For those who speak in tongues...

[Briguy]

Hi Mike, Thanks for the post. I think it is best to look at tongues totally independent of the other gifts, at least for now. When Tongues is said by Paul, that they will "cease", that is a particular verb that was used. In Greek it is a reflexative verb. It means that Tongues will end all by themselves, nothing happens to make them end. They just fade out like a burning candle. There is no debate on that as it is simply in the scripture that way for a reason. (there is a different verb used for Prophecy and Knowledge and it means something will happen to make them end). Tongues were a "sign". They pointed to something that was coming. When the something arrived, "tongues" faded away, because they had no purpose. Would you put a "curve ahead" road sign after the curve? No, you wouldn't. Look at Isaiah 28, it is referring to the fall of the house of Isreal and her being scattered. This happened in about 70AD and after that, Tongues faded away because there was no purpose for them, They pointed to an event and the event was over. Have you ever see a "sign" (a billboard perhaps) that has a advertising for something that is long past. We all see those and they seem very odd and out of place. So it is with tongues today, they have no purpose so do not exist in the form they did when they were in use as a sign. That was just an outline of something you can study deeper if you choose to.

M4H, I have said many times before that gifts are within us and up to us as to how and when we use them. I am of the belief that the sign gifts, tongues, Int. of tongues, healings, and miracles, are gone. I do believe the service gifts remain. Those gifts are just in us and we decide when and where to use them. A gifted teacher of the Bible does not wait for God's special empowerment every time he teaches. He has the gift and exercises it at will. The one who is gifted in administration, within the assembly, just administrates because it is in him. God calls them "gifts" for a reason. Gifts are something fully given from one person to another. The receiver owns the gift once given. The receiver operates the gift and makes the decisions regarding the gift. If someone gave you a car would they not also give you the keys? God would do no less for us. Anyway, as DHK said if miracles and healings were for today those with the gifts could use them anytime and easily clear out a hospital with no problem and every person would be fully healed. There is no place in the Bible where some gifts are said to operate differently then others. Do you agree that the service gifts belong to the believer and are used as the believer chooses?? Then any miraculous gift we be the same, but we just don't see that today. Think about this, Paul's hankerchiefs, filled with sweat, healed people. Peter's very shadow was able to heal. Those gifts were so powerful they oozed right out of those guys. Don't just wave your hand at that. I realize that is a weird thought but think it through, it actually makes sense and is pretty cool.

Mike, please comment on the idea of Tongues being a sign, as that is not a debatable point. Thanks!

In Christ,
Brian

 

[tamborine lady]

 

[DHK]

Acts 5:16 There came also a multitude out of the cities round about unto Jerusalem, bringing sick folks, and them which were vexed with unclean spirits: and they were healed every one.

Jerusalem in and of itself is a large city. There would have been plenty of sick people just in Jerusalem. But Luke records that it wasn't just the sick of Jerusalem that came to Peter. It was the sick people from all the cities that surrounded Jerusalem as well as Jerusalem. That was a great multitude of sick folk, as the verse says--a multitude out of the cities

And who did Peter (who had the gift of healing) heal?
and they were healed every one.

EVERY ONE!!

Does that take place today? No, not anywhere in this world! The gift of healing has ceased. This does not take place. I have challenged you to show me where it does take place, and you have all failed to do so. The gift of healing--the Biblical gift--has ceased. This is evident to all who accept the Scriptures.
DHK

 

[D28guy]

Brian,

"I think it is best to look at tongues totally independent of the other gifts, at least for now."

Why? God speaks of them many times as being one of several gifts of the Holy Spirit. But if you want to thats OK with me.

"When Tongues is said by Paul, that they will "cease", that is a particular verb that was used. In Greek it is a reflexative verb. It means that Tongues will end all by themselves, nothing happens to make them end. They just fade out like a burning candle. There is no debate on that as it is simply in the scripture that way for a reason. (there is a different verb used for Prophecy and Knowledge and it means something will happen to make them end). Tongues were a "sign". They pointed to something that was coming. When the something arrived, "tongues" faded away, because they had no purpose."

Correct, and we are told about it in 1 Corinthians. We are told that when that which is "perfect" has come, than that which is "in part" will pass away. Do we live in a world and existence that is "perfect". Of course not. These gifts of the Spirit...such as tongues...will not be needed in heaven. (that which is "perfect")

"Would you put a "curve ahead" road sign after the curve? No, you wouldn't. Look at Isaiah 28, it is referring to the fall of the house of Isreal and her being scattered. This happened in about 70AD and after that, Tongues faded away because there was no purpose for them, They pointed to an event and the event was over."

Thats one application of Isaiah 28. Many believe that this is a passage of scripture that has more than one application. And the application you bring up is indeed a legitimate one. However, there is nothing in the passage to suggest that the tongues spoken of in vs 11 and 12 will cease.

"Tongues faded away because there was no purpose for them,"

As I posted earlier, I have heard many testimonies from born again people in this day who witnessed the accompanying signs...which confirmed the gospel message, just as in the 1st century....and they embraced Christ as a result. Not everyone needs those gifts, but God knows those who will be influenced by them.

God bless,

Mike

[ October 21, 2005, 02:03 PM: Message edited by: D28guy ]

 

[D28guy]

DHK,

"Jerusalem in and of itself is a large city. There would have been plenty of sick people just in Jerusalem. But Luke records that it wasn't just the sick of Jerusalem that came to Peter. It was the sick people from all the cities that surrounded Jerusalem as well as Jerusalem. That was a great multitude of sick folk, as the verse says--a multitude out of the cities

And who did Peter (who had the gift of healing) heal?
and they were healed every one.

EVERY ONE!!

Does that take place today? No, not anywhere in this world!"

How do you know?

Are you saying that you have knowledge of every single time a born again person has prayed for, and maybe layed hands on, a group of people desiring relief...over the past 2000 years...and you can vouch that in none of those cases all of the ones sick were healed?

We know from the scriptures that what you just described didnt always happen in the beginning of the christian era. There is scriptural evidence that sometimes people were not healed. You know the scriptures as well as I do that say that so I dont need to quote them.

So if not everyone was healed then, why do you demand that everyone be healed now?

Grace and peace,

Mike.

 

[music4Him]

mman,
I have shown the purpose of miracles, to confirm the word. We now have the written word which has been confirmed. Therefore, it does not need re-confirming, else the original confirmation was inadequate.

As long as there are sinners that are lost who just might need the Word comfirmed to them? When you deciple new Christians do you tell them Hey you got "Jesus living inside you" BUT, all that stuff that the bible says you have (ie the gifts of the Spirit) was only for those who lived up yo 70 AD...... No I don't think so. Jesus said this and greater things shall you do. I know a bible promise when I see one.

My questions to you. Is God's word sufficient? Why would God's written word need reconfirming? Don't be confused or deceived about I Cor 13. The "perfect" in verse 10 does not mean sinless. No, it means complete. When they didn't have the written word, it was necessary to confirm the message was from God by the signs and wonders and miracle. However, when the written word was complete, having already been confirmed, then those childish things were put away.

Are you saying that God's written word is complete? All the prophecies about Jesus? hummmm

Here again is a challenge. Type me a message in an unlearned language. One can do this using the internet and going to some translation site, but anyone honest with themselves cannot do this.

This kinda reminds me when the Pharisees asked Jesus for a sign......Jesus said no sign would be given.
Although you can go to several churchs and tape the service and have it analized. This has been done... as you can figure some were authinic some were not.

Have you ever seen anyone healed immediately? Someone who has never walked? Someone who was born blind? Someone born deaf? No, you have not, I know this for certain. There is a reason for that.

I beg your pardon but Yes I was healed immediately! So trust Jesus and don't be so sure of yourself. Proverbs 3:5 -
Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
But also if you read your bible some that Jesus touched were not healed immediately. The blind man comes to mind. John 9:1-7

The miracles of the NT were instantaneous and undeniable, providing the confirmation they were from God.
......and when people are healed the same way today are you saying they are not form God? Or if a healing takes a little longer then its not from God?

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by D28guy:
How do you know? [qb]

I read. I keep up on current events.

[qb]

Are you saying that you have knowledge of every single time a born again person has prayed for, and maybe layed hands on, a group of people desiring relief...over the past 2000 years...and you can vouch that in none of those cases all of the ones sick were healed?

I didn't say that at all. And you know very well I didn't. Read what I posted and address the post, not add red herrings and throw in some straw mans to boot.
I challenge you again: Show me one crusade in the last 1900 years, with a multitude somewhat equivanlent to the one that came to Peter, where everyone was healed. Unless you can, your claim is bogus. Your faith healers are frauds. You have to admit that the miraculous gift of healing has ceased.
Please note that I never said that God doesn't heal. I have been accused of that many times. That is a false statement and/or accusation. I don't believe that. God heals today, according to his will, and in answer to prayer. But no one today has the supernatural gift of healing that was evident in the first century as was displayed in Acts 5:16 where "they were healed every one." That is great multitudes where healed every one!
Prove to me that that happens today, or even in the last 1900 years.

We know from the scritures that what you just described didnt always happen in the beginning of the christian era. There is scriptural evidence that sometimes people were not healed. You know the scriptures as well as I do that say that so I dont need to quote them.

Quote the Sciptures to me: 2Cor.12; and the others in the epistles to Timothy--both written much later than 1Corinthians. What does that tell us? The gift even by that time, either had mostly died out, or had already ceased: perhaps a good reason why Paul just didn't phone Peter to call him down and ask him to heal him!

So if not everyone was healed then, why do you demand that everyone be healed now?

Do you deny the Word of God? Was everyone healed in Acts 5:16 or not. What does the Scripture say? Are you truly going to walk circles around this Scriptural event and tell me that not all were healed at this event and say that Peter did not have the gift. He did have the gift and was able to heal all that came to him, something no one can do today. If you don't believe the Sciptures, then what do you believe. Your argument here is with the Scriptures not with me. The teaching is very evident. These kind of events do not happen any more. They haven't happened for over 1900 years, and what is more, you have no evidence that they have. Don't try to prove a universal negative and throw back the onus of proof on me. That is illogical. If there was any proof of such events they would be recorded, and they would certainly be widely known, but they are not. The gift of healing--like all other sign gifts have ceased. Charismatics are chasing after fraudulent gifts.
DHK

 

[BobRyan]

In 1 Cor 12 the gift of healing is mentioned. It says nothing about healing everyone in the world, or in your state or in your county or in your city.

Healing is healing. But I agree with DHK that the gift of Healing is not merely a prayer for one person and that one person being healed. On that much he is correct.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[D28guy]

DHK,

I said...

"Are you saying that you have knowledge of every single time a born again person has prayed for, and maybe layed hands on, a group of people desiring relief...over the past 2000 years...and you can vouch that in none of those cases all of the ones sick were healed?"

And you now say...

"I didn't say that at all. And you know very well I didn't.

OK. Here is what you said, with your bolding and caps...

"There would have been plenty of sick people just in Jerusalem. But Luke records that it wasn't just the sick of Jerusalem that came to Peter. It was the sick people from all the cities that surrounded Jerusalem as well as Jerusalem. That was a great multitude of sick folk, as the verse says--a multitude out of the cities

And who did Peter (who had the gift of healing) heal?
and they were healed every one.

EVERY ONE!!

Does that take place today?"

You did in fact say what I said you said, so my question is legitimate and I'll ask you again...

Are you saying that you have knowledge of every single time a born again person has prayed for, and maybe layed hands on, a group of people desiring relief...over the past 2000 years...and you can vouch that in none of those cases all of the ones sick were healed?"

"Show me one crusade in the last 1900 years, with a multitude somewhat equivanlent to the one that came to Peter, where everyone was healed."

Where in the scriptures does it say "And there will be crusades, and at those crusades every single person who is prayed for will be healed, with no exceptions"?

The scripture says "They will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover."

That has been happenning for 2000 years now. That sign gift has not gone away, just like the other sign gifts. Regarding Peter, all the scriptures tell us is that that particular time every person was healed. But that didnt happen all the time. Jesus Himself said that at times He did not do mighty things because of peoples unbelief.

"Unless you can, your claim is bogus. Your faith healers are frauds."

So who heals these people of their diseases...Satan? If not God, who? These people walk away healed. How do they get healed if not God?

"You have to admit that the miraculous gift of healing has ceased."

Not when I see people being healed through prayer.

"Please note that I never said that God doesn't heal. I have been accused of that many times. That is a false statement and/or accusation. I don't believe that. God heals today, according to his will, and in answer to prayer. But no one today has the supernatural gift of healing that was evident in the first century as was displayed in Acts 5:16 where "they were healed every one." That is great multitudes where healed every one!"

When in the scriptures does it say "And they will be healed at great crusades, and every person will be healed, with no exception?"

Here is what the scriptures say regarding the sign gift of healing...

"And they will lay hands on the sick, and the sick will recover."

"Prove to me that that happens today, or even in the last 1900 years."

Prove to me that there has never been a time during the last 2000 years when several people trusted God for healing and where prayed for and they all recovered.

"Quote the Sciptures to me: 2Cor.12; and the others in the epistles to Timothy--both written much later than 1Corinthians. What does that tell us? The gift even by that time, either had mostly died out, or had already ceased: perhaps a good reason why Paul just didn't phone Peter to call him down and ask him to heal him!"

Paul didnt want to do that. Many times I'm sick and I dont call someone to heal me. I wear glasses when I read and have never been compelled to ask anyone to heal my eyes. If I ever do feel compelled to do so I will.

"Do you deny the Word of God?"

I never have.

"Was everyone healed in Acts 5:16 or not."

Yes.

"What does the Scripture say?"

That all were healed that time.

"Are you truly going to walk circles around this Scriptural event and tell me that not all were healed at this event and say that Peter did not have the gift. He did have the gift and was able to heal all that came to him, something no one can do today."

Prove it.

Prove to me that since then nobody has ever prayer for a group of people and they all recovered.

"If you don't believe the Sciptures, then what do you believe."

That chrsitians will lay hands on the sick, and the sick will recover. This sign gift has been happening for 2000 years now, just like tongues

"Your argument here is with the Scriptures not with me. The teaching is very evident."

I can say that exact same thing to you.

"These kind of events do not happen any more."

No christian has ever layed hands on the sick, and the sick recovered?

"They haven't happened for over 1900 years, and what is more, you have no evidence that they have."

I personally have been healed through prayer only.

"Don't try to prove a universal negative and throw back the onus of proof on me. That is illogical. If there was any proof of such events they would be recorded, and they would certainly be widely known, but they are not. The gift of healing--like all other sign gifts have ceased. Charismatics are chasing after fraudulent gifts."

You would have a tough time convincing those who were sick, and walked away healed, that the healing was fraudulent.

God bless,

Mike

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by D28guy:
You would have a tough time convincing those who were sick, and walked away healed, that the healing was fraudulent.

God bless,

Mike

This is the exact thing I said in my post, that you even quoted above, that I warned I would be falsely accused of. I thought that I wouldn't be of you Mike. Why? Why do you jump on the bandwagon with others and say, that I believe that God doesn't heal. That is a blatant lie and false accusation, when I just clearly said above that that is not what I believe.

I state again. I believe that God heals in this day and age. He heals primarily in answer to prayer. But that is not the supernatural gift of healing described in the first century. I never never said that God does not heal. Do not accuse me of that.

Secondly your whole premise of the gift of healing is faulty. You base it on the passage in James chapter 5, which, BTW, I happened to believe in. I have laid hands on the sick. I have annointed with oil. I have prayed for the sick. We have seen people healed. I don't deny the Scriptural method of God's way of God healing individuals in this day and age--if it is God's will for them to be healed. It is not God's will for all to be healed in this age--like many Charismatics claim it is. That is why there is such a plethora of "Faith Healers" out there that claim "All that come to them can be healed." They are a bunch of frauds. That gift--as Peter had, no longer exists. Those healers won't go out of their own environment, outside the scope of their own television camera. They wouldn't dare visit a hospital, or even have their "healed people" checked out by a doctor. CBC ran a documentary on Benny Hinn, and found out that not one of the so-called healings he performed were actually healed.

The gift of healing as it is described in 1Cor.12 and displayed in Acts 5:16 is something entirely different than in James 5. Praying for a person to be healed is not practicing the gift of healing. The gift of healing was demonstrated by Peter in Acts 5:16. You don't see that today.
Why? Because as others have already pointed out to you, these signs and miracles were a confirmation of the gospel, a confirmation of the Word, a confirmation of the Apostles--all of which we don't have or need today. The sign has ceased. It is no longer needed today.

Jesus did not heal because of their unbelief. That is right. Because of their unbelief in the fact that he was the Messiah. Read John 20:31. That gives you the reason why He did miracles--that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.
Is that why you perform healings, try to do miracles? That was the purpose of Jesus--to demonstrate his deity. Their unbelief was directly related to his deity not to their sicknesses. Read the context before you try and use that verse.
DHK

 

[Briguy]

Mike said, ""However, there is nothing in the passage to suggest that the tongues spoken of in vs 11 and 12 will cease.""

Well, yes there is. We know that Tongues will cease on their own, just fade away. They clearly end at a different time then the gifts of Knowledge and Prophecy, other wise Paul would have clumped all three together and use the same verb to describe their ending. If something happens to make P. and K. end and Tongues just fade away by themselves, you have 2 different ending points. You have already said that Isaiah 28 does say what I said it does. Then you said that others say it means something else. Who are the others? and what are they saying? This verse clearly speaks of destruction and Paul says that the Tongues mentioned in the Isaiah 28 verse are the same Tongues that were happening at that time. Is Isaiah speaking of some future destruction of Isreal? but Paul was saying that these Tongues that were being done in the assemblys were those tongues in Isaiah 28. Do you think that this prophecy that was being played out in front of them, by the Tongues that were displayed, would still not be fulfilled in 2005, or does itmake sense that the prophecy was fulfilled 15-20 years after Paul made his statement. The point is that it was happening right then. The house of Isreal was clearly destroyed and scattered in 70ad. I just see no other way to look at this.

Let me know what the "others" say on I. 28 and what you think now that you have had more time to ponder the issue.

In Christ,
Brian

 

[music4Him]

Question here.
Do those here who say tongues have ceased also say that the last days were in 70 AD?

That is when looking at the prophecy about the last days that is also mentioned in the NT.

Joel 2:28 And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:
(Also found in Act 2:17)

 

[g_1933]

Just a couple of questions regarding tongues. Those of you who attend churches that practice tongues, do you follow the rules laid out in I Corinthians 14:26-40 ?

Is it done decently and in order? Do the women speak in tongues?

The so called tongues I have seen have not been in accordance with these guidlines.

 

[music4Him]

Is it done decently and in order? Yes~
Do the women speak in tongues? Yes~

The so called tongues I have seen have not been in accordance with these guidlines. Thats so sad.

 

[g_1933]

Doest he I Cor. passage not state for women not to speak in reference to tongues and prophecy?

 

[Brian30755]

Doest he I Cor. passage not state for women not to speak in reference to tongues and prophecy?

Here's what it says:
1 Corinthians 14:26-40

26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.

27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.

28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.

30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.

31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.

32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.

33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?

37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.

40 Let all things be done decently and in order.

Verses 34 and 35 simply say: "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak".

It doesn't say "it is not permitted unto them to speak in other tongues"...it says "to speak".

 

[g_1933]

So it says women should not speak at all then? I figured it was referring to tongues and prophecy since the Greek verb for "speak" used in v. 34 is the same one used in 27 and 29.

So going by this passage, a woman should either 1) never speak in church at all or 2) never speak in tongues or prophecy, right?

So then anywhere ladies speak in "tongues," they are in violation of scripture?

 

[music4Him]

I figure it means unlearned......
If you want my reasoning it was the scripture I just asked a question on.

Joel 2:28 And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:

If women would have to speak to prophesy the scripture you mentioned would contradict what the prophet Joel says. I assume the women who prophecy would have some knowledge if not they shouldn't speak.

 

[g_1933]

Ok then what about 1 Timothy 2:11? Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

Then in verse 12: But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

It seems this is saying that women should be silent again. It doesn't say anything about their knowledge.

Then there's Acts 21:9 And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy.

These women are what Joel referred to. They are never mentioned as doing this work within the church body as mentioned in I Cor. 14:23

I am mentioning this to show that the use of tongues most refer to as happening in their churches today is not in accordance Biblical rules so it would not be the "gift" of tongues.

 

[music4Him]

Fruitless argument there g_1933. There are scriptures to point out that women did have roles in church and taught. No I DO NOT believe a woman should "pastor" a church. But I do believe she can preach if thats what God has called her for.

Act 21:8 And the next day we that were of Paul's company departed, and came unto Caesarea: and we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him.
Act 21:9 And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy.

Philip was an evangelist.....I was assuming his daughters went with him to where ever he was evangelizing at. They more than likely prophesied during the service.......there would be no doubt that they definatly knowledgable about the word being that their dad was an evangelist.

I am mentioning this to show that the use of tongues most refer to as happening in their churches today is not in accordance Biblical rules so it would not be the "gift" of tongues.
Uhhhhhh then what about the upper room? That wasn't in church and how many was there speaking that day? The history of the people of Corinth is very interesting and I'm sure Paul had to set some guide lines because things were getting chaotic. Some were just babes in Christ. (1 Cor.3)