Poll: Tongues

[DHK]

Originally posted by Ben W:
DHK you said - Thirdly, they were a temporary source of revelation given to New Testament believers until the New Testament (canon) or the Bible was completed

Where does it say this in the Bible?

I explained that above.
1. With a proper exegesis of 1Cor.13:8-13 we find that tongues ceased with the completion of the Bible.

2. According to 1Cor.14:21,22 tongues were a sign to the unbelieving Jew. It was a prophecy to those unbelieving Jews of the first century.

3. 1Cor.13:8 says "tongues shall cease." The answer is given in the above Scripture. By the end of the first century when the Bible was completed, and when the sign was no longer needed.

The statement that you are looking for dosn't have to be so straightforward as "Tongues absolutely ceased, no questions asked, in the year 98 A.D., thus saith the Lord!" Is this what you are looking for?

The Bible doesn't say that the disciples didn't use bicycles for transportation either. Yet through a combination of history and what the Word of God does say about transportation, we know that they didn't. It is quite evident isn't it? It is that easy with the issue of tongues as well. The Bible is very clear on this issue. What goes on in the name of tongues today is fraudulent. It is not the true Biblical gift of foreign languages. If it was, it would be demonstrable in each and every case, and women would cease to speak it immediately.
DHK

 

[Gershom]

Has knowledge passed away as well?

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Gershom:
Has knowledge passed away as well?

The knowledge spoken of in 1Cor.13:8 is not common knowledge. It is revelatory knowledge, special knowledge revealed by God during that time when the Bible was incomplete. It was God's revelation to man, just as the completed New Testament is for us today.
DHK

 

[Gershom]

So knowledge has passed away? Or do you mean the manner in which the knowledge came about has passed away? Because the Bible says "knowledge" will vanish away.

 

[Gershom]

DHK posted:

2. According to 1Cor.14:21,22 tongues were a sign to the unbelieving Jew. It was a prophecy to those unbelieving Jews of the first century.

What happened then in Acts 10? Where were these unbelieving Jews?

There were believing Jews (Peter and those who accompanied him) and Gentiles present.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Gershom:
So knowledge has passed away? Or do you mean the manner in which the knowledge came about has passed away? Because the Bible says "knowledge" will vanish away.

Each time I have used the word "knowledge" I have specified "revelatory knowledge." Are ye yet without understanding?

 

[billwald]

I said "people I personally know." I don't personally know anyone on this list. Personal experience is not stereotyping.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Gershom:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> DHK posted:

2. According to 1Cor.14:21,22 tongues were a sign to the unbelieving Jew. It was a prophecy to those unbelieving Jews of the first century.

What happened then in Acts 10? Where were these unbelieving Jews?

There were believing Jews (Peter and those who accompanied him) and Gentiles present. </font>[/QUOTE]The Jews in Acts 10, though believing (as in saved) still did not believe that the message of salvation was for the Gentiles. In this respect tongues was a sign for these Jews, that the message of salvation was not only for them, but also for the Gentiles. They were unbelieving--as was Peter. He had to be convinced by means of a vision--a vision of a sheet full of unclean animals with a command to "arise and eat." From henceforth the Gentiles would not be considered unclean, and the gospel would go to them as well. Tongues was a sign to the Jew who did not believe this.
But this was only one aspect of it. The other, of course, was for the unbelieving Jew himself. In Acts 2, Peter was addressing the very Jews that crucified the Lord Jesus Christ. Tongues was a sign to those unbelieving Jews, the unbelieving Jews of the first century.
DHK

 

[atestring]

Gershom,
Don't you know that dkh is infallable.
If he says that is the way it is then we have to accept it.
We have to believe everything he says to the letter with ever I dotted and every t crossed.
he knows everything. he is the worlds expert on Pentecostals, and the worlds expert on the subject of tongues.
How do you think he got to be a moderator. He is not just a moderator but the expert moderator.
If you don't believe me then ask dkh yourself he will tell you that he is brilliant and knows everything.
He can kick anyone off of this board because he is infallable.
Don't forget to sing Hail to the cheif on his behalf before you sign off.

 

[music4Him]

In all fairness to DHK I do understand where he is comming from. I was after all raised in a Baptist home and in my dads latter years he became a Baptist Evangelist. But also in my family was my brother.... the Pentacostal preacher!
There were arguments between my dad and brother that would make the Baptist board look mild......and you know what.... they were on tongues and being slain in the Spirit. I remember one occasion, when one of the "loud" disscussions were going on. While I was on my way to the fridge I just happened to pipe up "whats the problem if you serve the same God?" You know what....the argument stopped! Two grown men.... father and son, realized there was some common ground they could stand on. All because a 90 lb girl. Talk about your weak things confounding the mighty.

A while later my dad, mom, and I visited my brother's church. Now although my dad had somewhat to say about a hour of preaching he still found something nice to say. After we moved and when my brother came down on the weekends he would visit dads church. I guess thats why I don't fit into one particular denominational mold?

 

[Gershom]

DHK posted:

Each time I have used the word "knowledge" I have specified "revelatory knowledge."

Good for you. But that doesn't make it right. It says "knowledge," not "revelatory knowledge."

DKH posted:

Are ye yet without understanding?

I know a little. Not everything, but I know some stuff. Nothing to get "puffed up" about.

 

[Gershom]

DHK posted:

The Jews in Acts 10, though believing (as in saved) still did not believe that the message of salvation was for the Gentiles. In this respect tongues was a sign for these Jews, that the message of salvation was not only for them, but also for the Gentiles. They were unbelieving--as was Peter. He had to be convinced by means of a vision--a vision of a sheet full of unclean animals with a command to "arise and eat." From henceforth the Gentiles would not be considered unclean, and the gospel would go to them as well. Tongues was a sign to the Jew who did not believe this.

Sounds good. I guess on the surface I could accept that explanation, but I am going to do a little more digging. I'm not simply going to take your interpretation as being correct or anyone else's on the matter.

 

[Gershom]

DKH posted:

The Jews in Acts 10, though believing (as in saved) still did not believe that the message of salvation was for the Gentiles. In this respect tongues was a sign for these Jews, that the message of salvation was not only for them, but also for the Gentiles. They were unbelieving--as was Peter. He had to be convinced by means of a vision--a vision of a sheet full of unclean animals with a command to "arise and eat." From henceforth the Gentiles would not be considered unclean, and the gospel would go to them as well. Tongues was a sign to the Jew who did not believe this.
But this was only one aspect of it. The other, of course, was for the unbelieving Jew himself. In Acts 2, Peter was addressing the very Jews that crucified the Lord Jesus Christ. Tongues was a sign to those unbelieving Jews, the unbelieving Jews of the first century.
DHK

Acts 19? What happened there? Paul (who certainly didn't need a sign) and twelve believers. The twelve spoke in tongues.

 

[dean198]

Gershom,
it probably does refer to revelation knowledge (though it might not I suppose). See
1 Cor. 1:4-6:

"I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ;
That in every thing ye are enriched by him, in all utterance, and in all knowledge"

HOWEVER, that doesn't help the case for cessationism, for two verses later Paul is clear that these gifts are to continue until the second coming. 1 Cor. 1:6-8:

"Even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you: So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ."

with this in mind we can better understand chapter 13.

 

[dean198]

Acts 19? What happened there? Paul (who certainly didn't need a sign) and twelve believers. The twelve spoke in tongues.

And what about Jesus? He said 'go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature" and then he said "these signs shall follow them that believe ... they shall speak in new tongues" - yes, to all nations. Paul was using a quotation from the OT that tongues would be a sign to unbelieving Israel, and then drawing out from that that tongues are for unbelievers - that is, unbelievers in general, not just Jews.

 

[Gershom]

dean198 posted:

Gershom,
it probably does refer to revelation knowledge (though it might not I suppose).

Nevertheless, it doesn't say when tongues will cease. If there is a case for a time table to be made, it seems to me that it can only be made for prophecy and knowledge (1 Cor 13:9-10).

 

[Gershom]

Who is the sign for in 1 Cor 14:28, seeing that the believer is instructed to speak to himself and to God when there is no interpreter?

 

[billwald]

"Okay, what if I said: "The people I know who are Baptists may make a lot of money and drive nice cars"

As anecdotal story I have no problem with that statement. Whatstheirnames in "The Bell Curve" noted that Baptists were under represented and Episcopalians were over represented in corporate board rooms.

"Do you not realize that many, many people say THE SAME THING about YOU simply because you are a Christian???"

Couldn't care less. I've been insulted and misquoted by experts. &lt;G&gt;

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Gershom:

Acts 19? What happened there? Paul (who certainly didn't need a sign) and twelve believers. The twelve spoke in tongues.

These were no doubts of Apollos, who we see at the end of the previous chapter:
Acts 18:28 For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.

Though Apollos knew Christ, his message was incomplete.
Acts 18:24-25 And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.
25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.

It was for this reason that Aquilla and Priscilla took him aside and expounded the Word more thoroughly to him.
The converts that Apollos made were Jews. His audience was Jewish. Those that were around these 12 were Jews. The twelve themselves came from a Jewish background. The tongues was a sign that authenticated the message that Paul preached was the true message from God. Those around them should accept it as they had.
See the following verse:

Acts 19:8 And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God.
--Immediately afterward Paul went into the synagogue, the Jewish place of both instruction and worship, and began to preach to them. This was made easier because of the miraculous gift of tonguues which was a sign to the Jews.
DHK

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by dean198:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Acts 19? What happened there? Paul (who certainly didn't need a sign) and twelve believers. The twelve spoke in tongues.

And what about Jesus? He said 'go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature" and then he said "these signs shall follow them that believe ... they shall speak in new tongues" - yes, to all nations. Paul was using a quotation from the OT that tongues would be a sign to unbelieving Israel, and then drawing out from that that tongues are for unbelievers - that is, unbelievers in general, not just Jews. </font>[/QUOTE]Those signs did follow the Apostles and were fulfilled in the first century. We have the foolishness of some snake-handling churches who take these verses literally and apply them to today, and every year some die of snake bites. If they were so literal for today then why don't any of you drink some HCL, and prove me wrong?
These things did happen in the Book of Acts. Paul was bitten by a snake and survived it.

The Great Commission is reiterated in every gospel and in the Book of Acts. Certainly it is for today. We are commissioned preach the gospel to every creature in the world. But the signs are not for us. They were for the first century Christians, as were the spiritual gifts.
DHK