-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
For those who speak in tongues...
- Thread starter jw
- Start date
Ray Berrian
New Member
DHK,
You are trying to smooth talk around the facts that I have stated. Trace the N.T. missionary tours that the Apostle to the Gentiles made in service to the Lord. They were all Gentile cities and churches. I don't think they had a dress code for Jews and Gentiles who gathered to worship the Lord.
Did Paul write a manuscript to the Church at Jerusalem?
You are trying to smooth talk around the facts that I have stated. Trace the N.T. missionary tours that the Apostle to the Gentiles made in service to the Lord. They were all Gentile cities and churches. I don't think they had a dress code for Jews and Gentiles who gathered to worship the Lord.
Did Paul write a manuscript to the Church at Jerusalem?
Ray Berrian
New Member
DHK,
As I said I never spoke in 'tongues' but have many times experienced that in churches with the 'interpretation of tongues.' The message of interpretation is always in line with the teaching of the Word of God.
Do you think these people make up this language and fake the interpretation?
Those church like the Assembly of God have more of the Presence of the Holy Spirit than some 'dried out and yet basicly orthodox churches by way of belief.
People cannot keep forcing God the Spirit into their preconceived molds and then expect His Presence to be among His people. The Holy Spirit does not go where He is spoken against.
Remember that the Holy Spirit is to be worship as much as the Father and the Son.
Try to argue that the 'gifts and callings of God are without repentance,' The Lord does not vasilate on giving the 'gifts of the Spirit' until a cut off date of 70 A.D., He is the same yesterday, today and into the future.
When is the blessing of water baptism going to cease, or the Eucharist? No our Lord does not stop the power and flow of His Personhood of the Holy Spirit.
As I said I never spoke in 'tongues' but have many times experienced that in churches with the 'interpretation of tongues.' The message of interpretation is always in line with the teaching of the Word of God.
Do you think these people make up this language and fake the interpretation?
Those church like the Assembly of God have more of the Presence of the Holy Spirit than some 'dried out and yet basicly orthodox churches by way of belief.
People cannot keep forcing God the Spirit into their preconceived molds and then expect His Presence to be among His people. The Holy Spirit does not go where He is spoken against.
Remember that the Holy Spirit is to be worship as much as the Father and the Son.
Try to argue that the 'gifts and callings of God are without repentance,' The Lord does not vasilate on giving the 'gifts of the Spirit' until a cut off date of 70 A.D., He is the same yesterday, today and into the future.
When is the blessing of water baptism going to cease, or the Eucharist? No our Lord does not stop the power and flow of His Personhood of the Holy Spirit.
Ray Berrian
New Member
D28guy,
I found your statements well within Scriptural interpretation; it is nice to read people who know the truth.
I too, do not speak in tongues, but I do know God resents those who attribute the things of the Lord to Satan. Only a foolish person would go there. It is better to err on the safe side.
Saying that a prayer language, as Paul gladly said he experienced, must be respected as the Word of God, and not be used by bigotted people who never get out of their own molds, teachings of poor spiritual guides, or churches. They show little to no spiritual credibility when rejecting the Word of God.
They think they can peal of truth and God's Word as though it were an onion. What is not for today can be removed from the Bible as though it were refuse. Sometimes I wonder if some like this were really ever saved. When it comes to the Holy Spiirt it is time to walk carefully in His Presence and to not speak until they know what they are talking about.
Anyway, your post was appreciated as was the man named Link from Indonesia.
I have been praying for the Islamic people in Indonesia that many will be witnessed to and become saved. We really need to reach this whole block of people from various nations.
I found your statements well within Scriptural interpretation; it is nice to read people who know the truth.
I too, do not speak in tongues, but I do know God resents those who attribute the things of the Lord to Satan. Only a foolish person would go there. It is better to err on the safe side.
Saying that a prayer language, as Paul gladly said he experienced, must be respected as the Word of God, and not be used by bigotted people who never get out of their own molds, teachings of poor spiritual guides, or churches. They show little to no spiritual credibility when rejecting the Word of God.
They think they can peal of truth and God's Word as though it were an onion. What is not for today can be removed from the Bible as though it were refuse. Sometimes I wonder if some like this were really ever saved. When it comes to the Holy Spiirt it is time to walk carefully in His Presence and to not speak until they know what they are talking about.
Anyway, your post was appreciated as was the man named Link from Indonesia.
I have been praying for the Islamic people in Indonesia that many will be witnessed to and become saved. We really need to reach this whole block of people from various nations.
DHK wrote
**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. **
This is the problem: you cite scripture, but the scripture you cite does not say that the gifts have ceased.
In this message, you argue from Hebrews 2 and II Corinthians 12. Let us look at these two passages and see if they support the idea that the gifts have ceased.
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?
Does this verse say anything at all about the gifts ceasing? Of course not. It is ridiculous to offer this verse as evidence for cessationism, since it says nothing about it.
Sure, the verse says that when the salvation was first spoken by the Lord, and then confirmed unto the Hebrews by them that heard him, God bore witness by signs and wonders. But it does not say God would not bear witness with signs and wonders when the Gospel was preached later to non-Hebrews.
And in fact, the book of Acts is crystal clear that the early preachers of the Gospel performed signs and wonders not only when the Gospel was first preached among the Hebrews, but also later among the Gentiles. In Acts 15, Paul and Barnabas told of the miracles done among the Gentiles.
If the fact that this verse speaks of miracles being done in the past is supposed to argue that they will never occur again, then it would be contradicting the passages in Acts that show that miracles were done among Gentiles as well.
This type of reasoning is like the following. I say “I ate at McDonald’s every day when I first started working at this company.” Suppose you heard me say that, and you argue ‘Therefore you do not eat at McDonald’s anymore, because you ate there in the past.”
My past tense statement “I ate at McDonald’s every day when I first started working at this company.” says nothing about whether I still eat at McDonald’s Arguing for cessationism based on the use of the past tense in the Hebrews 2 passage is just as illogical, and contradicts other scripture which shows that miracles were done among non-Hebrews as well.
II Corinthians 12:12. Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.
This verse says nothing about miracles ceasing. It says nothing about only apostles doing miracles. It says nothing about miracles ceasing when the apostles died, or the idea that apostleship would not continue. It does tell us that there were ‘signs of an apostle.’
But we also see that other saints did miraculous things. In I Corinthians 12, we see a large number of gifts distributed among the saints, not just among the apostles. The bible does not say these gifts were limited to the close associates of the apostles. It teaches that the Spirit gave them as He willed. The Hebrews passage above says that signs and wonders and gifts of the Holy Ghost were given as God willed.
That is the doctrine of the Bible on the subject, that gifts are given as God wills. It does not matter if you want them only to be given to close associates of the apostles in the first century. God gives them to whomever He wills, as scripture teaches, no matter what you say. The choice is God’s, not yours. You have no authority to limit these things to the first century, to apostles, or to their close associates, and scripture gives you no authority to do so. The verses you cite give you no authority to make these claims.
DHK gave the following supposed scriptural evidence that gifts had ceased.
**
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.***
Look at your argument. You are
1. Using circular reasoning
2. Arguing from experience and not scripture.
The verse you quote does not say that this could not happen again. You assert it. Based on what? Your belief that this cannot happen again, apparently based on the fact that you have never seen this happen.
Since scripture does not teach that this could not happen again, then it is up to God, not you, to decide if it could not happen again.
Besides, even if for the sake of argument the apostles had especially might miracles that were irrepeatable, the Spirit still gave gifts to ‘regular believers’ in the church, too. In fact, there are some people who think that way, the there were might deeds done by the apostles, and less dramatic gifts for other saints.
A problem with this idea is Philip also did great signs and wonders, and he was not one of the 12.
*** 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.***
The problem is none of the verses you quote argue this. You make this doctrine up, and post a few verses here or there that do not support your conclusion.
*** Peter walked on water. I haven't seen anyone do that lately. Have you? The gift of miracles have ceased. ***
So, reality is defined by what you or I have seen? If you have not seen it, that does not mean it is not possible.
I read about some people who allegedly walked on water, or did the same thing just sinking down to their knees, as they went somewhere to preach the Gospel. It was on a book about a revival on the island of Timor. I met a Timorese preacher at a neighborhood fellowship, and he had written a thesis of some sort on this. He had compiled a number of eye-witness testimonies of miracles (I do not know if he had any of the walking on water miracle). He never brought the thesis to the meeting and I never did follow up. It would have been an interesting read, but it was in Indonesian, apparently.
***
Why have they ceased? Because the Scriptures tell us so.
***
You quoted a lot of scripture. After this statement, you quote the Hebrews 2 passage, which does not say that miracles, etc. ceased. Why don’t the verses you cite say anything about gifts ceasing? Why is it that you quote verses that do NOT say gifts ceased, and then add your own human-opinion-commentary that the gifts have ceased?
***
--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.***
More human opinion.
1. You do not show any scripture to show that there would be no apostles after the first century.
2. You do not show any scripture that says that if there are no apostles there are no signs and wonders.
3. You do not show any scripture that says that signs and wonders are no longer needed.
4. You do not show any scripture that argues that if we have the Bible, we no longer need signs and wonders (point not in quote above.)
The idea that miracles served only to confirm the apostles or the scriptures is an idea not found in scripture.
** We have the completed Word of God. Jesus said that it is an evil and adulterous generation that seeks after a sign. **
But Jesus did not say all who seek for signs are evil and adulterous. According to Acts 4, the apostles prayed for signs and wonders to be done for the sake of God’s holy Child or Servant Jesus. They prayed with the right motive, not because they were evil or adulterous.
***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. ***
Really think about what you are saying. There are no prophecy charts in the Bible. (If they are they are in your Bible, they are not ‘Bible.’) Your time periods for your dispensations and their characteristics are meaningless UNLESS THEY ARE SUPPORTED BY SCRIPTURE.
If your prophecy chart has a church age with no miracles, etc., and a tribulation period with miracles and prophecy, and no scripture to back it up, that’s just dumb.
The Bible does NOT say that prophecy will be abolished….oh wait a minute, and then it will come back in time for the tribulation…and then be reabolished at the coming of the Lord. If it goes on during the ministry of the Two Witnesses and ends at the coming of the Lord/resurrection, then it makes sense to interpret ‘that which is perfect’ as referring to the time of the resurrection.
The issue is not what your dispensations say, but what does the Bible say. If your dispensation characteristics have no support from scripture throw them in the trashcan. The Bible does not give you authority to divide the church age and tribulational age up into different time periods as you are doing.
And if this is the last days, whose to say that Pentecostal and Charismatic prophecy—some of it anyway-- might not be part of God’s plan to bring back the gifts of the Spirit in our age before the Two Witnesses come along. You don’t have a verse that ‘turns on’ the prophecy faucet.
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.**
I asked for scriptural proof for this statement, and DHK responded.
***I have already shown you scripture for this--Heb.2:3,4 and 2Cor.12:12. ***
This is the problem. I ask for proof, and you give verses that do not remotely support your assertions. Hebrews 2:3-4 does not ‘say the apostles’. It says them that heard the Lord. There were at least 500 brethren who witnessed the resurrection, and there is no reason to think that the preachers of Hebrews 2 were limited to the 12, especially if you consider the fact that men like Stephen and Philip did miracles, even though they were not of the 12.
These passages do not say anything about your idea that tongues were limited to the apostles or those closely associated with them. I Corinthians 12 and 14 are clear that some of those who spoke in tongues were members of the church in Corinth. Most of them probably weren’t evangelists or traveling companions of the apostles. In fact, some off the speakers in tongues were probably spiritually immature. I Corinthians 12 tells us that divers tongues and other gifts were given as the Spirit wills, not ‘to the apostles and their close associates.’
**So, no; it is not an opinion. It is a Scripturally based conclusion. **
Yes it is opinion. You quote scripture that does not support your views and then write your own opinions. I want to see scriptures that actually support your views, or your views change to those supported by scripture.
I wrote,
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.
You responded,
***--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. ***
I have made this point in multiple threads, over and over, and you have yet to respond to it. You did not address the point above. My point was not about personal use of tongues, a part of Paul’s teaching you obviously cannot accept.
My point was that tongues with interpretation edifies the church. If you argue that tongues function as confirmation ceased, the church still exists and still needs edifying. Since tongues and interpretation edify the church, if the need for their role as a sign or as confirmation for something ceased, they still would serve a function in edifying the church.
I buy ink pens to sign checks. If I close my bank account and just use cash, do I throw all my pens out? No, of course not, because pens serve other purposes, like signing letters. So if one function is no longer needed for a thing, that doesn’t mean you necessarily throw that thing out.
DHK wrote,
**The writers of the New Testament were the Apostles. When the Apostles died the gifts died with them.***
This is human reasoning. The scriptures do not teach that when the apostles died, the gifts died with them. If they do, then show me the scripture that says it. Show me scripture that says it. Please do not show me scripture that does NOT support your point, and then make a bunch of unsupported assertions again.
** The gifts were to authenticate the message and the messenger--that is the Apostles.***
The gifts had numerous purposes. One was to bear witness to those preaching the Gospel and the Gospel they preached. This was not limited to the apostles since there were others who did signs and wonders like Philip, Stephen. If you accept the end of Mark as genuine, you must accept that Jesus told the 12 that ‘them that believe’ would do miracles.
There is no scripture that teaches that this function of signs and wonders cannot apply to modern preachers who preach the Gospel.
** 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.**
I could see how this view would be dangerous. Suppose someone accepted your teaching and then saw a false prophet do a sign or wonder and followed them.
God can bear witness to a messenger or his message through signs and wonders. But if a man does a miracle or exercises a gift, that does not mean God necessarily approves of his character. (See Matthew 7.)
DHK wrote
** 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.***
I agree that this is ridiculous reasoning, but it is your reasoning, and not Chairsmatics’ reasoning. You are using the logical fallacy known as slippery slope reasoning.
And you are comparing apples and oranges. A Child being born is a one-time event. But God confirming the word with signs and wonders is a repeating event that can happen over and over again. All you have to do is look at Acts. It happened over and over on numerous occasions. Based on Paul’s writings to the Romans and Corinthians, it is likely that he did many other signs and wonders not even mentioned in Acts. God kept confirming the word with signs and wonders. This is not a one time event, but something that happened over and over, unlike the birth of one Child.
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.
DHK wrote
***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. ***
Apparently, healing a man born blind was an extremely unusual miracle, and one associated with the Messiah. However, did Jesus teach that no one could do His miracles.
John 14: 12. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
Look up the word for ‘works’ and see the other contexts in which it is used
DHK
** 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.**
Scripture shows a couple of non-apostles doing signs and wonders, and shows that various gifts of the Spirit, including miracles, were distributed among the saints in the church. So how can you argue for cessationism based on the fact that the apostles did miracles?
** Everything we need to know about God is contained in the Word of God.***
What does this point have to do with cessationism?
** 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.**
Acts 2 does not say that the speakers in tongues understood what they said, or even that their messages in tongues were evangelistic in nature. Tongues got people’s attention, but Peter preached in the common language.
Look at the characteristics of tongues in I Corinthians 14. The speaker does not understand unless he is empowered to interpret. This is consistent with a Charismatic missionaries tongues. How would a Charismatic missionary expect to use his tongue for evangelism if he does not know what He is saying?
** That was one of the purposes of tongues. But unfortunately your experiences don't match with your theology. **
My experiences apparently do not match with YOUR theology. Do not put words in my mouth.
***If you really believed in healing, then why do most Charismatics still where eye-glasses? Another glaring contradiction. ***
I haven’t seen any stats that say that ‘most’ charismatics wear eye-glasses. Here are two things to consider—
1. not all Charismatics believe that healing is automatic.
2. There have been Baptists who believed that healing is in the atonement.
3. Near-sighted and far-sightedness might be viewed, not a sickness, but as the eye adjusting to the type of work it is most often called upon to do. Reading a lot and using computers can cause near-sightedness. The eyes adjust to close work and become near-sighted.
**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.**
If doing miracles and signs and wonders are the signs of an apostles, that does not mean that all who do miracles, signs, and wonders are apostles. A sore throat is a sign of tonselitus, but if you have a sore throat, that does not mean you have tonselitus.
The Bible shows us that there were saints besides Paul and the 12 who did miracles, Philip, Stephen, and members of the body in Corinth, for example. These gifts are given as the Spirit wills.
** The last one to die was the Apostle John. Would you like to greet him for me if you see him around?**
I once knew an eccentric fellow who read all the time who thought John was still alive. He said he read a traditional story about John’s funeral, John disappeared and flowers appeared in his tomb, and there was no body. He thought John later showed up in history as Prester John. I couldn’t say I agree with this, but the death of John, Paul and most of the other apostles is not Bible doctrine because most of their deaths are not recorded in scripture.
I wrote,
2. It does not make sense since unbelievers hearing or reading about past miracles does not have the same effect as seeing miracles themselves.
DHK wrote,
**This is "a bunch of baloney." Miracles never saved anyone or caused anyone to believe. What did Christ say on the matter.**
I did not say that miracles caused anyone to believe. I said hearing or reading about past miracles does not have the same effect as seeing the miracles themselves. I have two examples. 1. Thomas. And 2.
Acts 8: 6. And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did.
**Jesus himself said that he could do no miracles in Capernaum because of their unbelief, ****
I think you mean in Nazareth. There they also asked why He did not do the works there that He did in Capernaum.
**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. **
While looking up Jesus allusion to miracles He had done in Capernaum, I came across the following
Matthew 11
21. Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.
22. But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you.
23. And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.
I did not say in my previous post that miracles would cause one to repent, but Christ said that if the mighty works he did in Bethsaida had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented. You argued that miracles could not cause one to believe. Jesus apparently thought miracles could have caused a city to repent.
DHK wrote,
***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 can present a thousand scriptures, but if they do not support your arguments and assertions, what have you proved? You repeatedly cite scriptures and then make arguments NOT supported by the scriptures you cite.
I wrote
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 responds
***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. ***
There you go again. The Bible does not say that these were the ‘primary’ purposes of tongues. Show me scripture that shows this. You can’t, because these are just your assertions, not something the Bible teaches. The Bible does not even teach point number 1, you infer it from a passage about tongues being a sign for unbelievers since Paul quotes from the OT. But Paul DIRECTLY STATES that spiritual gifts are ‘to profit withal.’
Can you even show a scripture to support 2, that tongues served as a sign to authenticate the apostles and their message? I do not see any scripture that states this.
***These were the two primary reasons. All other purposes were secondary to these.***
This is just your opinion. Show me the verse(s) of scripture that lists these two things as the primary purposes of tongues. You can’t even show me scriptures that clearly argue that these were purposes of tongues. Why is the directly-stated purpose not ‘primary’? Why are all the purposes that you manage to loosely infer from scripture the primary reasons?
** 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.**
Show me that in the Bible, that if one purpose for something has ceased, all other purposes for it have ceased. You can’t show that. It is just human opinion.
****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.***
I have studied about 8 languages myself, and I would take the word of a Greek professor who reads Greek every day for decades until he has a feel for the language over the word of someone on a web based discussion group who does not seem to have any real expertise in Greek.
And besides, this is really a non-issue, since there is no other noun in the passage for teleon to have to match with. The state of the believer in the resurrection does not seem to conflict with a neuter teleon.
**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. **
This is the problem: you cite scripture, but the scripture you cite does not say that the gifts have ceased.
In this message, you argue from Hebrews 2 and II Corinthians 12. Let us look at these two passages and see if they support the idea that the gifts have ceased.
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?
Does this verse say anything at all about the gifts ceasing? Of course not. It is ridiculous to offer this verse as evidence for cessationism, since it says nothing about it.
Sure, the verse says that when the salvation was first spoken by the Lord, and then confirmed unto the Hebrews by them that heard him, God bore witness by signs and wonders. But it does not say God would not bear witness with signs and wonders when the Gospel was preached later to non-Hebrews.
And in fact, the book of Acts is crystal clear that the early preachers of the Gospel performed signs and wonders not only when the Gospel was first preached among the Hebrews, but also later among the Gentiles. In Acts 15, Paul and Barnabas told of the miracles done among the Gentiles.
If the fact that this verse speaks of miracles being done in the past is supposed to argue that they will never occur again, then it would be contradicting the passages in Acts that show that miracles were done among Gentiles as well.
This type of reasoning is like the following. I say “I ate at McDonald’s every day when I first started working at this company.” Suppose you heard me say that, and you argue ‘Therefore you do not eat at McDonald’s anymore, because you ate there in the past.”
My past tense statement “I ate at McDonald’s every day when I first started working at this company.” says nothing about whether I still eat at McDonald’s Arguing for cessationism based on the use of the past tense in the Hebrews 2 passage is just as illogical, and contradicts other scripture which shows that miracles were done among non-Hebrews as well.
II Corinthians 12:12. Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.
This verse says nothing about miracles ceasing. It says nothing about only apostles doing miracles. It says nothing about miracles ceasing when the apostles died, or the idea that apostleship would not continue. It does tell us that there were ‘signs of an apostle.’
But we also see that other saints did miraculous things. In I Corinthians 12, we see a large number of gifts distributed among the saints, not just among the apostles. The bible does not say these gifts were limited to the close associates of the apostles. It teaches that the Spirit gave them as He willed. The Hebrews passage above says that signs and wonders and gifts of the Holy Ghost were given as God willed.
That is the doctrine of the Bible on the subject, that gifts are given as God wills. It does not matter if you want them only to be given to close associates of the apostles in the first century. God gives them to whomever He wills, as scripture teaches, no matter what you say. The choice is God’s, not yours. You have no authority to limit these things to the first century, to apostles, or to their close associates, and scripture gives you no authority to do so. The verses you cite give you no authority to make these claims.
DHK gave the following supposed scriptural evidence that gifts had ceased.
**
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.***
Look at your argument. You are
1. Using circular reasoning
2. Arguing from experience and not scripture.
The verse you quote does not say that this could not happen again. You assert it. Based on what? Your belief that this cannot happen again, apparently based on the fact that you have never seen this happen.
Since scripture does not teach that this could not happen again, then it is up to God, not you, to decide if it could not happen again.
Besides, even if for the sake of argument the apostles had especially might miracles that were irrepeatable, the Spirit still gave gifts to ‘regular believers’ in the church, too. In fact, there are some people who think that way, the there were might deeds done by the apostles, and less dramatic gifts for other saints.
A problem with this idea is Philip also did great signs and wonders, and he was not one of the 12.
*** 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.***
The problem is none of the verses you quote argue this. You make this doctrine up, and post a few verses here or there that do not support your conclusion.
*** Peter walked on water. I haven't seen anyone do that lately. Have you? The gift of miracles have ceased. ***
So, reality is defined by what you or I have seen? If you have not seen it, that does not mean it is not possible.
I read about some people who allegedly walked on water, or did the same thing just sinking down to their knees, as they went somewhere to preach the Gospel. It was on a book about a revival on the island of Timor. I met a Timorese preacher at a neighborhood fellowship, and he had written a thesis of some sort on this. He had compiled a number of eye-witness testimonies of miracles (I do not know if he had any of the walking on water miracle). He never brought the thesis to the meeting and I never did follow up. It would have been an interesting read, but it was in Indonesian, apparently.
***
Why have they ceased? Because the Scriptures tell us so.
***
You quoted a lot of scripture. After this statement, you quote the Hebrews 2 passage, which does not say that miracles, etc. ceased. Why don’t the verses you cite say anything about gifts ceasing? Why is it that you quote verses that do NOT say gifts ceased, and then add your own human-opinion-commentary that the gifts have ceased?
***
--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.***
More human opinion.
1. You do not show any scripture to show that there would be no apostles after the first century.
2. You do not show any scripture that says that if there are no apostles there are no signs and wonders.
3. You do not show any scripture that says that signs and wonders are no longer needed.
4. You do not show any scripture that argues that if we have the Bible, we no longer need signs and wonders (point not in quote above.)
The idea that miracles served only to confirm the apostles or the scriptures is an idea not found in scripture.
** We have the completed Word of God. Jesus said that it is an evil and adulterous generation that seeks after a sign. **
But Jesus did not say all who seek for signs are evil and adulterous. According to Acts 4, the apostles prayed for signs and wonders to be done for the sake of God’s holy Child or Servant Jesus. They prayed with the right motive, not because they were evil or adulterous.
***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. ***
Really think about what you are saying. There are no prophecy charts in the Bible. (If they are they are in your Bible, they are not ‘Bible.’) Your time periods for your dispensations and their characteristics are meaningless UNLESS THEY ARE SUPPORTED BY SCRIPTURE.
If your prophecy chart has a church age with no miracles, etc., and a tribulation period with miracles and prophecy, and no scripture to back it up, that’s just dumb.
The Bible does NOT say that prophecy will be abolished….oh wait a minute, and then it will come back in time for the tribulation…and then be reabolished at the coming of the Lord. If it goes on during the ministry of the Two Witnesses and ends at the coming of the Lord/resurrection, then it makes sense to interpret ‘that which is perfect’ as referring to the time of the resurrection.
The issue is not what your dispensations say, but what does the Bible say. If your dispensation characteristics have no support from scripture throw them in the trashcan. The Bible does not give you authority to divide the church age and tribulational age up into different time periods as you are doing.
And if this is the last days, whose to say that Pentecostal and Charismatic prophecy—some of it anyway-- might not be part of God’s plan to bring back the gifts of the Spirit in our age before the Two Witnesses come along. You don’t have a verse that ‘turns on’ the prophecy faucet.
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.**
I asked for scriptural proof for this statement, and DHK responded.
***I have already shown you scripture for this--Heb.2:3,4 and 2Cor.12:12. ***
This is the problem. I ask for proof, and you give verses that do not remotely support your assertions. Hebrews 2:3-4 does not ‘say the apostles’. It says them that heard the Lord. There were at least 500 brethren who witnessed the resurrection, and there is no reason to think that the preachers of Hebrews 2 were limited to the 12, especially if you consider the fact that men like Stephen and Philip did miracles, even though they were not of the 12.
These passages do not say anything about your idea that tongues were limited to the apostles or those closely associated with them. I Corinthians 12 and 14 are clear that some of those who spoke in tongues were members of the church in Corinth. Most of them probably weren’t evangelists or traveling companions of the apostles. In fact, some off the speakers in tongues were probably spiritually immature. I Corinthians 12 tells us that divers tongues and other gifts were given as the Spirit wills, not ‘to the apostles and their close associates.’
**So, no; it is not an opinion. It is a Scripturally based conclusion. **
Yes it is opinion. You quote scripture that does not support your views and then write your own opinions. I want to see scriptures that actually support your views, or your views change to those supported by scripture.
I wrote,
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.
You responded,
***--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. ***
I have made this point in multiple threads, over and over, and you have yet to respond to it. You did not address the point above. My point was not about personal use of tongues, a part of Paul’s teaching you obviously cannot accept.
My point was that tongues with interpretation edifies the church. If you argue that tongues function as confirmation ceased, the church still exists and still needs edifying. Since tongues and interpretation edify the church, if the need for their role as a sign or as confirmation for something ceased, they still would serve a function in edifying the church.
I buy ink pens to sign checks. If I close my bank account and just use cash, do I throw all my pens out? No, of course not, because pens serve other purposes, like signing letters. So if one function is no longer needed for a thing, that doesn’t mean you necessarily throw that thing out.
DHK wrote,
**The writers of the New Testament were the Apostles. When the Apostles died the gifts died with them.***
This is human reasoning. The scriptures do not teach that when the apostles died, the gifts died with them. If they do, then show me the scripture that says it. Show me scripture that says it. Please do not show me scripture that does NOT support your point, and then make a bunch of unsupported assertions again.
** The gifts were to authenticate the message and the messenger--that is the Apostles.***
The gifts had numerous purposes. One was to bear witness to those preaching the Gospel and the Gospel they preached. This was not limited to the apostles since there were others who did signs and wonders like Philip, Stephen. If you accept the end of Mark as genuine, you must accept that Jesus told the 12 that ‘them that believe’ would do miracles.
There is no scripture that teaches that this function of signs and wonders cannot apply to modern preachers who preach the Gospel.
** 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.**
I could see how this view would be dangerous. Suppose someone accepted your teaching and then saw a false prophet do a sign or wonder and followed them.
God can bear witness to a messenger or his message through signs and wonders. But if a man does a miracle or exercises a gift, that does not mean God necessarily approves of his character. (See Matthew 7.)
DHK wrote
** 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.***
I agree that this is ridiculous reasoning, but it is your reasoning, and not Chairsmatics’ reasoning. You are using the logical fallacy known as slippery slope reasoning.
And you are comparing apples and oranges. A Child being born is a one-time event. But God confirming the word with signs and wonders is a repeating event that can happen over and over again. All you have to do is look at Acts. It happened over and over on numerous occasions. Based on Paul’s writings to the Romans and Corinthians, it is likely that he did many other signs and wonders not even mentioned in Acts. God kept confirming the word with signs and wonders. This is not a one time event, but something that happened over and over, unlike the birth of one Child.
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.
DHK wrote
***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. ***
Apparently, healing a man born blind was an extremely unusual miracle, and one associated with the Messiah. However, did Jesus teach that no one could do His miracles.
John 14: 12. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
Look up the word for ‘works’ and see the other contexts in which it is used
DHK
** 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.**
Scripture shows a couple of non-apostles doing signs and wonders, and shows that various gifts of the Spirit, including miracles, were distributed among the saints in the church. So how can you argue for cessationism based on the fact that the apostles did miracles?
** Everything we need to know about God is contained in the Word of God.***
What does this point have to do with cessationism?
** 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.**
Acts 2 does not say that the speakers in tongues understood what they said, or even that their messages in tongues were evangelistic in nature. Tongues got people’s attention, but Peter preached in the common language.
Look at the characteristics of tongues in I Corinthians 14. The speaker does not understand unless he is empowered to interpret. This is consistent with a Charismatic missionaries tongues. How would a Charismatic missionary expect to use his tongue for evangelism if he does not know what He is saying?
** That was one of the purposes of tongues. But unfortunately your experiences don't match with your theology. **
My experiences apparently do not match with YOUR theology. Do not put words in my mouth.
***If you really believed in healing, then why do most Charismatics still where eye-glasses? Another glaring contradiction. ***
I haven’t seen any stats that say that ‘most’ charismatics wear eye-glasses. Here are two things to consider—
1. not all Charismatics believe that healing is automatic.
2. There have been Baptists who believed that healing is in the atonement.
3. Near-sighted and far-sightedness might be viewed, not a sickness, but as the eye adjusting to the type of work it is most often called upon to do. Reading a lot and using computers can cause near-sightedness. The eyes adjust to close work and become near-sighted.
**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.**
If doing miracles and signs and wonders are the signs of an apostles, that does not mean that all who do miracles, signs, and wonders are apostles. A sore throat is a sign of tonselitus, but if you have a sore throat, that does not mean you have tonselitus.
The Bible shows us that there were saints besides Paul and the 12 who did miracles, Philip, Stephen, and members of the body in Corinth, for example. These gifts are given as the Spirit wills.
** The last one to die was the Apostle John. Would you like to greet him for me if you see him around?**
I once knew an eccentric fellow who read all the time who thought John was still alive. He said he read a traditional story about John’s funeral, John disappeared and flowers appeared in his tomb, and there was no body. He thought John later showed up in history as Prester John. I couldn’t say I agree with this, but the death of John, Paul and most of the other apostles is not Bible doctrine because most of their deaths are not recorded in scripture.
I wrote,
2. It does not make sense since unbelievers hearing or reading about past miracles does not have the same effect as seeing miracles themselves.
DHK wrote,
**This is "a bunch of baloney." Miracles never saved anyone or caused anyone to believe. What did Christ say on the matter.**
I did not say that miracles caused anyone to believe. I said hearing or reading about past miracles does not have the same effect as seeing the miracles themselves. I have two examples. 1. Thomas. And 2.
Acts 8: 6. And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did.
**Jesus himself said that he could do no miracles in Capernaum because of their unbelief, ****
I think you mean in Nazareth. There they also asked why He did not do the works there that He did in Capernaum.
**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. **
While looking up Jesus allusion to miracles He had done in Capernaum, I came across the following
Matthew 11
21. Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.
22. But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you.
23. And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.
I did not say in my previous post that miracles would cause one to repent, but Christ said that if the mighty works he did in Bethsaida had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented. You argued that miracles could not cause one to believe. Jesus apparently thought miracles could have caused a city to repent.
DHK wrote,
***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 can present a thousand scriptures, but if they do not support your arguments and assertions, what have you proved? You repeatedly cite scriptures and then make arguments NOT supported by the scriptures you cite.
I wrote
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 responds
***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. ***
There you go again. The Bible does not say that these were the ‘primary’ purposes of tongues. Show me scripture that shows this. You can’t, because these are just your assertions, not something the Bible teaches. The Bible does not even teach point number 1, you infer it from a passage about tongues being a sign for unbelievers since Paul quotes from the OT. But Paul DIRECTLY STATES that spiritual gifts are ‘to profit withal.’
Can you even show a scripture to support 2, that tongues served as a sign to authenticate the apostles and their message? I do not see any scripture that states this.
***These were the two primary reasons. All other purposes were secondary to these.***
This is just your opinion. Show me the verse(s) of scripture that lists these two things as the primary purposes of tongues. You can’t even show me scriptures that clearly argue that these were purposes of tongues. Why is the directly-stated purpose not ‘primary’? Why are all the purposes that you manage to loosely infer from scripture the primary reasons?
** 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.**
Show me that in the Bible, that if one purpose for something has ceased, all other purposes for it have ceased. You can’t show that. It is just human opinion.
****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.***
I have studied about 8 languages myself, and I would take the word of a Greek professor who reads Greek every day for decades until he has a feel for the language over the word of someone on a web based discussion group who does not seem to have any real expertise in Greek.
And besides, this is really a non-issue, since there is no other noun in the passage for teleon to have to match with. The state of the believer in the resurrection does not seem to conflict with a neuter teleon.
Ray Berrian
New Member
DHk,
You really need to get in touch with Biblical truth. Even Wycliffe Bible Commentary or some other commentary is needed so you keep somewhere near a balanced Biblical interpretation.
You said, 'There is no other form of tongues, unless you are speaking of a form of tongues spoken of in 1Cor.12:1-3, which Paul attributes to Satan. Biblical tongues were always, always, in a foreign language. There is only one Biblical gift of speaking in tongues (foreign languages)--one and only one gift.'
You really need to get in touch with Biblical truth. Even Wycliffe Bible Commentary or some other commentary is needed so you keep somewhere near a balanced Biblical interpretation.
You said, 'There is no other form of tongues, unless you are speaking of a form of tongues spoken of in 1Cor.12:1-3, which Paul attributes to Satan. Biblical tongues were always, always, in a foreign language. There is only one Biblical gift of speaking in tongues (foreign languages)--one and only one gift.'
DHK,
Regarding this passage of scripture...
There is absolutly nothing in Gods scriptures that would indicate that when the passages say "having all knowledge" or "understand all mysteries" that it means...
"if I were just like Almighty God, and completly omniscient".
There are multitudes of other times where the word "all" is used in this precise manner, and it never means anything of the sort.
"I have become all things to all people"
Do you say that Paul is saying here that he literally is all things? He is a mule? A doorstop? A pitcher of water? He personally is qualified for every trade known on earth at that time? He literally can perform every function needed for any task on earth?
Of course not. Its lunacy.
"Let him who is taught the word share in all good things with him who teaches"
That is to be taken literally? I must give every posession I own to every person who teaches me something?
That as well would be lunacy.
"Indeed, I have all and abound"
He lterally means that he personally possesses every known object that can be owned on planet earth?
Ridiculous.
"Because of the word that the woman testified, 'he told me all that I ever did'."
Jesus literally recited to her every single act of any kind that she had performed from the the day she was born up to that point?
Nonsense
And its nonsense to say that because the scriptures say "all knowledge" or "all wisdom" in the passages in question that they mean "If I am omniscient, and am in fact Almighty God".
Its clear as a bell that he is simply saying that no matter how much knowledge or how much wisdom I might have, if I have not love it means nothing.
It is perfectly possible and acceptable to have lots and lots of knowledge, or wisdom, as the scripture says...just like the same passage of scripture says it is possible to speak in the tongues of angels.(A heavenly language, spoken by means of the gift of the Holy Spirit)
I could go on and on and on of course with scripture after scripture after scripture for hours upon hours where "all" does nor mean literally all.
My point is that their are commentaries and study bibles that support your view, and just as many commentaries and study bibles that suppoort what I am sharing.
So lets just stick with the word of God, shall we?
God bless.
Mike
Regarding this passage of scripture...
I said...
And you now say...
This is so very sad.
There is absolutly nothing in Gods scriptures that would indicate that when the passages say "having all knowledge" or "understand all mysteries" that it means...
"if I were just like Almighty God, and completly omniscient".
There are multitudes of other times where the word "all" is used in this precise manner, and it never means anything of the sort.
"I have become all things to all people"
Do you say that Paul is saying here that he literally is all things? He is a mule? A doorstop? A pitcher of water? He personally is qualified for every trade known on earth at that time? He literally can perform every function needed for any task on earth?
Of course not. Its lunacy.
"Let him who is taught the word share in all good things with him who teaches"
That is to be taken literally? I must give every posession I own to every person who teaches me something?
That as well would be lunacy.
"Indeed, I have all and abound"
He lterally means that he personally possesses every known object that can be owned on planet earth?
Ridiculous.
"Because of the word that the woman testified, 'he told me all that I ever did'."
Jesus literally recited to her every single act of any kind that she had performed from the the day she was born up to that point?
Nonsense
And its nonsense to say that because the scriptures say "all knowledge" or "all wisdom" in the passages in question that they mean "If I am omniscient, and am in fact Almighty God".
Its clear as a bell that he is simply saying that no matter how much knowledge or how much wisdom I might have, if I have not love it means nothing.
It is perfectly possible and acceptable to have lots and lots of knowledge, or wisdom, as the scripture says...just like the same passage of scripture says it is possible to speak in the tongues of angels.(A heavenly language, spoken by means of the gift of the Holy Spirit)
I could go on and on and on of course with scripture after scripture after scripture for hours upon hours where "all" does nor mean literally all.
I thought you said in earlier posts it is the scriptures you turn to, and not the word of men?
My point is that their are commentaries and study bibles that support your view, and just as many commentaries and study bibles that suppoort what I am sharing.
So lets just stick with the word of God, shall we?
God bless.
Mike
Can I assume that a "good" commentary is one that promotes what you like, and any that supports what I'm sharing is not a "good" commentary?
Mike </font>[/QUOTE]
Caught on right quick there Mike.
Acually I have noticed its ok to post Baptist sites. But I seen when Iraneus(sp?) or other men are quoted or any other site that has info on tongues that may put a positive outlook. It won't be allowed. Thats just the rules.
Mat 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
DHK,
Regarding my assertion of a "heavenly language", that some might speak here on earth by gifting of the Holy Spirit, you have indicated that there is no "heavenly language", for you said...
Where does that leave people like me who speak English? And what about the Chinese, Japanese, Hungarians and Russians?
Will we all have to go to a class somewhere where we can learn to speak Hebrew so we can praise God is a language He understands?
Or is it more likely that God simply gave John the ability to understand the language of heaven...for the purpose of communicating to us what he saw in the scripture he wrote...since otherwise the whole point of being there would be lost?
Just wondering.
God bless,
Mike
Regarding my assertion of a "heavenly language", that some might speak here on earth by gifting of the Holy Spirit, you have indicated that there is no "heavenly language", for you said...
So...are you saying they speak Hebrew in heaven? Aramaic?
Where does that leave people like me who speak English? And what about the Chinese, Japanese, Hungarians and Russians?
Will we all have to go to a class somewhere where we can learn to speak Hebrew so we can praise God is a language He understands?
Or is it more likely that God simply gave John the ability to understand the language of heaven...for the purpose of communicating to us what he saw in the scripture he wrote...since otherwise the whole point of being there would be lost?
Just wondering.
God bless,
Mike
music4Him,
I'm not the brightest bulb on the planet, but give me time and thinks will eventually sink in.
Even from the "All Christians" boards?
Mike
Thanks.Caught on right quick there Mike.
I'm not the brightest bulb on the planet, but give me time and thinks will eventually sink in. Hmmmm. I didnt know that. I've seen links from...I believe...7th Day Adventists sites deleted, but are you saying if links to pentecostal or charismatic type sites are posted they will be removed?
Even from the "All Christians" boards?
Mike