For those who speak in tongues...

Dhk said:
Paul says "Even as also I am known," not "even as God knows me." He doesn't claim that he will know himself like God knows him.

***************************************

Tam says: Let me explain what I did say!

1 Cor 13-12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

Paul is saying that when that which is perfect is come(Jesus) then he Paul will know Jesus, even as Jesus knows him.

And of course you, DHK are reading into the scripture what YOU want it to say.

I'm sorry, but your answer does not line up with what the Holy Spirit has shown me. I know you are a very learned man and in your eyes you are right.

I am at a loss for words on what I can say to you without raising your ire. God is so good, and yet there is such a difference of interpretation of the word of God.

Remember in 1 Cor 12 where it is apparent that not all would/will have all the gifts.

Well, I am certain of one thing without a doubt. There is no way that you were supposed to get ANY of the gifts. Even if you were born back in the days of Paul.

I think I know why. You are such an intellegent man, that you don't need any gifts or helps or anything else from God. You can do it on your own with just the Word. (scripture, bible, translations).

I commend you for walking so uprightly.

Peace,

Tam

 

With all due respect Tam, this is heresy. Paul will never know Jesus as Jesus knows him, for Jesus is God. How is it even possible for Paul to know all there is about God. He would have to be omniscient, an attribute that is attributed to God alone.

The second reason why the "perfect" cannot refer to Jesus, is that the pronoun "that" and the noun, "perfect" are both in the neuter gender. But Jesus is masculine, not neuter. It is impossible for it to refer to Jesus for Jesus is not an "it," He is an HE, masculine. But the Word of God, may be translated with a neuter gender, which again fits the obvious context of revelation, not Jesus.

No, I take things in their context and compare Scripture with Scripture as I have shown you. The context is the revelation of God. Paul has just referred to revelatory gifts in verse 8 and demonstrated how they will pass away. The perfect revelation will come (the Word of God). It is the context here. That coupled with all the other Scripture I have given you with the purpose of sign gifts should be enough to persuade you that this passage is not talking of Jesus but sign gifts and revelation; not Jesus, per se.

Perhaps it is not the Holy Spirit showning you. (And I am not suggesting another spirit--please don't accuse me of that). Perhaps it is just the way you want to believe because this the way you have understood it for so long.

Baptists believe in soul liberty--the right to agree to disagree. As I said before this passage can be debated ad infinitum. That is why I took you to much clearer passages--Scripture that cannot be refuted; that show beyond any shadow of a doubt that tongues have ceased. I don't need the interpretation of 1Cor.13:8-13, to demonstrate that tongues have ceased. It is not a key passage for me. I can use other Scripture very easily.

Quite true--in the first century. And it is apparent in this century that no one has these gifts. They have ceased for the reasons I have given in my previous posts. Tongues, signs and wonders and the gifts of the Spirits were given to authenticate the apostles and their message. That has been done now that we have the completed Word of God. We don't have Apostles. We don't have signs and wonnders. They have ceased. (Heb.2:3,4; 2Cor.12:12)
It was a sign to the unbelieving Jew of the first century. There are no longer any more of those around either, thus the gift has ceased. Its purpose has been fulfilled (1Cor.14:21; Isa.28:11,12)
Stick with the Scriptures. All Scripture must be in harmony with each other, nothing contradicting each other.
DHK

 

You neglected this liitle morsel:

Even if you were born back in the days of Paul

You would not have needed to have the gift of the spirit in whatever year it was that Act ch. 2 happened.

Because you are so able to do it with your own ways.

I will agree to disagree if you will. Shall we let it go with that?

Working for Jesus,

Tam

 

I pointed out to you already the purpose of the gifts of the Holy Spirit in the first century. Tongues especially was given as a sign to the Jews. The other sign gifts were given to authenticate the apostles. Other gifts of the Spirit were given to help the early church of the first century get on its feet. None of them are needed today. We have the completed Word of God. All that we need is in the Scriptures as our guidedbook

Why did Jesus say:
Matthew 12:39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:

--He is referring to the gospel. It is the gospel that saves; not a miracle or speaking in tongues.

Luke 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

--The Scriptures are sufficient. If they won't believe the Scriptures, neither will they believe though miracles are done right before their faces.

Everything we have and need is contained within the 66 books of the Bible.
DHK

 

Will you agree to disagree??

Tam

 

DHK,

You said, 'Tongues especially was given as a sign to the Jews.'

[Quote from Berrian] 'Reread the Word and don't confuse the readers.

The Apostle Paul said, 'Wherefore tongues are for a sign . . . . to those who believe not.' This sign was for both Jews and Gentiles, and keep in mind that the city of Corinth was not a haven for Jewish people, saved or unsaved. Corinth was a sea port city and people from all countries passed through that part of the world by ship and on the trade routes by foot. Greek was the common language of all the people who wanted to do commerce.

God speaking through the Apostle Paul was teach at a Gentile church not in a Jewish synagogue.

While your view is speculative and offered by quasi-theologians and other 'goofs' at least take time to study it for yourself' [End Quote].

 

DHK,

The Scriptural reference is found in I Corinthians 14:22.

 

DHK,

You said, 'He is referring to the gospel. It is the gospel that saves; not a miracle or speaking in tongues.'

Tammy, is way ahead of you spiritually speaking. I am sure she know we are saved by our faith, trust in Jesus as only Savior.

Say something true so we can ingest it and learn.

 

DHK,

You said, 'Luke 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.'

 

If what I said is not true, then the corollary of that is that you must believe that is not the gospel that saves which is heresy. So which one is true?

 

Yes Tam, we can always agree to disagree.

 

DHK wrote,
***My final aurhority is the Bible, not church fathers whose quotes may or may not be taken out of context.
Stick with the Scriptures. That is where the debate is.***

If you assert that spiritual gifts ended after scripture was written, then you are taking the debate out of scripture and into the time period in which scripture was written. The fact that spiriutal gifts DID continue, historically, after scripture

Scripture does not say that tongues and prophecy _had_ ceased, but that they will cease. The Notice no one canshow any scripture at all that says that miracles and healing will cease, yet cessationists believe that they have. Jesus calls casting out demons a miracle or sign. Yet many cessationists believe that casting out demons is possible. The book of Revelation shows that the Two Witnesses will prophesy. Yet some cessationists hold to a futuristic view of Revelation. I can't see one good reason for being a cessationist.

DHK wrote,
**Tongues was a sign of an apostle or one that was closely related to an apostle to affirm both the message and the messenger that they were from God. We don't need that confirmation any longer.**

First, show me scripture to support this statement. This statement of yours is just human opinion. Elsewhere in the same post, you say that tongues are for the edification of the entire church. Even if you argue that we no longer need confirmation that tongues provided (which you have yet to argue a decent case for) we are still left with the fact that the church exists and therefore this is not an argument that tongues ceased.

Secondly, you cannot provide any scripture that shows when the canon was completed, that there was no need for signs to confirm the word. The Gospel is preached for the first time all over the world. Clearly, telling about a miracle that happened 1950 years ago does not have the same impact as doing a miracle on a group of illiterate people. If telling or reading about a past miracle had the same impact, why didn't the apostles just ell about Jesus' miracles, and use that as their evidence. Why didn't Paul just tell about Peter's miracles among the Hebrews when he preached to the Gentiles. Or why didn't Jesus just tell about the miracles Moses' did, since Moses wrote about Christ. He could say Moses' miracles confirmed his ministry. That may have been a valid argument, but it is not very persuasive to the unbeliever.
The idea that the function of miracles as a sign ceased because they already confirmed scriptures is lacking for two reasons.
1. The Bible does not teach this concept.
2. It does not make sense since unbelievers hearing or reading about past miracles does not have the same effect as seeing miracles themselves.
Pay careful attention to number 1. Since the Bible does not teach this concept, you are using extra-scriptural doctrine to persuade people to disobey direct commands of scripture like 'despise not prophesyings.'
Even if tongues served as a sign 'for the Jews', it is clear from I Corinthians that they had a 'non-sign' function for the church-- edification. The church has not ceased to exist and still needs edification. Tongues with interpretation were used to edify the church in the first century, without serving as a sign to believers. If their function as a sign ceased, it makes no sense to say tongues ceased because they served a non-sign function with believers. This is overlooking the fact that I Corinthians 14 says that tongues are a sign 'to them that believe not' and not Jews per se. It also says nothing about the judgment of Israel in 70 AD.

DHK wrote in answer to Music4Him's question
**The question on that thread was answered. I will state it again. In 1Cor.13:10 "that which is perfect" is stated in the neuter case. Christ is a masculine noun. It cannot refer to Christ. Love is a feminine noun. It cannot refer to love. The love in John 3:16 "God so loved..." is a verb and must agree with the subject "God," also masculine. Thus none of these fit. The most logical case, give the context of "revelation" is "revleation" the revelation of God's Word--the Bible. Whe the Bible was "complete" then that wich was in part--temporary gifts--were done away.**

You are making a really weak argument. I asked a PhD in Greek and Latin about this once, who had worked at a center set up by Harvard and read Greek for decades. He could think of a few examples from the New Testament of a case or two where nouns and their referents did not match up in terms of case off the top of his head. This was several years ago, but I recall he mentioned a feminine and a nueter form referring to the same thing in one of the epistles to the Thessalonians.

What makes your argument particularly weak is that this is not a fill-in-the-blank madlib, where you plug something in that fits the grammar. This is an abstract concept, not a specific word. There is no noun in the passage, that 'that which is perfect' should match with in terms of case. So I don't see how you have an argument at all.

Also, if we look at the context of the epistle as a whole, it makes sense that Paul is talking about the state of the believer at the resurrection of the dead, because he expands on that topic in chapter 15.

I did not catch your response to my question. How can you believe that 'the perfect' is the completed canon, since interpretating the passage as such makes you and all of us spiritually more mature than the apostle Paul was when he wrote this. Scripture carries apostolic authority. If we are superior to the apostles because we have the completed canon, and their understanding was childish, then doesn't that reflect poorly on the authority of the scriptures? If they were written by kids with childish spiritual understanding, why would the scriptures make us spiritual adults in our understanding if we read them. Your interpretation of the passage does not make sense because it leads to these illogical conclusions.

 

DJK,

Read the Word. Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles; Peter was the apostle to the Jews. End of story!

Obviously, each apostle was instrumental in winning anyone who would believe and trust in Jesus, both Jew and Gentile.

Particular nationalities like Italians, Greeks, or Jews usually live in the same neighborhood, especially in Biblical days. The Jewish Temple was the center of their devotion not off in a pagan Gentile, wicked city like Corinth. Remember, Paul, is the apostle to the Gentiles.

 

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Please read your Bible. Study the Book of Acts and stay away from your pre-conceived ideas. In the book of Acts, Paul, on his three missionary journeys, always made it his habit to go the Jews first and then to the Gentiles. Apostle to the Gentile or not, the great burden on his heart "my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved." (Rom.10:1)

Apostle to the Gentiles or not, Paul went to the Jews first. Historical facts must be honestly faced. Read the 18th chapter of Acts which I even posted for you. "A great many of the Jews were persuaded." If you fail to believe the Scriptures then what will you believe?
DHK

 

This is a tangent, I realize, but it does not make sense to say that if were to become omniscient in the resurrection, that we would become god or take anything away from God. God is a Being, not just an attribute. If men were made omniscient, that would not make us all powerful or omnipresent.

If I were the only person in the world who could run a 2 minute mile, and DHK practiced until he could run a 2 minute mile, DHK would not become me.

 

You are the one asserting something unbiblical. It can be shown from the Bible that the gifts have ceased. I have already done that--many times over.

That is only in one early epistle--1Corinthians. There are many other Scriptures which indicate that they already have ceased. You fail to look at all the Scripture.

Either you fail to look at them, or to believe them, or your mind is just made up not to believe (which is probably the case).
Here are some examples:
Acts 5:16 (an example of the Apostolic gift of healing which cannot be duplicated today.
--All the sick from all the cities round about Jerusalem came to be healed--and they were all healed--everyone of them.
There is no one that can do that today. Reason? The gift of healing has ceased. Note that I did not say that God does not heal. I said the gift of healing has ceased.
The gift of miracles has ceased. Peter walked on water. I haven't seen anyone do that lately. Have you? The gift of miracles have ceased.
Why have they ceased? Because the Scriptures tell us so.

Hebrews 2:3-4 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?
--These were the signs of an Apostle. The Apostles were all dead by the end of the first century. No apostles; no signs and wonders. They are no longer needed. We have the completed Word of God. Jesus said that it is an evil and adulterous generation that seeks after a sign.

2 Corinthians 12:12 Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.
--Signs and wonders--the marks of an apostle.

Perhaps they have a more Biblical theology. I am a dispensationalist. In this dispensation the gifts of the spirit have ceased. They are no longer needed. I am not speaking about the Tribulation Period. I am not speaking about the Millennial Kingdom. I am speaking about the Church Age, or this day and age of grace. To bring the 2 prophets of Revelation 11 which will prophecy in the Tribulation Period is simply a red herring. It is during a different time period.

I have already shown you scripture for this--Heb.2:3,4 and 2Cor.12:12.
So, no; it is not an opinion. It is a Scripturally based conclusion.
--In the first century, when tongues was a valid gift, (as Paul used it) it would edify the entire church, not just Paul. That is what Paul taught.

The writers of the New Testament were the Apostles. When the Apostles died the gifts died with them. The gifts were to authenticate the message and the messenger--that is the Apostles. There were many claiming to be apostles. Those who had the ability to do signs and wonders demonstrated that they were from God. It set them apart from the false teachers or prophets. They authenticated their message. These were sign gifts. A sign points to an event. A sign doesn't last for 21 centuries. It points to an event and then it is over. It fills its purpose in history and then disappears from the scene. That is how a sign works. It works the same way that the sign given Isaiah 7:14 worked:

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
--This sign was fulfilled in the virgin birth of Christ--an historical event. Yet the Charismatics would have us believe that the birth of Christ is happening as a coninuing event every day from the day he was born even up until today. Why, everyone should have "a birth of Christ." This is the ridiculous reasoning of the Charismatics. Signs cease. This sign came to a fulfillment and ceased when Christ was born and all know that very well.
Tongues was a sign. When its purpose was fulfilled at the end of the first century, the gift ceased to be. There have been many counterfeits since then, but the Biblical gift ceased.

You are not even being logical here.
First, the miracles that Jesus did, no one had ever seen before. They attested to his deity. No one could do the miracles he did; not before, not during, and not after his ministry. He alone could control the forces of nature. He demonstrated that he was God come in the flesh through his miracles.
Secondly, Jesus gave some of that power: first to the twelve when he sent them out; then to the seventy when he sent them out two by two, and then finally to the 120 on the day of Pentecost--all that he had left after three years of ministry. But generally speaking the signs and wonders were confined to the Apostles.
By the time the Word of God was completed there was no more need for miracles and signs and wonders. Everything we need to know about God is contained in the Word of God. One might ask the same type of question to Charismatics. Why do all the Charismatic missionaries, who believe in speaking in tongues, have to sit down and study the foreign language of the nation that they are going to? Some contradiction there isn't it? If you really believed in the gift of tongues then you would pray or seek for the gift as you say you do, and God would give all your missionaries the gift of tongues (languages) of the nation that they were going to. That was one of the purposes of tongues. But unfortunately your experiences don't match with your theology.
If you really believed in healing, then why do most Charismatics still where eye-glasses? Another glaring contradiction.

Opinions don't count for much. The Bible teaches that signs (miracles) ceased with the apostles. They were the signs of an apostle, and we don't have them today. The last one to die was the Apostle John. Would you like to greet him for me if you see him around?

This is "a bunch of baloney." Miracles never saved anyone or caused anyone to believe.
What did Christ say on the matter.

Matthew 12:39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
--Who seeks after miracles (signs)? What will be given to them? Only the gospel. That is all the sign or miracles that they need.

Luke 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
--If they don't believe the Scriptures, then no amount of miracles will convince them either. It is the Word of God that must convince them.

Jesus himself said that he could do no miracles in Capernaum because of their unbelief, meaning that there was so much unbelief in that city that no amount of miracles that he would do would ever convince any one there to believe. It was a wicked city.

No, I have used over and over again different portions of the Bible. You just don't like what I say. You have a different opinion, and no matter what Scripture I present--even if it were 500 or more Scriptures on the topic, you would still not believe because your mind is made up.

You must consider the primary purposes of tongues:
1. As a sign to the unbelieving Jews.
2. As a sign to authenticat the Apostles and their message.
These were the two primary reasons. All other purposes were secondary to these. Though there may have been secondary blessings associated with tongues these were the two major reasons for the gifts--a sign to the Jews, and a sign to authenticate the Apostles. Once these signs were fulfilled, not matter what other purposes one can find, they are irrelevant for the gift of tongues has ceased because the main function for them has ceased.

I have studied a number of languages now, znc zm in fluent in three. Unlike English, most of the languages that I have studied genders must agree or grievous errors are made in grammar. Gender is very important and cannot be over-looked despite what others have told you. Feminine nouns have no place when trying to be forced into the statement where masculine pronouns are being used. Likewise masculine nouns won't work either. Those are the plain facts. Neuter genders will take neuter objects. That is the plain sense of grammar.
DHK

 

DHK...

Good grief.

Lets take a look at the passage in question...

I'm stunned that you actually believe that all of that is hypothetical, and none of it is possible.

"And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing "

Are you actually saying that it is not possible for us to...

1) Have the gift of prophecy.

2) Understand mysteries.

3) Possess knowledge.

4) Have faith.

5) Give things up to help the poor

6) Be killed as a martyr by being burned to death.

You are actually saying that none of that is possible. This is amazing. Christians are certainly capable of participating in all those things. And since christians are clearly capable of participating in all of those things, what you are *actually* saying is that christians CAN participate in each of the things mentioned in this passage...having faith, possessing knowledge, understanding mysteries, giving things up to help the poor, and being martyred by being burned to death...EXCEPT ONE.

Speaking with the tongues of a heavenly language.

In spite of the fact that people do it every day, and have been doing it for 2000 years now.

No...it would not be in my mind since I had not learned it. It would be in my voice box and tongue...if I had the gift of tongues as some other brothers and sisters do. I do not, at least not now. God can grant me the gift any time He wants to.

When they were here on earth. Just like they took human form sometimes when they were here on earth. From the decriptions we have of them otherwise they look different in heaven...so why would it be a surprise that they speak differently as well?

That is a perfectly legitimate happening when the gift of tongues are granted. It happened 2000 years ago and it happens sometimes now. But the other form of tongues is every bit as appropriate...since it is taught in the scriptures.

It is referred to as speaking in the "tongues of angels", and the scriptures speak of it as being completly appropriate as a personal prayer language, or it can be interpreted in a gathered assembly.

I've never said that there is no counterfiet. In case you dont know, Hindus, Buddhists, New Agers and others speak in "tongues". And in some fringe christian movements there is some excess. I've never denied any of that. I am speaking of the legitimate gift...not the counterfiets.

Grace and Peace,

Mike