuse me of a personal attack.

 

Every believer is indwelt by the Holy Spirit. We all need the guidance of the Holy Spirit when we pray. This verse says nothing about speaking in tongues, or anything of any kind of "subsequent" blessing. It speaks only of prayer.

 

If the Scripture that I have presented to you didn't support what I say, then you would have something to say about it. But you don't. Your only rebuttal is: "I am not convinced." So what.
So you are not convinced. Does it matter that you are not convinced. Neither are skeptics, agnostics, and unbelievers of all kinds.
"A man convinced agaist his will is of the same opinion still." But you don't even fall into that category. Hundreds of people read this and they see that Atestring is not convinced. So what!

If you had anything convincingly to say you would take the Scriptures and give a rebuttal to what I have said through the Scriptures to you. But you cannot do that. Your only answer is a lame: "I am not convinced."
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]AS Respectful as i can be about this. I have read your post over a period of time and you simply have not convinced me. What Am I supposte to do fall on my face and declare that you are right when you have not convinced me.
I believe that you have a burr in your saddle against certain groups of people Not just Pentecostals. I wonder why, you are known more for what you do not believe than what you believe.
Many people post a response and you will not answer their questions or comments but you get bent out of shape when you are not answered as you want to be.
I have decidded to not respond to any of your comments because it seems that you cannot play on an equal playing field with people.
You should know now why I am ignoring you.
ATESTEING

 

"Many people post a response and you will not answer their questions" For example???
Unless it is of a personal nature, I try and answer anyone's question (esp. Bible-related). If it happens to go unnoticed, or unanswered for some reason it is not deliberate. So I really don't know what you are speaking of when it comes to that topic.
That is why I gave you the answer I did. I have answered all your posts (responses), and you have nothing left to give. This is the third time you have simply come back and said: "I am not convinced," and yet you cannot show why, from the Scriptures, you are not conviced.

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by music4Him:
Jude 1:18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.
Jude 1:19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.
Jude 1:20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Every believer is indwelt by the Holy Spirit. We all need the guidance of the Holy Spirit when we pray. This verse says nothing about speaking in tongues, or anything of any kind of "subsequent" blessing. It speaks only of prayer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dhk, how does one pray in the Holy Ghost, in your opinion?

Peace,

Tam

 

Atestring, you disagreed with my example of how tongues were used in the early church but I have not seen you show a way that Tongues could be used as a gift and all in the assembly be edified. My example was based on how tongues are described and on plain logic. Give me another way and I will consider it. Thanks


M4H, vs. 2 is a negative statement. For one translators may have goofed up by making God have a capital. In Greek there are no capitals and no words like "a", from what I understand anyway. It is possible Paul is saying that they are speaking to "a god". Anyway, even if Paul meant god, many unbelievers speak to God without it meaning anything because they don't KNOW God and also so believers can speak to God in a wrong way, that is with the wrong motivation. Anyway, verse 2 is a negative and unknown before tongues means gibberish to the KJV translators.

vs. has nothing to do with tongues, you are running two gifts and two thoughts together. vs. 3 is the reason prophecy is being hailed by Paul and tongues rebuked.

vs. 4 1 cor. 12:7 does not allow for a gift to be used for self-edification. We can build ourselves up with fellowship and Bible reading, etc... but not Gifts, for they are not for us but for the "body".

vs. 5 I explained this earlier, it is hyperbole, it is not possible for all to speak in tongues, see my previous post on this.

vs. 6 is obvious from the text. There must be understanding when tongues are spoken.

M4H, You still want to read 1 Cor. 14 as some kind of tongue endorsement and it just isn't. It is a rebuke of fake tongues and a caution, at best, in regards to proper tongue use.

Hope you are well!!

In Christ,
Brian

 

**In Greek there are no capitals and no words like "a", from what I understand anyway. It is possible Paul is saying that they are speaking to "a god". Anyway, even if Paul meant god, many unbelievers speak to God without it meaning anything because they don't KNOW God and also so believers can speak to God in a wrong way, that is with the wrong motivation. Anyway, verse 2 is a negative and unknown before tongues means gibberish to the KJV translators.**

Briguy,

I find your method of interpretation to be rather subjective and potentially dangerous. Right after this Paul says, "I would that you all spake with tongues." Why would Paul suddenly start talking about worshipping God in tongues in pagan worship sandwiched between comments about real spiritual gifts? Notice the build-up of the argument. He that speaks in tongues speaks not unto men but unto God. he that prophesies edifies the church. What you are saying makes no sense. It defies the context. Prophecy here is clearly a true gift. it follows that tongues is a true gift.

And before this, Paul starts talking about 'gifts.' I am pretty sure that the Greek word 'charism' or 'charismata' is not used to refer to pagan manifestations. 'Pnuema' can be as we see in chapter 12. Paul might use 'pneuma' to refer to either pagan or Christian manifestations. But since 'charism' is related to the Christian concept of 'grace' it is something that comes from God, not a pagan manifestation. So if Paul says to desire spiritual gifts--charismata, and then starts talking about tongues and prophecy, it just makes no sense to say that the tongues are not charisms, but some kind of pagan manifestation.

And the whole book says nothing at all about pagan speaking in tongues. It just does not come up.

You are adding in the idea that in one verse tongues refers to an unknown tongue, and in another it refers to a known tongue. How do you differentiate when a word means one thing, and when it means another-- just based on what you want it to mean or think it should mean. This is no basis for interpreting scripture.

It makes sense that 'tongues' means the same thing throughout the chapter. It makes sense that speaking in tongues in this chapter is a spiritual gift, and not a pagan manifestation. Our interpretation must line up with the context. we should not interject our own ideas into the text.

 

DHK

I don't recall your giving me an answer to this question. How do you explain this?

The Bible lists multiple purposes for tongues, such as edifying the speaker-- and the congregation if used with interpretation, and also as a sign. If you argue that the function of tongues as a sign has ceased, how can you argue that the gift has ceased if there are other purposes for the gift? The church still needs edifying.

 

Why don't you go to several churches
that allow tongues. Go with a sincere heart and find these answers for yourself.

 

Quote by Brian:
------------------------------------------------
vs. has nothing to do with tongues, you are running two gifts and two thoughts together. vs. 3 is the reason prophecy is being hailed by Paul and tongues rebuked.
------------------------------------------------

On the contrary read v.5&6 and that will be how tongues and prophecy run together.
I would that you all spake with tongues, but rather that you prophesied........

......(v.6 except I speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?

Not an extravagant exaggeration used as a figure of speech (ie hyperbole)

Its so simple even a babe can understand it.

 

Its not negative because look what the first verse says.
1Cor 14:1 Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.
1Cor 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

 

#1. Does tongues edify the speaker. The answer is no. First, Biblical tongues (now ceased), were foreign languages. If Paul went to Spain (as is supposed), and God gave him the gift of speaking Spanish, it would not edify Paul unless he had prayed that he himself would also have the gift of interpretation, so that he could understand what he was saying. There is no edification without understanding! That is the underlying them throughout the fourteenth chapter of First Corinthians.
Secondly, Tongues does not edify the speaker because it is not biblical. ALL the spiritual gifts, including tongues, were given for the benefit of the whole church, the entire church. Tongues is not a selfish gift just for one person. It doesn't just edify the speaker for it was not meant for just the speaker. That part is just unbiblical.
Thirdly, As tongues realtes to the modern mystical gibberish that is wrongly called "speaking in tongues" today, the answer is still No. It doesn't edify anyone, and only makes the devil happy. Gibberish isn't speaking in tongues (languages). It is a search of a mystical experience that gives an emotional high, an ecstasy--for some similar to the high that some drugs would give. Then you have a let-down, and you need to pump yourself up again by speaking in tongues all the more. It's a dangerous game to play--certainly not of the Holy Spirit, not a language, not even a heavenly one.

#2. Does it edify the congregation if used with an interpreter?
The Biblical answer to that is yes, provided it was used for the purpose that God gave it:
1. to authenticate the messenger and its message (the apostles)
2. as a sign to unbelieving Israel.
--Both of those conditions were present in the first century.

However both of those conditions are not present it today's situation. It was a sign to unbelieving Israel. It isn't a sign forever. It was a sign for a reason. The sign had an impending judgement. God was saying that I have spoken to you in a language you can and have understood and you have not obeyed. There will come a time when I will speak in a language you cannot understand. That is a sign. If you do not obey then, be sure judgment is nigh. They did not obey. They crucified the Lord Jesus Christ. Still they did not obey at Pentecost, and throughout the book of Acts as opportunity after opportunity presented itself. Paul turned to the Gentiles because of their unbelief. And that particular prophecy was fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

As for today, gibberish doesn't edify the congregation, and is untranslatable. If no one knows what is being said no one can know how to translate it. No one can verify either the message or the translation thereof. It is a hoax.

#3."If you argue that the function of tongues as a sign has ceased, how can you argue that the gift has ceased."
--As I already explained above the gift was a sign. The two are the same. Believers were edified with a translator (interpreter), but at the same time it was used as a sign.

It did however have another purpose according to 1Cor.13:8-13--and that falls into the category of edification of the church without being a sign. I believe that tongues was sometimes used (as the gift of prophecy was) to give revelation to the church while the canon of Scripture was not yet complete. With the completion of the Book of Revelation, that purpose also was completed and thus tongues was not needed any longer. That is a third purpose. But it also ended at the end of the first century.

#4. The church still needs edifying.
--Indeed it does. But it doesn't need tongues.
God has given us pastors, preachers, evangelists, teachers to edify the church. There are many ways in which our church is edified. We are commanded even to edify one another. The churches today do quite well without the sign gifts that passed out of existence in the first century.
DHK

 

Briguy,

A word of comfort or exortation to the body is given in a heavenly tongue....a "foreign" language of course...and when someone else gives the meaning in the native language everyone is blessed.

I've given you one. I have been in meetings many many times when this has happened.

God bless,

Mike

 

Speaking of Tongues

It was an obvious rebuke. The verse is connected to chapter 13. It was love that they were to seek after. Spiritual gifts without love were in vain. As is pointed out he is addressing a congregation not an individual. Go back and study chapter 12. God gave out gifts providentially. Usually one person was given one gift. That is how the church was built. Look again at the illustration of the body that Paul gives.
Nowhere are we told to seek after tongues.
DHK

 

NASB 1 cor. 14
1(A)Pursue love, yet (B)desire earnestly (C)spiritual gifts, but especially that you may (D)prophesy.
2For one who (E)speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks (F)mysteries.
3But one who prophesies speaks to men for (G)edification and (H)exhortation and consolation.
4One who (I)speaks in a tongue (J)edifies himself; but one who (K)prophesies (L)edifies the church.
5Now I wish that you all (M)spoke in tongues, but (N)even more that you would prophesy; and greater is one who prophesies than one who (O)speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may receive (P)edifying.

KJV 1 Cor. 14
1Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.
2For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
3But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.
4He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
5I would that ye all spake with tongues but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

Young's translation
1Pursue the love, and seek earnestly the spiritual things, and rather that ye may prophecy,
2for he who is speaking in an [unknown] tongue -- to men he doth not speak, but to God, for no one doth hearken, and in spirit he doth speak secrets;

M4H and Link. These are tricky verses to understand and must be read carefully. Unfortunately we all read these verses with a thought already in mind and so it makes it even harder to understand. Look at verse 2. It says that the person there speaking in tongues is speaking to God. That would seem like the best thing of all, right? Speaking to God is better then speaking to men, right? Well look at verses 3 and 5. Prophecy is greater then uninterpreted tongues, even though, by your way of understanding verse 2, uninterpreted tongues is directly speaking to God. So, by your way of looking at these verses it is better to speak regular words to a man then speak mysterious words to God, or to speak to God in a private language. It can't possibly be better to speak to men then to God if verse 2 is a good thing. But alas, verse 2 is not a good thing and so it makes sense with verse 3 and 5. Using your breath (spirit) to speak mysteries to God when you don't understand what you are saying and neither does anyone else, is a bad thing and that is why Paul is saying to prophecy. Now the KJV writers wanted this to be clear so they added "unknown" to the text. There is no such thing as a language that is "unknown". If it is a real language it is known to someone, therefore the KJV writers are saying this use by Paul is gibberish, or a false tongues. In verse 5 they acknowledge the real gift of tongues is the meaning. Young's translation of vs. 1 and 2 simplify things a little more. Paul is not condemning real spiritual gifts and encourages the use of the true gifts as they relate to edifying the "body", which is love (charity). The history of the Corinth church was not good. There were even those standing up and cursing the name of Jesus. The corinthians were very confused. One thing that was happening is that the pagan chanting of gibberish was creeping in. It was cool to be shouting out things and speaking in gibberish. Ones who were thought to be spiritual were held in a higher honor and so many spoke in "tongues" without the real gift. Paul is addressing those folks and the real tongue speakers in this letter. Vs. 2 is not a good thing as I have said. We are only to speak to God with our understanding. It is of no use to say words we don't understand and call that prayer. It is just not right and that is what Paul is saying. Prophecy is lifted up here because it comes with understanding every time. Love here is charity or brotherly love and that brings together the point here that edifying others is the key to being a Christian and the proper use of the Gifts. Vs. 5 is clear that the "assembly" (church) must be edified if the gift of tongues is used. Private prayer languages do not fit into Paul's teaching at all. In fact he speaks boldly against praying when the person praying does not know what they are saying.

Mike, Thank you for offering an explanation. So the church is edified because one person stands up and says words that no one understands and another interprets those words to everyone else. OK, I get what you are saying and that does meet the requirements of what I said. There are problems with this which I will address later but it is a way for a gathered assembly to be edified. I admit that. More to come soon.

In Christ,
Brian

 

Brian ,
have you prophesied today?

 

atestring, that is a fair question. I can say no because ir is ealy in the moring and I haven't been around a believers yet, though I did see one in the hall and said "Hi". The word prophecy in Greek means "to speak before" or better said "to speak in front of" It was a speaking gift not a gift of fore telling anything. Now don't mis-understand me, if god wanted to use a certain Prophet (speaker) to tell of some future event then he did. New revelations ended though when the Bible was complete. As to whether the gift of prophecy exists today, I just can't comment right now. There certainly are those in my Christian life that speak to exhortation, encouragement and comfort, which is what the Biblical gift of Prophecy is. It is or was a gift of loving others through what was said. Maybe God has created a "church" now where "prophecy", as spoken of in 1 cor., is a characteristic of all Christians. well at least all christians should display this.
I will let you respond as I am sure you have a greater point to make.

Mike, when someone at your church meetings speaks in Tongues, Hoe is it a "sign" to unbelieving Isreal? If you don't accept that unbelievers in 1 Cor. 14 means Isreal, how are the tongues even a "sign" to unbelivers?

more later,
In Christ,
Brian

 

DHK and Briguy,

What is the source?

Question 1
Is what you are writing scripture?
I would hope that we could agree that what you are typing is not scripture, except when you specifically quote scripture. By the way, I don’t create scripture either.

Question 2
If it is not scripture, what is it?
It’s either your opinion or an interpretation from man, or an interpretation from God.

Question 3
Do you know the source of your writings?
As I hope you are aware, what you are communicating on this topic is not new. That is, you are not originating these concepts. I was basically fully versed in the concepts you are communicating at age 12, in 1967.

But I never fully grasped the implications of not knowing where these thoughts and concepts were sourced from.

These concepts (the doctrine that the gifts have ceased) are not literally from the Scriptures, or the Bible. They are an interpretation of Scripture, and the Scriptures used to support this doctrine are, amazingly, very few.

The doctrine that the gifts have ceased is incredibly well thought-through, highly documented, and disseminated world-wide.

But where did this interpretation originate from? It has been around in the current form for at least 150 years. Before that, it gets a little fuzzy. But I have never been able to ascertain the human source for the doctrine that the gifts ceased at the end of the first century.

Somebody first came up with this doctrine. It wasn’t Paul, or any other New Testament author. It was a human. What I would like to know is who the person is, and did they attribute this doctrines source to the Holy Spirit.

I have brought this up before with other people in discussing this issue, and for some reason, it doesn’t seem to matter to those that hold this doctrine that they have no legitimate source. If you know what person first brought forth these concepts, and the full fledged doctrine that the gifts ceased at the end of the first century, I would really like to know.

 

So would I qwerty. Of course(IMOHO) the seed for that doctrine was planted a long time ago by old slewfoot, and somebody looking for a "new" word from the Lord glommed it up.

If anybody does know who FIRST came up with that doctrine, it sure would be nice to know!

I'll bet some of the scholors here will tell us!

Peace,

Tam

 

Our source is the Bible: the inspired documents which we no longer have, preserved in the many manuscripts which we do have.

I don't write Scripture. No one does. The canon of Scripture is closed and has been closed ever since the book of Revelation was written near the end of the first century. I can quote Scripture, but cannot produce Scripture out of my own will. (2Pet.1:21,22)

Hopefully it is God's interpretation. For the Scripture interprets itslelf. We, like the Roman Catholics, do not depend on Tradition or the early church fathers to interpret Scripture for us. We use the Bible as our final authority in all things pertaining to faith and doctrine. Many people don't. That is why we are so dogmatic on our stand on truth. The more you use your Bible and are confident in its beliefs, the more confident you believe you are right. Plus the fact that the Holy Spirit promises us to illuminate our minds to understand the Scriptures. Thus the unsaved man does not have the understanding that the saved person has.

The source of my writings is the Bible, even if I have to go back to the original langauges to make sure things are what they seem to be in an English translations. That should not be hard to understand.

There are many Scriptures on the gifts of the Spirit. The postion of cessation without a doubt can be proved from Scripture. Here is the problem. Think about this. Along comes the Charismatic and proclaims that "tongues is the truth; the Bible teaches it and nothing you say can say will change my mind." However, having said that the onus is on them to prove their theology. Take the Scripture and demonstrate what you have just proclaimed is true. That is the way it should be done. Usually they try to back us in a corner that we must defend why it isn't true. Let them demonstrate to us with a full fledged theololy why and how the Charismatic movement is for today. I have yet to hear that from any Charismatic.

I can show you from the Scriptures why it is a totally unbiblical theology. But you will just hop here and there taking verses out of context. No, rather give a full-fledged theology, all in harmony with the Bible why the entire movement is of God.

Did Augustine advocate it? Did Chrysostom (sp?) advocate it? NO, not at all. In fact none of the early church fathers did. Throughout church history tongues was spoken only by heretical movements outside the mainstream of orthodox Christianity. It is a cult.

Read 1Cor.12:2,3. Paul attributes it to the mystery pagan religions that originally came from Babylon. That was the background of the believers of Corinth. They were being led astray from their pagan idols (gods) which they used to worship.It existed before the time of Paul in paganism.

First the prayer language.
--Tongues always had to be interpreted. So go into your room and pray in tongues. But that is unbiblical because you don't have an interpreter.
--Secondly, tongues was always for the edification of the entire church. So while you are in your room praying tell me how the whole church is being edified?
Thus as a prayer language tongues is totally unbiblical.

Second, modern tongues is not Biblical because Biblical tongues was always, always a real foreign language, and not just gibberish. It's purposes:
1. It was a sign to unbelieving Israel.
This took place at Pentecost and other places as well. It was prophecied in Isa.28:11,12. It was a sign. A sign takes place at one time. It is not repeated over and over again--all throughout the centuries. It is the 21st century now. The sign was given in the first century to the unbelieving Jew. If they did not accept that sign they could be sure judgement was coming and it did. The sign pointed to judgement. God was saying I have spoken to you in your own language (Hebrew), there will come a time when I will speak to you in Gentile languages (languages that the Jews despised and hated). God did. The Jews knew that this was a sign of impending judgment. They had rejected their Messiah and crucified him. Judgement was coming soon.

3. It was a sign that the church had come and was beginning on the Day of Pentecost--where both Jews and Gentiles would be one in Christ. All who accepted Christ as Saviour would be indwelt with the Spirit and be saved. This was the beginning of a new era--the church era.

4.It was a sign to point out who were the real apostles as opposed to false apostles. In other words it authenticated the message and the messenger. Signs and wonders were the signs of an Apostle (2Cor.12:12; Heb.2:3,4).

All of those signs have been fulfilled in history. We don't have apostles any more. The church has been started. The sign has been given to the unbelieving Jews and rejected. All of these signs were fulfilled in the first century, and thus are no longer needed.
From Scripture itself it is easily proved that tongues has ceased.
DHK