I Corinthians 1:7 shows that gifts continue

Couldn't have said it any better. So why try to read anything else into it otner than what you just stated right here.
While I am waiting for Christ's return, I pray.
While I am waiting for Christ's return, I carry out the Great Commission.
I do not lack in any of the armour of Christ while I am waiting for the return of Christ.
I am in the battle fighting the good fight of faith, while I am waiting for the coming of Christ.

There is no connection here between the spiritual gifts continuing until the coming of Christ. There is only a statement that the members of the Corinthian church possessed all the gifts of the Spirit; not that any other church in the New Testament did, or ever would. It was a letter written to the Corinthian, and you are still reading the introduction to it.
DHK

 

Thats probley why no one is comming back to my question? Maybe they studied it out and figured it out on their own?

 

I don't think anyone here has stated 70 AD, except perhaps as one possibility. Maybe that's why they didn't come back to your question.

 

I get dizzy trying to sort through all these posts.

I have a sincere question, and this is no debate either way on my part, I'm still trying (and praying) about where I stand on the issue. But my question is this, to those who believe the modern tongues (prayer language) is not the Holy Spirit today:

If not the Holy Spirit, then what is it? I know a lot of people make it up to fit in, but most do not (not consciously, anyway). So, is it demonic? Is is psychosematic? What is it?

 

Sister Robin,

In many cases it is the flesh... a feel good thing. In many, it is instilled that this is how it is supposed to happen, programmed in if you will.

It was pointed out earlier that verse 2 plainly shows that the unknown tongue is something spoken to God, not to man. If the interpretation given by man is to man, then it is misinterpreted.

I cannot say the tongue spoken loud in the church is not that unknown tongue. I certainly do not know how to talk in such a way consistantly.

For the answer to your question, 'What is it?' Read the last verse... Paul admonishes the church at Corinth that all things are to be done decently and in order.

I would say that they are out of order for sure... being as the interpretation is always a message from God to man, not man to God as was the original tongue.

 

From what I have seen from your posts, you carry yourself very well. You never cast others out of fellowship or seem argumentive, and your points always seem genuine and of love. You are a true Christian and an example for others to follow on theese boards, including myself.

 

I lace all of the spiritual gifts. They all ceased at the end of the first century. So you lack them all too.
But you are right. Paul is talking about them, plural, as not coming behind in any gift. I have been trying to emphasize the same.

True, they had those gifts at that time. Some of the other churches at that time may not have had them. But it is evident that we do not.

The Bible teaches the imminent return of Christ. They were to expect the imminent return of Christ as we are. While they were waiting the spiritual gifts were in operation at that time, but they are not in operation in our time, and that verse gives no indication they would be.
I believe all the gifts ceased at the end of the first century. So I really don't have to argue the point about some being signs and others not. However the Bible definitely speaks of a division. There were some gifts that were signs.
They were signs of an Apostle, and the apostolic message (Heb.2:3,4; 2Cor.12:12)
They were a sign to the unbelieving Jews (1Cor.14:21,22)
The word sign is definitely used in connection with some of the gifts. It is never used in connection with gifts like "the gift of helps." That apparently was not one of the sign gifts.
Signs and wonders followed the apostles (Mark 16:16ff). They authenticated both the apostles and their message, and they were a sign to the Jews to whom the message of the gospel first went.
DHK

 

Amen Link~

 

Link,

The tongues(plural) in 1 Corinthians chapter 14 is not the unknown tongue(singular) that is also found in chapter 14.

When tongues is mentioned, it is a known dialect (i.e., Spanish, French, Latin, etc...).

When the unknown tongue is mentioned, it is just that; unknown by man, known only by God.

Verse 2 plainly affirms this. When a man speaketh in an unknown tongue, he speaketh not to man, but to God. It cannot be any simpler.

 

Yes, Christ may come at any time. That was true during their lifetime, as it is now.

Yes, Christ could come back at any time, in their life time as well as in ours.

Total nonsense. The imminent return of Christ has nothing to do with the return of Christ as I have posted here to you many times before. Tell me: What does the gift of healing (for example), have to do with the coming of Christ? We all know that the Biblical gift of healing has ceased. There is not a single person alive that has the gift of healing and can demonstrate as Peter did in Acts 5:16. You know it and I know it. You just prefer to deny it, and beat around the bush. The gift of healing has ceased. It has nothing to do with the imminent return of Christ. None of the gifts have any connection with the coming of Christ. Who said they did? And where do you get such an aberrant theology? It isn't from the Bible!

1Cor.1:7 Has nothing to do with 1Cor.13:8-13. I don't have any idea of what you are thinking. Paul is simply saying that at the time that he is writing that letter (55 A.D.) they were blessed to have all the gifts present in their church. Maybe in 56 A.D. they would all disappear. But then in 55 they were there. He does not say how long they would last. He simply makes the statement that they came (at that time) behind in no gift. The gifts could have ceased in one year, five, or ten years. It doesn't say, and thus the passage has nothing to do with "that which is perfect or complete (the Bible).

Are you adding to the Word of God. You are giving the impression that the gifts are to continue to the coming of Christ by saying "while" they are waiting. Christ's return is imminent. However Christ himself said and warned that "No man knew the hour, the time, or the season thereof. He warned of predicting His coming. Yet there is a definite promise of the cessation of the gifts of the Spirit in 1Cor.13:8, and many clues given as to when. "Signs" don't last forever. In fact the "signs" of the gifts were very temporary.

Nevertheless they were a sign. For the time they were a sign they may have had a seondary role. For example tongues may have edified the church when used properly. But more often than not it brought confusion and was not used properly. Usually there was no need for. Prophecy accomplished the same purpose. Paul advocated them to use the gift of prophecy and not tongues, because there was no need for the Corinthians to use the gift of tongues. There was a place for tongues, but it wasn't in the Corinthian Church.
The main reason for tongues and other sign gifts was to be a sign to the Jews that the message that the Apostles preached was from God.
It was a sign for the Apostles to authenticate both them and their message, that they were the true apostles and that they were from God.

If not, then God has written these Scriptures in vain.

1 Corinthians 14:21-22 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.
--Tongues are for a sign to the unbelieving Jew.

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?
The gifts of the Holy Spirit are the signs of an Apostle.

2 Corinthians 12:12 Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.
--Miracles, and other signs of the Spirit are the signs of an Apostle.

If you don't believe God's Word here I don't know what would convince you.
DHK

 

Yes. The word "unknown" never appears in Scriptures alongside the word "tongues". Entire doctrines are built upon things that never appear in the Bible. For example, the word "ghost" never appears with "holy", yet there are entire denominations that are built upon the distinction between the "Holy Spirit" and the "Holy Ghost". ("Ghost" only appears twice in the NT, and it is translated as "spirit" in both instances; Matthew 14:26 and Mark 6:49.)

 

Tongue and tongues in the Greek mean the same thing. In 1 Cor. ch 14 that are being spoken of...

G1100
γλῶσσα
glōssa
gloce'-sah
Of uncertain affinity; the tongue; by implication a language (specifically one naturally unacquired): - tongue.

Until you get to verse 27 then you have...
G2084
ἑτερόγλωσσος
heteroglōssos
het-er-og'-loce-sos
From G2087 and G1100; other tongued, that is, a foreigner: - man of other tongue.

But read the scriptures in chapter 14 and you do get the understanding that verse 27 (1Cor ch 14) is speaking of foreigners. The other scriptures sound like the tongues that were poured out on the day of Pentecost.

 

No, of course not.
I live in an age where I (like the early believers) believes that Christ could come back at any time. I also believe that my elderly father could die at any time. There are many parallels that could cease at the same time. How does that make a contradiction except in your own mind. Paul could not predict the future. He is not God. In as much as I don't know when my father will die, he didn't know when the gifts would cease. In as much as I don't know when Christ would come, neither did he. Where is the contradition?

Yep, sure would. The imminent return of Christ has nothing to do with the timing of the cessation of the gifts as I have pointed out to you before. They are unrelated.

So what! It is listed there. That doesn't mean it is for today. That doesn't mean it hasn't ceased along with all the other gifts.

Hmmm, Who is basing doctrine on experience? You better think about that again?

Here you go on your typical Charismatic rant about healing again and your accusation (implied) that Baptists don't believe in healing. I never said that. Let's get it straight.
1. The gift of healing has ceased.
2. God still heals.
There is a big difference between the two. I never said that God doesn't heal. I said that the gift, that supernatural gift of healing is no longer in operation today. I too have seen God's hand at work, and have seen many people healed. All have been a result of prayer. That is not what happened in Acts 5:16
If you want a modern day parallel of the gift of healing, let someone who claims they have the gift go through any of the major hospitals and heall all who are there. That is what Peter could do. He could heal ALL, every one who came to him. As it says in Acts 5:16. They were healed every one. That doesn't happen today, and you know it. Why? The gift of healing is no longer in operation. Your rationalization that it is does not hold up to the standard the Bible sets forth for the gift of healing. It has ceased.

I am grasping at straws because you what I say is true and you cannot refute it. Paul was writing a particular time in history. He made a statement at that time in history for that church. It was not applicable to any other.
It was like Paul writing to Timothy.
"Take a little wine for thy stomach sake."
You can understand that can't you. It was a historical statement written for Timothy at that time in his life. The same is true with 1Cor.7. He makes a statement about the condition of the church at that time. The condition of the church at that time was that they were blessed with a display of all the gifts. He doesn't make that statement of any other church, and doesn't promise that to be true of any other church.

[/qb][/quote]And no reason from the context of the epistle to think that this would happen before the resurrection and Lord's return and plenty of reasons to think the gifts would continue until then, including this verse. [/qb][/quote]
If your mind is not blinded by your theology you would be able to see why these gifts ended by the first century, and why they are primarily signs. But unfortunately
"a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."
So even if I could convince you, you still would not believe.
For example your one statement above "including this verse." This verse (1Cor.1:7) has nothing to do with the cessation of gifts. As pointed out many times already it is a simple statement of fact, a description of the condition of the church of Corinth in the year 55 A.D. How that could affect the continuance of the gifts into 56, 57, or any other year is beyond me. Remember the context. He was writing a letter to the Corinthians. It was written in 55 A.D. That is what he said in his letter to the Corinthians. Context is very important.

I agree totally. Who said it did?

The events past this dispensation of grace or the church age have nothing to do with what is being mentioned in 1Cor. 12-14. He is writing to the believers of the Corinthian church. He is not writing to those going through the Tribulation period, nor is he writing to those going into the Millennial Kingdom. Let's keep our focus on the right time period. He was writing a letter to the Corinthian Church. They were, (as he says) looking for the Coming of Christ. All events past that event are moot.

I already have, but as I said above: "a man convinced...", and you know the rest.
But in addition to 1Cor.14:21,22 which you failed to address, and Heb.2:3,4 (which you failed to properly address as it was specifically speaking about apostles), and 2Cor.12:12 (which Paul speaks of the signs of an Apostle--you just seem to deny that one). There are others.
Acts 2. Tongues (which are always foreign languages) were given as a sign. Peter indicated this. "This is that which was spoken of by the prophet Joel." This is what? This is the sign that was now being fulfilled by the prophet Joel. It was a sign to the Jews, the unbelieving Jews. Who was Peter addressing? Read his message. He was addressing the very Jews that had crucified Christ. Some of those "unbelieving Jews" believed (about 3,000 of them). That is why the sign was there. That they would believe. But many more did not believe as Isaiah prophesied in Isaiah 28:11,12. It was a sign to the Jews.
Tongues (foreign languages) were spoken three times in the book of Acts (Chapters 2, 10, and 19). Study it and you will find that in all three cases there were Jews present. Why? Tongues were a sign to the Jews. Everywhere tongues were spoken Jews were present. Tongues were a sign to the unbelieving Jew. This was the first and foremost purpose of speaking in tongues. When the unbelieving Jews of the first century died off, then there was no more need for the sign. The sign was removed. By the end of the first century (and more accurately 70 A.D., when the Jews were scattered,) the sign was removed. There wasn't any more need for them.
To corroborate this Paul plainly says that tongues were a sign to the unbelieving Jew in 1Cor.14:21,22. How anyone can miss that passage I don't know. Verse 21 alone you would have to cut out of your Bible and throw into the garbage if you read it and come to the conclusion that tongues is not a sign for the Jews, for you would just be denying a plain statement made in the Word of God.

The other two Scriptures I gave you are Scriptures that plainly show that tongues (as well as other sign gifts) are signs for an Apostle to authenticate them as God's messengers, and their message. To clarify this point: These gifts were given both to the Apostles and their close associates such as Philip, who worked closely with the Apostles. You will remeber that he was chosen by the church for the sake of the Apostles that they would be more free to give themselves to the Word and prayer.

The question is what translation have you been using. Paul plainly says that he would rather the church prophecy than speak in tongues. He tells them that he would rather speak 10,000 words in a language that they can understand, then five words in an unknown tongue. It doesn't speak much for tongues does it. Almost every verse in chapter 14 of First Corinthians is a rebuke to the gift of tongues. There is no encouragement at all in that chapter to seek after tongues or even to use the gift. So, yes, What translation are you using??
Furthermore if you look carefully at 1Cor.12:28 you will find the gifts of the Spirit listed in order of importance. Tongues and the interpretation thereof are listed at the bottom as the least important of all the gifts. But the Charismatics put it at the top of their list, some on the fringes make is so important as to say that one cannot be saved without speaking in tongues.

Since he explained that tongues was a sign to the unbelieving Jews, there probably wasn't much chance or need of them to use this gift in this Gentile city.

There are volumes of it. I have already shown you plenty. But as you know by now: "A man convinced...and you know the rest.

That is an opinion, invalid when men convinced against their will remain unconvinced still.
Paul does quote from Isaiah 28:11,12 which is a prophecy. He quotes part of it almost verbatim. Both in the prophecy and in verse 21 he uses the phrase "this people" which can only refer to the nation of Israel. There were people from other nation speaking the message of God to the nation of Israel. This was a sign to Israel. The Gentiles were anathema to Israel. They were unclean. They would have nothing to do with the Gentiles. Remeber the abhorrent reaction Peter had when told to go to the house of Cornelius. He had to be convinced by God in a vision before he would go. And now the Jews were expected to believe a message from their God, Jehovah coming from unclean nations--the Gentiles, in unclean languages. This was a sign. If they would not listen to their own prophets God would give them a sign, a sign that judgement would soon come upon them if they would not listen to this message this one last time. And they didnt'.

Both of the Scriptures do, when men who are not convinced against their will, will not remain unconvinced still. But that is not the case is it?

One can easily see your bias and how you will not be convinced thought the evidence is plainly set before you. The verse says that the message (of salvation) was confirmed to us (apostles)...by signs, wonders, miracles, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit. There are no more apostles today. The signs, the miracles, the gifts of the Holy Spirit verified that Apostles were genuine, that their message was genuine. These signs and gifts ceased when the Apostles ceased. This is quite obvious here. The message was confirmed to them not to others but to them by the gifts of the Spirit. Those signs and gifts were given only to the Apostles and their close associates. It was for their verification, especially the signs and wonders.

It was accompanied by signs and wonders done by the Apostles. That is the important part to remeber here. Signs and wonders were the sign of an apostle.

You can believe what you want to. I do not believe in apostolic succession. There were 12 Apostles, and then Paul, as one "born out of due time." This is what the Bible teaches. There are 12 foundations in heaven each one having the name of one of the 12 apostles. This contradicts your theory right away. "The Twelve" are often mentioned in Scripture. This is what I am referring to. The Twelve Apostles and their close associates were authenticated by signs and wonders, and when they passed off the scene so did the gifts. They were no longer needed. Tongues was a sign. So were the other gifts.

Almost every church had an apostle or a close associate of one of the apostles in it. Not every church had all the gifts. Some of the churches may not have had any of the gifts. A church does not need the gifts of the Spirit to operate; but they do need the fruit of the Spirit. Paul emphasized that. "I show you a more excellent way" He had just finished listing all of the gifts. Then he said desire the best gifts (prophesying and teaching). Then he makes a statement which has the meaning: I will show you a better way a way that is more valuable than all of these gifts put together. Then he launches into 1Cor.13, one of the most beautiful chapters in the Bible, describing how love is so essential to the Christian life--not the gifts of the Spirit, but love. The gifts are not essential. But the fruit of the Spirit are.

Yes, in the first century.
But like I say:
A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.
DHK