For those who speak in tongues...

[g_1933]

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.

You are assuming his daughters went with him and spoke in churches if that's what you mean by during the service. If by service you don't mean the local church gathering together then that's not my point.

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.

I Tim. 2:12 Does this not mean women are not to preach then?
I mean actually preach not just speak or give testimony.

Acts 14:34 Should women be speaking in tongues in church?

Thanks for the discussion.

 

[g_1933]

Sorry, double post.

 

[D28guy]

DHK,

"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.

If you believe that God still heals, through prayer and sometimes through the laying on of hands, then why do you turn around and say that the sign gift spoken of in Mark 16..."they will lay hands on the sick, and the sick will recover"...is not for today?

You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

"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."

Well, the sign gift of healing spoken of in Mark is that people will miraculously recover from illness by Gods touch alone.

And you are now saying that you DO believe that God miraculously heals people through his touch alone today.

Yet you are saying that God is no longer healing people by His touch alone anymore as He did in the 1st century?

"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."

So...if the person doing this is a Baptist its a legitimate healing...but if someone is a charismatic, it isnt?

And what got this thread going, if I recall correctly, is the gift (that is stell given today) of tongues. And the passage I have been referring to is in Mark 16, where the scripture tells us that as long as there are "those who believe", miraculous activity like tongues, healing, casting out of demons, and supernatural protection will "follow" those who "believe".

And all of that activity has been going on uninterrupted for 2000 years now...as Christ said it would.

"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."

There are many kinds of healing, brother. As an example, when someone is called home from an illness, that is the ultimate divine healing, is it not?

"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."

Some...a small minority...have been proven to be frauds. Not all.

"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."

It certainly is. If it werent sometimes neded, God would not still sometimes grant it. The scriptures give us accurate testimony of what happened 2000 years ago. But not all people believe the scriptures are true, and are an accurate revelation. So...God sometimes confirms the word today with the accompanying signs.

"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."

And thats why He sometimes grants that gift today.

"Is that why you perform healings, try to do miracles?"

Me? I have prayed for people and seen them recover. I have layed hands on people and seen them recover. I have asked God myself for healing for myself and I recovered. I also go to doctors, take prescriptions if they are needed, etc.

"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."

I'm not sure which verse you are speaking of there.

God bless,

Mike

 

[D28guy]

Brian,

I said...

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

And you said...

"Well, yes there is. We know that Tongues will cease on their own, just fade away."

Where? The passage you quoted, and I commented on, and you are now saying says that tongues will cease is Isaiah 28.

Where in that passage does it say tongues will cease at some point here on earth, and not when we are all in heaven, as I believe?

"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 is a passage of scripture that has many applications. But as I said your application is legitimate, so to go into the other applications is irrelavent and a waste of time. You are saying that verse 11 speaks of tongues...

"With stammering lips and another tongue He will speak to this people, to whom He said 'this is the rest with wich you may cause the weary to rest', and 'this is the refereshing', yet they wouldnt hear"

...and I agree

But where in this passage does it say this gift of tongues will cease at a point prior to that where I believe they will end...when we are all in heaven for eternity.

I...and those who believe as I do...believe that THAT is what is being referred to when the scriptures says these gifts will cease when "that wich is perfect shall come".

Grace and peace,

Mike

 

[Briguy]

Hi Mike, you have to remember that Tongues are a "sign". Signs always point to some coming event. When the event is over the sign is not needed. Isaish said that Isreal will be judged and its people scattered. The sign pointing to that occurance is that they will hear "another tongue" or "Tongues" as it is referred to by Paul in 1 Cor. 4:21. Paul is telling them that they are seeing this prophecy from Isaiah play out right in front of them. (He is explaining to them what the gift of tongues really is, because those in Corinth were abusing the gift so badly. 1 Cor. as a whole book is a rebuke and 1 Cor. 14 is a rebuke of how they were messing up the gift of Tongues.) Mike, does that make sense. Paul said that the sign from Isaiah 28 was happening in their midst. The purpose of Tongues was to show Isreal they were going to be judged in a big way. About 15 years or so after Paul said those words it happened. By your account we would have that "sign" still in place and still be waiting for a judgement against Isreal. Even though the destruction of Isreal in 70AD completely meets the requirements of the Isaiah prophecy. You have to believe that either Isaiah 28 was fulfilled in 70AD or it is still waiting to be fulfilled. That is the choice before you. If Tongues are still a sign then they must still be the same miraculous gift they were in the 1st century. I will address that after your next post. Thanks for the good discussion!

In Christ, who first loved us,
Brian

 

[D28guy]

Brian,

"Hi Mike, you have to remember that Tongues are a "sign". Signs always point to some coming event. When the event is over the sign is not needed. Isaish said that Isreal will be judged and its people scattered. The sign pointing to that occurance is that they will hear "another tongue" or "Tongues" as it is referred to by Paul in 1 Cor. 4:21."

I believe you mean 1 Cor 14:21 there.

"14:20
Brethren, do not be children in understanding; however, in malice be babes, but in understanding be mature.
14:21
In the law it is written: "With men of other tongues and other lips I will speak to this people; And yet, for all that, they will not hear Me," says the Lord.
14:22
Therefore tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophesying is not for unbelievers but for those who believe.
14:23
Therefore if the whole church comes together in one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those who are uninformed or unbelievers, will they not say that you are out of your mind?
14:24
But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an uninformed person comes in, he is convinced by all, he is convicted by all.
14:25
And thus the secrets of his heart are revealed; and so, falling down on his face, he will worship God and report that God is truly among you."

You then said...

"Paul is telling them that they are seeing this prophecy from Isaiah play out right in front of them. (He is explaining to them what the gift of tongues really is, because those in Corinth were abusing the gift so badly. 1 Cor. as a whole book is a rebuke and 1 Cor. 14 is a rebuke of how they were messing up the gift of Tongues.) Mike, does that make sense."

Yes, it does. I am not, and I have not, disputed that. But tongues as a sign for the 1st century skeptics is not the whole story. There are skeptics in all centuries including today. In some cases, some people need for the proclaimed gospel message to be confirmed now as it was then. Why? Not everyone believes the scriptures are reliable. Many believe they are myths and legends. Concoctions of men. Supernatural activity sometimes influences people today, just as 2000 years ago.

In adition, there are other reasons for tongues. Continue reading from 1 Cor 14...

"14:26
How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification.
14:27
If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be two or at the most three, each in turn, and let one interpret."

God still gives wisdom in a tongue, with the interpretation given afterwords. This has continued on for 2000 years now.

"Paul said that the sign from Isaiah 28 was happening in their midst."

Agreed. Its happening in our midst as well

"The purpose of Tongues was to show Isreal they were going to be judged in a big way. About 15 years or so after Paul said those words it happened."

Thats true. There is also a very big judgment coming on the present world, as we approach the end of all things.

"By your account we would have that "sign" still in place and still be waiting for a judgement against Isreal."

No. That purpose of tongues is finished. But tongues are not. They are still a means...at times...of wisdon(when interpreted), and they are still a confirmation of the gospel message, as found in Mark 16:15-18...

"16:15
And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.
16:16
He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
16:17
And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues;
16:18
they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover."

As long as there are "those who believe" in the world, the Lord Jesus Christ told us that those evidences would follow us...and they have for 2000 years now uninterrupted.

"Even though the destruction of Isreal in 70AD completely meets the requirements of the Isaiah prophecy. You have to believe that either Isaiah 28 was fulfilled in 70AD or it is still waiting to be fulfilled.

That purpose of tongues has ceased. But not the other purposes for them. And healing as well.

"That is the choice before you. If Tongues are still a sign then they must still be the same miraculous gift they were in the 1st century."

They are the same gift. They are still a sign, but not for the coming destruction of Israel.

In His Grace,

Mike

 

[Briguy]

Mike, two quick things. The "unbelievers" from 1 Cor. 14:22 are not just any unbelievers, they are Jews. 14:22 is a continuation of the thought from 14:21 that is why there is a connecting word, "therefore" in place. Remember that verse numbers and punctuation are not in the original Greek. Paul is saying directly that tongues are for unbelieving Isreal. He mentions no other purpose. Mark does not say that Tongues have a different purpose just that they are a miraculous, a "sign"!! and wonder. mman already explained what Mark was saying.

Tongues in the first century were used for one person of one language to commnuicate with others of a different language. For example, If a person who spoke English came into a Spanish speaking church it would not be edifying for that person to sit down and listen, right. A tongues speaker could stand up and give the gospel in English and then that person could get saved and if they were saved already it would at least be edifying to hear the message. The interpreter (gifted) would interpret what the speaker said so that the entire assembly would be edified. Remember 1 Cor 12:7 says that all spritual gifts are to be used for the edification of the "church". Gifts are not for the edification of an individual.

more later,
In Christ,
Brian

 

[music4Him]

Ok go back and read Joel chapter 2 tell me as to where this prophecy is talking about. 70 AD or the last days that were living?

I just don't recall hearing.....

Joel 2:8 Neither shall one thrust another; they shall walk every one in his path: and when they fall upon the sword, they shall not be wounded.

....you'd think that there would be some history of this in books written after 70AD.

 

[tamborine lady]

Briguy said:Tongues in the first century were used for one person of one language to commnuicate with others of a different language. For example, If a person who spoke English came into a Spanish speaking church it would not be edifying for that person to sit down and listen, right. A tongues speaker could stand up and give the gospel in English and then that person could get saved and if they were saved already it would at least be edifying to hear the message

Oh, I see!!! You were there, that's how you know for sure that's how it happened!!

Selah,

Tam

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by D28guy:
If you believe that God still heals, through prayer and sometimes through the laying on of hands, then why do you turn around and say that the sign gift spoken of in Mark 16..."they will lay hands on the sick, and the sick will recover"...is not for today?

You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

Hardly!
Are you unable to discern between a simple answer to prayer, and the supernatural gifts of the Spirit that were given in the first century. There is a big difference, and the two cannot be equated as you seem to be doing.

Well, the sign gift of healing spoken of in Mark is that people will miraculously recover from illness by Gods touch alone.

And you are now saying that you DO believe that God miraculously heals people through his touch alone today.

Yet you are saying that God is no longer healing people by His touch alone anymore as He did in the 1st century?

Why are you so confused?
First, the sign gift in Mark (that you referred to) is just that--a sign gift. Those gifts have ceased. We don't see them anymore--anywhere. But we did read of them in the Book of Acts, particulary in Acts 5:15,16. But those things don't happen anymore, though many Charismatics try to. Peter Popoff tries to emulate Peter (Acts 5:15)--"if you just send your gift of "X" dollars I will send you this holy water obtained from a holy site in Russia, and it will cure your diseases." Typical isn't it?? A true phoney!

Am I now saying that God heals? I never said that God doesn't heal. I said that the gift of healing has ceased. There are no faith-healers today, as there were in Biblical times. There is no spiritual gift of healing today as there was in the first century. You don't see Acts 5:16 being replicated in this day and age, because the gift of healing has ceased, because tongues and the other sign gifts have ceased.

So...if the person doing this is a Baptist its a legitimate healing...but if someone is a charismatic, it isnt?

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said that.

And what got this thread going, if I recall correctly, is the gift (that is stell given today) of tongues. And the passage I have been referring to is in Mark 16, where the scripture tells us that as long as there are "those who believe", miraculous activity like tongues, healing, casting out of demons, and supernatural protection will "follow" those who "believe".

Did you not just quote "healing" in that passage? It is one of those miraculous sign gifts, that along with tongues has ceased. If I can show you that the gift of healing has ceased you will be compelled to believe that the other sign gifts have ceased as well (or at least should be).

And all of that activity has been going on uninterrupted for 2000 years now...as Christ said it would.

I know you want me to read your books. But I already have studied history. There is a void of 1900 years where the gift of tongues has been silent. In fact these sign gifts have not been operational since the first century and still are not today!
Multitudes are not healed. Missionaries still go to language school (even Charismatics), because the Biblical gift of tongues has ceased. The gift of miracles has ceased (such as Jesus performing miracles that can't be performed today--walking on water, calming the seas, raising the dead, etc.
Certainly God can and does perform miracles as he sees fits. But there is no one that has a "gift of miracles." Philip did in Acts 8. But these sign gifts ended at the end of the first century or even before then.

There are many kinds of healing, brother. As an example, when someone is called home from an illness, that is the ultimate divine healing, is it not?

No, of course not. That is called death, and people on earth grieve because their loved one was not healed. You really try and twist things around.
As someone once said:
"God heals all our diseases except the last one."
It is obvious you don't want to admit that the gift of healing has ceased. You are walking circles around the evidence trying your best not to admit it.

"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."

Some...a small minority...have been proven to be frauds. Not all.

Maybe the great majority--In fact maybe ALL! Why?
Because the gift has ceased. Obviously if the gift of healing has ceasd those who pretend that they have it are frauds.

It certainly is. If it werent sometimes neded, God would not still sometimes grant it. The scriptures give us accurate testimony of what happened 2000 years ago. But not all people believe the scriptures are true, and are an accurate revelation. So...God sometimes confirms the word today with the accompanying signs.

So, not all people believe the Scriptures are true! So what! That is their problem. It is called unbelief. Here is what Jesus said about it:

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:

Luke 16:30-31 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
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.

Christ has left us with the Word of God. He taught clearly that miracles do not save. God's Word needs no confirmation today. We live in an evil and adulterous generation that seeks after signs. They don't need signs; they need the gospel, as Christ said--the sign of Jonas. He was referring to the gospel message.

"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."

And thats why He sometimes grants that gift today.

I take it you didn't read John 20:31 as I suggested. Let me quote it for you this time:

John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

We don't need miracles. We have the Word of God. John said: "These are written that you might believe." He didn't say that Christ or anyone else would have to do more miracles for people to believe. We have the Word of God, and that is sufficient.

Me? I have prayed for people and seen them recover. I have layed hands on people and seen them recover. I have asked God myself for healing for myself and I recovered. I also go to doctors, take prescriptions if they are needed, etc.

If you truly had the gift of healing, or even knew someone who did, you would never have to go to a doctor. Your own testimony verifies that the gift of healing has ceased. Healing has not: "the supernatural sign gift of healing" has ceased.

"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."

I'm not sure which verse you are speaking of there.

Matthew 13:58 And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.

The unbelief refers to an unbelief in Christ as the Messiah. This is a common text used by Charismatics to teach that unbelief keeps one from being healed--a doctrine not taught in the Bible. The unbelief here has nothing to do with being healed of anything. It is unbelief in Christ as Messiah.
DHK

 

[music4Him]

Originally posted by music4Him:
Ok go back and read Joel chapter 2 tell me as to where this prophecy is talking about. 70 AD or the last days that were living?

I just don't recall hearing.....

Joel 2:8 Neither shall one thrust another; they shall walk every one in his path: and when they fall upon the sword, they shall not be wounded.

....you'd think that there would be some history of this in books written after 70AD.

Well what say ye?

 

[music4Him]

 

[D28guy]

Brian,

"Mike, two quick things. The "unbelievers" from 1 Cor. 14:22 are not just any unbelievers, they are Jews. 14:22 is a continuation of the thought from 14:21 that is why there is a connecting word, "therefore" in place. Remember that verse numbers and punctuation are not in the original Greek. Paul is saying directly that tongues are for unbelieving Isreal."

Thats all well and good. But tongues are also a sign for unbelieving gentiles. Tongues can be a sign for an unbelieving anybody.

"He mentions no other purpose."

Yes he does. He mentioned tongues as also be a means of God imparting wisdom to a group of gathered believers...with an interpreter giving the meaning. Tongues are also mentioned as a personal and private prayer language for the edification of the believer himself.

"Mark does not say that Tongues have a different purpose just that they are a miraculous, a "sign"!! and wonder. mman already explained what Mark was saying."

In the gospel of Mark it wasnt Mark speaking. Mark was quoting the Lord Jesus Christ who said...

"Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; 18 they F86 will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover."

There is nothing to indicate that these passages of scripture dont mean what they plainly say. That as long as there are "those who believe" and those who preach the "gospel to every creature", the accompanying signs will follow them.

By the way, what do you make of the rainbow in the sky when it rains? That was a specific sign for those on earth at that time. But all of those believers have died, just like the believers in the 1st century have died.

You must wonder why they didnt pass away after that generation of believers?

Or...if you dont wonder about that, why say the sign gifts of 2000 years should pass away?

God still wants to assure us that He will never again destroy the entire earth with water, just like there are still people on earth who can be influenced by accompanying signs to authenticate the proclaimed gospel.

God bless,

Mike

 

[D28guy]

DHK,

"There is a void of 1900 years where the gift of tongues has been silent."

No there hasnt been. What has happened is that at times the gift of tongues...and the other gifts...have been less prominant. Then there might be a time of renewal, but then diminishing again to very little manifestations.

But for 2000 years now the gifts have never ceased.

God bless,

Mike

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by D28guy:
DHK,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"There is a void of 1900 years where the gift of tongues has been silent."

No there hasnt been. What has happened is that at times the gift of tongues...and the other gifts...have been less prominant. Then there might be a time of renewal, but then diminishing again to very little manifestations.

But for 2000 years now the gifts have never ceased.

God bless,

Mike </font>[/QUOTE]The Bible says different; as does history. I'd rather take their word over yours.

 

[D28guy]

Here is some interesting information regarding the claim that the gifts of the Holy Spirit...including tongues...ceased in the 1st century.

The 1st makes pretty clear that the claim itself that tongues have ceased can not really be taken without a healthy "grain of salt". Those making that claim dont exactly rely on objective evidence(but rather a preset bias against tongues) so therefore they cant really be trusted...

(bolding mine)

"It is also commonly argued that the "perfect" thing in I Corinthians 13 must refer to the canon of Scripture because Church historians generally state that these gifts completely ceased to operate prior to the Second Century, A.D.. These arguments generally rely upon a quotation from St. Augustine to this effect. However, there is an at least equally plausible alternate explanation for this observation. Augustine, and the other early Church historians whose writings are recognized and cited by present-day theologians, were all churchmen loyal to an existing ecclesiastical organization. Therefore, they would be likely to either ignore or label as heretical any Christian who claimed to have direct communication with God outside the restrictions placed on communication with God by that organization. It is well documented that there were some such occurrences, which were, in fact, labeled heretical. One particularly well-known example of this was the manifestations of tongues, healing and prophecy which were reported to have occurred among the Montanists, of the late Second and early Third Centuries, and who were labeled by the majority Church as heretics in part because of these manifestations. However, there are other examples.

However, it is also well documented that, by sometime in the Second Century, the organized Church started to adopt a sacramental system with a strict division between clergy and laity. It is also quite clear that, from this time forward, the organized Church ceased to rely on the spiritual gift of discerning of spirits to keep its message pure and started instead to rely on blind allegiance to its bishops, on catechization and on individual conformity to written creeds for the same purpose. The reasons for this development are interesting, involving the political and social need of the church organization to recognize as true Christians many who had no personal relationship with Christ, but the historical details are outside the scope of this essay.

Thus, from the Second Century until the Reformation, the official Church taught that God's grace was dispensed only through the official Catholic Church organization and that God could speak to His people only through that organization's bishops, as successors of the Apostles, who in turn spoke through the mouths of the ordained clergy. Thus, anyone who claimed to hear from God directly, rather than merely through the church hierarchy, would naturally be labeled as a heretic and not a true Christian. In the context of this article, however, reliance on Church historians' use of this label to deny the occurrence of manifestations of communicative gifts after the beginning of the Second Century leads to a circular proof in which any claimed occurrence of them is ignored or labeled as heretical (and, hence, false) because the hierarchy of the organized Church decided that these gifts should cease.

Thus, the orthodox Church historians' statements that these gifts ceased do not prove the point.

"Moreover, throughout these centuries there are many isolated examples of communities that claimed to be Christian — though rejected by the Catholic Church — in which these gifts were manifested. Thus, the historical assertion that all of the communicative gifts ceased after the beginning of the Second Century appears to be the product of a circular proof in which anyone who appeared to manifest them was simply placed outside the true Church by official definition.

Link click here

And 2nd, regarding the claim that tongues ceased in the 1st century...

(bolding mine)

"Several of the early church fathers mention glossolalia in the church. Irenaeus (d.c. 200) and Tertullian (d. 200) speak favorably of it, Chrysostom (d. 407) disapproved, and Augustine (d. 430) declared that the gift was only for New Testament times. The Montanist movement of the late second century included prophetesses, claims of new revelation, speaking in tongues, and an ascetical and legalistic outlook; the movement was declared heretical by the official church and speaking in tongues seems to have been rare in the church after this time.

(Rare...not nonexistant)

"During the middle ages speaking in tongues were reported in monasteries of the Orthodox church. In the seventeenth century it seems to have been practiced in France amongst the Huguenots (Protestants) and the Jansenists (pietistic Catholics). In the nineteenth century glossolalia was practiced in America amongst the Shakers and Mormons, and in Scotland and London amongst the followers of Edward Irving, who saw this as the latter-rain outpouring of the Holy Spirit prior to the pre-millennial return of the Lord."

These quotes did not come from any Charismatic or Pentecostal sources, but rather from Millard Erickson's "Christian Theology" and Walter Elwell's "Evangelical Dictionary of Theology."

Grace and peace to all,

Mike

 

[D28guy]

DHK,

Regarding the 1st quote, I find it interesting and ironic that you are relying on...for the most part...the Roman Catholic Hiearchy and "her" so called "authoritative" declarations regarding what is and what is not of God during the time of the 1st few centuries and the dark ages.

On other threads you seem to be as solid as I am regarding the almost complete unreliability of the Roman Catholic Church to be on target regarding almost anything involving biblical christianity.

God bless,

Mike

 

[Briguy]

Mike, you said that Tongues are a sign to the Gentiles too. Two problems with that. Paul says they are are a sign to the Jews and quotes Isaiah 28 to show how they only relate to the Jews because they showed that a destruction was approaching because of Isreal's unbelief in Jesus. The second problem is that "sign" point to something. We know what the sign of Tongues was pointing to in regards to Isreal. What is the sign of Tongues pointing to in regards to the Gentiles?? Gentile destruction? Gentile Judgement? Tell me what and give me the scripture support.

Thanks again for the good debate. Sorry about the delay in my response.

In Christ,
Brian

 

[Briguy]

Mike said

""Tongues are also mentioned as a personal and private prayer language for the edification of the believer himself.""

Mike rectify that statement with 1 cor. 12:7 which directy says that all spiritual gifts are to be used to edify the "body". Gifts are for the good of the whole not the individual. There is no exception to that mentioned.

In Christ,
Brian

 

[music4Him]

quote by D28guy:
-------------------------------------------------
Yes he does. He mentioned tongues as also be a means of God imparting wisdom to a group of gathered believers...with an interpreter giving the meaning. Tongues are also mentioned as a personal and private prayer language for the edification of the believer himself.
-------------------------------------------------

Mike are theses the scriptures?

1Co 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.

1Co 14:4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.