The Bible Tongues is not what being done today

[music4Him]

quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mark 16:14-18
14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.
15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus said this, in the book of Mark, out of The Holy Bible *KJV, In Galilee (after he was resurected around 33A.D.?)

Was Jesus just talking to the believers of that time before 70AD or to all believers?
It says those that believe these signs will follow.....I believe!

 

[atestring]

Originally posted by DHK:
That which is written in the Bible is inspired by God. We know that it is true. When Benny Hinn tells all his viewers to put their dead loved ones before their TV's, and at the appointed time that his show comes on, they will all come to life, what are we to think? The guy is a crackpot. That is but one example. Need I give more.
DHK

Why don't you pick up your Bible and put down macarthurs book. Unless you think macarthur is inspired?

 

[music4Him]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by music4Him:
Yes

The enemy of the soul is ever ready to take advantage of an out-of-control situation, and thousands of Christians can testify with regret to the end results. Such experiences not only give Satan an opening he is quick to exploit, they can be physiologically damaging to the individual. Charismatic writers are constantly warning tongue speakers that they will suffer a "letdown." This is ascribed to the Devil and the reader is urged to get refilled as soon as possible. So the seeker for experience goes back through the ritual again and again, but begins to discover something: ecstatic experience, like drug addiction requires larger and larger doses to satisfy.

Sometimes the bizarre is introduced. I've seen people run around a room until they were exhausted. I've seen people climb tent poles, laugh hysterically, go into trances for days, and do other weird things, as the "high" sought becomes more elusive. Eventually there is a crisis and a decision is made; he will sit on the back seats and be a spectator, fake it, or go on in the hope that everything will eventually be as it was. The most tragic decision is to quit and in the quitting abandon all things spiritual as fraudulent. The spectators are frustrated, the fakers suffer guilt, the hoping are pitiable, and the quitters are a tragedy. No, such movements are not harmless!

John MacArthur, Charismatic Chaos, quoting George E. Gardiner, "The Corinthian Catastrophe" (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1974) p.55. </font>[/QUOTE]I'm sorry DHK.....but it seems to me that John MacArthur's quote of what George E. Gardiner sounds somewhat judgmental of a certain few.

But then again there might be people in every church and denomination who on judgment day might find out that sitting on a pew....or jumping the pews...don't make them anymore saved…...as sitting in the garage makes anyone a car. I have been to churches that seem so depressed…....no one seems excited about what Jesus has done for them. As soon as the piano player begins the closing hymn people are jocking for the door and running to their cars.

Rev.3:15-16
15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

 

[Link]

DHK,

You discouraged getting doctrine from Acts. But Paul writes that all scripture is profitable for doctrine. Who should I believe?

DHK wrote,
*******
You have a flawed view of both missions and ecclesiology. Paul was a missionary. He was sent out by the church of Antioch. As a missionary he established churches in every area he went. How does one start churches but by preaching the gospel and then after people get saved, baptizing them, and then forming them into a church. ********


You lose 20 style points for this one. Earlier you argued that spiritual gifts, particularly tongues, were only to be used in church. I pointed out that miracles wre done outside of church meetings, and instead of admitting that you were wrong, you accuse me of having a flawed view of missions and eschatology.

Btw, Paul was _sent out_ by the Spirit. He was _separated_ to ministry by the church in Antioch.


Let me show you a quote from scripture to illustrate what I was talking about earlier. Spiritual gifts can be used outside of a church meeting.


Acts 14
6. They were ware of it, and fled unto Lystra and Derbe, cities of Lycaonia, and unto the region that lieth round about:
7. And there they preached the gospel.
8. And there sat a certain man at Lystra, impotent in his feet, being a cripple from his mother's womb, who never had walked:
9. The same heard Paul speak: who stedfastly beholding him, and perceiving that he had faith to be healed,
10. Said with a loud voice, Stand upright on thy feet. And he leaped and walked.
11. And when the people saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men.


Who is the crowd Paul and Barnabas were speaking to? A crowd of believers who had confessed Christ as Lord? No. To a crowd of unbelieving, idol worshipping pagans. They even wanted to sacrifice to Paul and Barnabas after the miracle was done, thinking them to be Mercury and Jupiter! One man in the crowd was starting to believe the message and was healed. But it is unlikely that he had confessed Christ as Lord yet. Here Paul and Barnabas are preaching to pagans, and God did a miracle.

Yet working of miracles is among the gifts given to the body of Christ, to profit withal!! So we see here that if a gift is given to the body 'to profit withal' that the use of the gift is still not restricted to church meetings. This disproves one of your arguments.

**************
If tongues was used in this process then so be it. God ordained it to be so in the first century. In formation of churches, and in the early years of the churches the gift of tongues was in operation. Near the end of the first century, the fulfillment of tongues had come, and were no longer needed. Thus tongues ceased. It is as simple as that. It is not astro-physics. It is really quite simple theology.
**************

It is not astro-physics, but it is not Bible either. The fact is, you cannot show from scripture that tongues was only from the first century. This is just your unscripturally-supported assertion. using the 'tongues as a sign' passage only makes sense if you believe that God is through with Israel. And it is not a valid argument even then because the Bible shows other uses for tongues besides as a sign to them that believe not. You have not been able to demonstrate from scripture that tongues was only for the first century. Since you don't have a leg to stand on, you resort to implying that those who disagree with you lack an understanding of missions and ecclesiology and imply that they cannot understand simple things. I can understand a lot of simple things, and it is pretty simple to understand that you are not supporting your assertions here with scripture.

 

[Link]

Walguy wrote,
***************
There are a total of 13 of Paul's letters in the Bible. There are also 8 more letters by other HS-inspired writers. Out of all 21 of these letters, tongues is mentioned in only 3 chapters of one of the earliest. When Spiritual Gifts are mentioned in later letters, the Sign Gifts (including tongues) are nowhere to be found. THAT makes a powerful statement about the time period when true tongues speaking was going on, and the decline in frequency and importance of tongues and the other Sign Gifts that occurred as the books that were to form the NT were being written over a period of years.
***************

Thank you for bringing a new line of reasoning into this conversation. This thread has been rather repetitive so far.

Does the fact that most of the epistles do not mention 'speaking in tongues' argue that tongues ceased. You said 'that makes a powerful statement.' Silence is not a statement. What you are doing here is arguing from silence.

A lot of cessationists argue that miracles and supernatural thigns trickled off during the time of the New Testament, and then ceased. Using the fact that some of the later epistles say little about miracles, tongues, etc. as an argument that these gifts gradually faded away during the first century is not a 'sola scriptura' argument. Silence of scripture is not an argument from scripture. There is no reason to think that silence about these gifts in scripture means they ceased. The Bible has already established, in one of the fairly early Pauline epistles, that these gifts are for the church. This doctrine has already been established.

It is not even accurate to say that the later books stop mentioning gifts of the Spirit. The book of Revelation is widely considered to be the last book of the Bible written. The book is all about visionary experiences. The book mentions prophets and the works of the two witnesses. The last book of the Bible is one of the most 'Charismatic' books in the Bible. So the belief that the supernaturally gradually fades away in scripture isn't even true.

If we look at references to miracles and other supernatural acts in scripture, we do not see them just gradually trickling away. Aside from the example of the book of Revelation, we can see in Acts that it is not the case of these things gradually fading. Rather, sometimes we read about a huge explosion of miracles. Then we do not read about miracles for a while. Then we read about a lot of miracles again. Toward the beginning of Acts, we see Peter and John doing miracles, Peter released from prison by an angel, etc. Later on we see a few more miracles here and there. Then, we se an explosion of miracles when Paul was in Ephesus. God did great miracles through the hands of Paul. Since there is no mention of miracles in a lot of the cities in the book of Acts, should we assume that Paul did not do miracles during these journeys? If the epistles do not mention a lot of miracles in the later days, should we assume that Paul stopped doing miracles?

No, that would be innaccurate. We cannot argue from silence here. If we argue that Paul did no miracles in the accounts of evangelizing cities because Acts does not mention him doing miracles, then we would contradicting Romans 15:19, which tells u that Paul had done signs and wonders from Jerusalem to Illyricum. Illyricum was likely the furthest place Paul had preached at this time, alocation he may have reached on his Third Missionary journey. But if Acts or the other epistles do not specifically mention what miracles Paul did in Jerusalem or Illyricum does not mean he did not do miracles. Silence about miracles or spiritual gifts in the New Testament record does not mean they were not occuring.

The doctrine of scripture that God gives these gifts to the church has already been established. We cannot assume a doctrine is no longer valid based on the fact that it is not repeated in later epistles.

I once came across an 'extreme dispensationalist' who taught what would be regarded as heresy based on this type of reasoning. She had a preconcieved idea and a theological framework that she used to interpret the text. She was able to show that, early in the New Testament, there is a lot of reference to baptism, and that the baptism of Gentiles occured early on. So she argued that baptism was required for Jewish believers, but not for Gentiles. Her reasoning for this was very similar to the reasoning cessationists use that say that gifts trickled off over time. There was no reason to believe her error unless you already assumed that baptism was not for Gentiles. And there is no reason to read the gradual ceasing of the gifts into the silence of certain passages about spiritual gifts.

Once Jesus taught that the nations had to be baptized, that doctrine has already been established. If later epistles do not repeat it, the doctrine is still true. Similarly, the doctrine that God gives certain gifts to the church has already been established in the Pauline epistles, and it does not need to be repeated in later epistles to be true.


So on the issue of tongues, what can we make of the fact that only four or five passages of scripture mention this gift? Maybe you can argue that some people overemphasize the gift? I might agree with you if that were yoru argument. But if you argue that tongues ceased based on this, then you have no foundation for your argument.

 

[Link]

A quote from John MacArthur,

*********************
The enemy of the soul is ever ready to take advantage of an out-of-control situation, and thousands of Christians can testify with regret to the end results. Such experiences not only give Satan an opening he is quick to exploit, they can be physiologically damaging to the individual. Charismatic writers are constantly warning tongue speakers that they will suffer a "letdown." This is ascribed to the Devil and the reader is urged to get refilled as soon as possible. So the seeker for experience goes back through the ritual again and again, but begins to discover something: ecstatic experience, like drug addiction requires larger and larger doses to satisfy.
*********************

MacArthur's generalizations do not describe my experiences growing up in a Pentecostal church, or the attitude or practice of most Charismatic or Pentecostal groups I have encountered.

What it reminds me of is preacherswho sa to people after an altar call for salvation 'Don't let the Devil tell you that you are not saved.' I have heard this about salvation, but I've never heard it about baptism with the Holy Ghost.

I do not recall any preacher ever talking about a 'letdown' after being filled with the Spirit. I have heard teaching that we need to be 'refilled' and also that we need to be filled on an ongoing basis with the Spirit. Paul says to be filled with the Spirit, and this is an on-going thing, not just a one-time experience. The 'drug addict' argument of MacArthur isn't true in my experience.

I wouldn't call being filled with the Spirit or being baptized with the Spirit an 'ecstatic experience.' Some people believe certain prophets in the Old Testament were in an ecstacy, and I will not debate that point at this time. I was not taught to consider being overcomed with emotion to be the same thing as being filled with the Holy Ghost.

************
Sometimes the bizarre is introduced. I've seen people run around a room until they were exhausted. I've seen people climb tent poles, laugh hysterically, go into trances for days, and do other weird things, as the "high" sought becomes more elusive. Eventually there is a crisis and a decision is made; he will sit on the back seats and be a spectator, fake it, or go on in the hope that everything will eventually be as it was. The most tragic decision is to quit and in the quitting abandon all things spiritual as fraudulent. The spectators are frustrated, the fakers suffer guilt, the hoping are pitiable, and the quitters are a tragedy. No, such movements are not harmless!
************

Is there some emotionalism in some Pentecostal and Charismatic circles? Sure. Is this typical of a Pentecostal or Charismatic church service? No. MacArthur makes a similar mistake to what he describes here. He describes someone disillusioned with emotionalism who rejects 'all things spiritual as fraudulent.'

In MacArthur's case, he has seen or read about a lot of emotionalism, and rejects a lot of true spiritual things. This shows up in the kind of straw-man reasoning MacArthur uses in the print version of _Charismatic Chaos_ that was published several years ago. He does not have a good scriptural case for these gifts having already ceased. Much of his book is pointing out extreme things and using that as an argument against the gifts of the Spirit. Modern flakiness no more disproves the gifts of the Spirit today than it disproves the gifts of the apostles. MacArthur would do well to obey the scripture that says 'Despise not prophesyings.' Rejecting all prophecies out of hand, whether they are true or false, based only on the fact that they are given in the 20th century is despising prophesyings.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by atestring:
Why don't you pick up your Bible and put down macarthurs book. Unless you think macarthur is inspired?

And what good will that do? I have picked up my Bible many times, and posted it here on this board. Look back a few pages. I posted and expounded on every verse of the fourteenth chapter of First Corinthians and then some. Did change your mind any? No. Nothing will. Your mind is made up. It is closed to the truth. Neither me posting the truth of the Word of God, or quoting from someone else who explains the Word of God, or issues related to it will change your mind. Your mind is made up before the evidence is even given.
DHK

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by music4Him:
I'm sorry DHK.....but it seems to me that John MacArthur's quote of what George E. Gardiner sounds somewhat judgmental of a certain few.

Aaaah yes, it is the old "don't judge" attitude the Charismatics love to pin on others. I could quote quite a bit of the Bible to you on this, but I think I will let you suffer and just quote MacArthur instead.

Our radio program, "Grace to You," is heard on a network of 200 stations, being broadcast about 600 different times a day, and there are satellites that take it to even more stations. Nearly all of the stations that we are on and all of the broadcasting mediums that we use would share our doctrinal perspective; they would share our doctrinal commitment to the sufficiency of Scripture. Yet, most of them "back out" at broadcasting any series on passages that confront Charismatic error. Most of them would agree not only on the sufficiency of Scripture, but they would probably even agree on our theology with regard to the Holy Spirit, Signs, Wonders, Miracles, and Tongues, but they simply do not want to offend.

Here is a typical letter, and I am quoting, written to us,

"Please reconsider your policy of dealing with the Charismatic movement and other controversial topics on your radio broadcasts. Though we share your convictions on these issues, many of our listeners do not. These people are dear brothers and sisters in Christ and we do not feel that it is helpful to the cause of Christ to attack what they believe. We are committed to keeping peace among brethren and unity in the Body of Christ. Thank you for being sensitive to these concerns."

"It is not helpful to the cause of Christ to attack error anymore," that's what it says. "It is not helpful to these dear brothers and sisters in Christ to attack what they believe, even though it is wrong." It is more helpful, under this philosophy, "to let them remain in error." "We are committed to keeping peace, even if peace means error, and finding unity even if unity means heresy. Thank you for being sensitive to our desire to maintain heresy if it must be maintained for the sake of unity!"

Apparently, these people, while being "Dear Brothers and Sisters," are not dear enough to deserve to be taught the truth. Does real Christian love leave them in a spiritually debilitating error, thus out of God's will and out of the place of blessing, misrepresenting God's sacred truth? Is that love that calls us to do that? But this is the kind of thinking that pervades the Church. In effect, it has given Charismatic extremists the freedom to propound fantastic views while imposing a code of silence on all who object.

The legacy of such an attitude is not unity, and the legacy of such an attitude is not peace, believe me; it is confusion, it is turmoil, and it is chaos. How so? Churches, Mission Agencies, Schools, and other Christian organizations that have tried to maintain unity by not confronting Charismatic influence, and thus allowing it to come in never to be dealt with, ultimately will all have to sacrifice their Non-Charismatic position or split the organization. It does not bring unity, it brings the exact opposite. Because, inevitably, you have the "haves," the Charismatics who feel that they have reached a higher level, and the "have nots." And you have pitted two theologies against each other. One gives in or it splits.

It is not unkind to analyze Christians' doctrinal difference in the light of Scripture. That is not unkind; that is kind. We have a mandate from God to do this, even if it involves rebuking certain people by name because they are so well known. The Apostle Paul writing in Philippians 4 says, "I urge Euodia and I urge Syntyche to live in harmony in the Lord." And then he says, "True comrade, help those women." He identifies two cantankerous, troublemaking, disagreeable women in the congregation who were to be publicly rebuked for all times, for their names have occupied a place in the permanent record.

In 1 Timothy 1:20, Paul identifies Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom he had delivered over to Satan, that they may be taught not to blaspheme. In 2 Timothy 2:17, he identified Hymenaeus and Philetus, who gone astray from the truth and made up some kind of Spiritual resurrection, upsetting the faith of some. In 3 John, that little epistle, he identifies another man, by the name of Diotrephes, "who loves to be first among them, and does not accept what we say."

 

[atestring]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by atestring:
Why don't you pick up your Bible and put down macarthurs book. Unless you think macarthur is inspired?

And what good will that do? I have picked up my Bible many times, and posted it here on this board. Look back a few pages. I posted and expounded on every verse of the fourteenth chapter of First Corinthians and then some. Did change your mind any? No. Nothing will. Your mind is made up. It is closed to the truth. Neither me posting the truth of the Word of God, or quoting from someone else who explains the Word of God, or issues related to it will change your mind. Your mind is made up before the evidence is even given.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]You would be surprised What Good it would do to put down macarthurs book and read the word of God. Jesus Said "My Words are Spirit and They Are Life." Macarthurs words are not Spirit or life. The Chineese Laundryman Story and the greek vancouver man neither edify or make good arguments.

 

[music4Him]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by music4Him:
I'm sorry DHK.....but it seems to me that John MacArthur's quote of what George E. Gardiner sounds somewhat judgmental of a certain few.

Aaaah yes, it is the old "don't judge" attitude the Charismatics love to pin on others. I could quote quite a bit of the Bible to you on this, but I think I will let you suffer and just quote MacArthur instead.

Our radio program, "Grace to You," is heard on a network of 200 stations, being broadcast about 600 different times a day, and there are satellites that take it to even more stations. Nearly all of the stations that we are on and all of the broadcasting mediums that we use would share our doctrinal perspective; they would share our doctrinal commitment to the sufficiency of Scripture. Yet, most of them "back out" at broadcasting any series on passages that confront Charismatic error. Most of them would agree not only on the sufficiency of Scripture, but they would probably even agree on our theology with regard to the Holy Spirit, Signs, Wonders, Miracles, and Tongues, but they simply do not want to offend.

Here is a typical letter, and I am quoting, written to us,

"Please reconsider your policy of dealing with the Charismatic movement and other controversial topics on your radio broadcasts. Though we share your convictions on these issues, many of our listeners do not. These people are dear brothers and sisters in Christ and we do not feel that it is helpful to the cause of Christ to attack what they believe. We are committed to keeping peace among brethren and unity in the Body of Christ. Thank you for being sensitive to these concerns."

"It is not helpful to the cause of Christ to attack error anymore," that's what it says. "It is not helpful to these dear brothers and sisters in Christ to attack what they believe, even though it is wrong." It is more helpful, under this philosophy, "to let them remain in error." "We are committed to keeping peace, even if peace means error, and finding unity even if unity means heresy. Thank you for being sensitive to our desire to maintain heresy if it must be maintained for the sake of unity!"

Apparently, these people, while being "Dear Brothers and Sisters," are not dear enough to deserve to be taught the truth. Does real Christian love leave them in a spiritually debilitating error, thus out of God's will and out of the place of blessing, misrepresenting God's sacred truth? Is that love that calls us to do that? But this is the kind of thinking that pervades the Church. In effect, it has given Charismatic extremists the freedom to propound fantastic views while imposing a code of silence on all who object.

The legacy of such an attitude is not unity, and the legacy of such an attitude is not peace, believe me; it is confusion, it is turmoil, and it is chaos. How so? Churches, Mission Agencies, Schools, and other Christian organizations that have tried to maintain unity by not confronting Charismatic influence, and thus allowing it to come in never to be dealt with, ultimately will all have to sacrifice their Non-Charismatic position or split the organization. It does not bring unity, it brings the exact opposite. Because, inevitably, you have the "haves," the Charismatics who feel that they have reached a higher level, and the "have nots." And you have pitted two theologies against each other. One gives in or it splits.

It is not unkind to analyze Christians' doctrinal difference in the light of Scripture. That is not unkind; that is kind. We have a mandate from God to do this, even if it involves rebuking certain people by name because they are so well known. The Apostle Paul writing in Philippians 4 says, "I urge Euodia and I urge Syntyche to live in harmony in the Lord." And then he says, "True comrade, help those women." He identifies two cantankerous, troublemaking, disagreeable women in the congregation who were to be publicly rebuked for all times, for their names have occupied a place in the permanent record.

In 1 Timothy 1:20, Paul identifies Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom he had delivered over to Satan, that they may be taught not to blaspheme. In 2 Timothy 2:17, he identified Hymenaeus and Philetus, who gone astray from the truth and made up some kind of Spiritual resurrection, upsetting the faith of some. In 3 John, that little epistle, he identifies another man, by the name of Diotrephes, "who loves to be first among them, and does not accept what we say."

</font>[/QUOTE]Let me suffer?????????????

No...I told the truth. He was being judgmental and evidently he hasn't visited my church! As far as the "old "don't judge" attitude the Charismatics love to pin on others"......I have seen other demoninations doing it more than Charismatics.


When I said judgmental....here a few of the judgmental statements.
--------------------------------------------------
Charismatic writers are constantly warning tongue speakers that they will suffer a "letdown."
--------------------------------------------------

Even Jesus warned us of tribulation.
John 16:33

These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------
Sometimes the bizarre is introduced. I've seen people run around a room until they were exhausted. I've seen people climb tent poles, laugh hysterically, go into trances for days, and do other weird things, as the "high" sought becomes more elusive. Eventually there is a crisis and a decision is made; he will sit on the back seats and be a spectator, fake it, or go on in the hope that everything will eventually be as it was. The most tragic decision is to quit and in the quitting abandon all things spiritual as fraudulent. The spectators are frustrated, the fakers suffer guilt, the hoping are pitiable, and the quitters are a tragedy. No, such movements are not harmless!
--------------------------------------------------

But let anyone of them tongue talking, Spirit filled, blood bought child of God.... "Charismatics" (as MacArthur tags them) talk about dead churches then..... some would swear that your talking about their church.
The sad thing is there are a few bad apples in every church. In my own humble opinion, all I see by the above MacArthur quote is him stirring up division in the churches with his judgmental attitude aginst a certian group(s). I'd like to know if he has checked out their beliefs on salvation or prayed for the Holy Spirit to convict them if they are wrong?

Music4Him

 

[liebeskind]

You know, I'm wainting for the obvious sign that were given when the Apostles spoked in other "LANGUAGES", unlike Reverend KNeckbone and Pastor Hoopandholla etc. THE REAL EVIDENCE OF THE HOLY GHOST prior to speaking in "Languages" are:

1. A sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind!

2. Cloven tongues appearing on their heads like as of fire!

3. Anyone in their presence stating that they are hearing their own "LANGUAGES"!

Languages (tongues) are for a "SIGN" Only. There are three occasion of People speaking in other Languages, and it was for the "BENEFIT" of the Judeans, "For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom 1 Corinthians 1:22"

If you take those three occasions, they clearly state the presence of Jews. Hey as it is so boldly stated "Jesus is the same today as yesterday" well the he would clearly give the same signs! After the book of Acts you will not find an example of anyone speaking in Languages, only Paul giving instruction on how it should be done if it at all is done.

Why is it that God limited the number of people who can speak in Languages (tongues) at one time? There were more than three Apostles speaking in Languages in the book of Acts, and THEY SPOKE AS THEY WANTED, but Paul knew that those in Corinth were faking so VIA THE HOLY SPIRIT he stated:

1 Corinthians
14:27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three , and that by course; and let one interpret.

Now did the Apostles in the book of Acts speak two or three at the most and one after the other?

Now for those that think this gibberish thing is a language of Angels, consider this:

2 Corinthians 12:1 It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord.

2 Corinthians 12:2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth such an one caught up to the third heaven.
2 Corinthians 12:3 And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth
2 Corinthians 12:4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter .

Doctrine is KEY to understanding and not for private interpretation!

Ron

[ December 15, 2004, 12:28 PM: Message edited by: Ronald H. ]

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Wait - I think I agree with Ron!

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by atestring:
You would be surprised What Good it would do to put down macarthurs book and read the word of God. Jesus Said "My Words are Spirit and They Are Life." Macarthurs words are not Spirit or life. The Chineese Laundryman Story and the greek vancouver man neither edify or make good arguments.

You would be surprised what good it would do for you to read the Word of God when I post it. Jesus said: "My Words are Spirit and they are life." Atestring's words are not spirit nor life, but only opinion. When I post the Word, you rarely answer. I wonder why??
DHK

 

[liebeskind]

Originally posted by C4K:
Wait - I think I agree with Ron!

C4 that made my day!

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by music4Him:
No...I told the truth. He was being judgmental and evidently he hasn't visited my church! As far as the "old "don't judge" attitude the Charismatics love to pin on others"......I have seen other demoninations doing it more than Charismatics.

Apparently the gist of what MacArthur was saying went right over your head. Within the quote, he quoted two letters from radio stations (as a result from judgemental Charismatics all bent out of shape), advising him not to be so "judgemental" but to be more loving, etc. He went on to say (using examples from the Bible) that the Bible commands us point out the truth, and to point out false doctrine, error. That is the obligation of any preacher. But the anemic Christians today don't want to hear the truth of the Word of God. And if it offends them they turn around with their snarly carnal mouths and attack the messenger with the same old line: "Your judging, Your judging, Your judging!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" How many times have I heard it before!
DHK

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by music4Him:
The sad thing is there are a few bad apples in every church. In my own humble opinion, all I see by the above MacArthur quote is him stirring up division in the churches with his judgmental attitude aginst a certian group(s). I'd like to know if he has checked out their beliefs on salvation or prayed for the Holy Spirit to convict them if they are wrong?

Music4Him

Check out those among yourselves before you ask us to check out those among you.
What does Benny Hinn believe about: Christ? the trinity? salvation?
What about Kenneth Hagin?
Kenneth Copeland?
Do you know how many Charismatics believe tongues are necessary to be saved? You may not believe that way. But many among your group (Charismatics in general) do.
A few bad apples??
They are more like the norm, the average, rather then just the few you talk about.
DHK

 

[liebeskind]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by music4Him:
No...I told the truth. He was being judgmental and evidently he hasn't visited my church! As far as the "old "don't judge" attitude the Charismatics love to pin on others"......I have seen other demoninations doing it more than Charismatics.

Apparently the gist of what MacArthur was saying went right over your head. Within the quote, he quoted two letters from radio stations (as a result from judgemental Charismatics all bent out of shape), advising him not to be so "judgemental" but to be more loving, etc. He went on to say (using examples from the Bible) that the Bible commands us point out the truth, and to point out false doctrine, error. That is the obligation of any preacher. But the anemic Christians today don't want to hear the truth of the Word of God. And if it offends them they turn around with their snarly carnal mouths and attack the messenger with the same old line: "Your judging, Your judging, Your judging!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" How many times have I heard it before!
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]I for one love it when they say I'm judging! Then I go right to what the Holy Spirit through Paul stated, that we are to Judge those whom are within the church calling themselves brothers, and not those outside the church. God will judge those that are without!

Ron

 

[Link]

DHK wrote,
***Do you know how many Charismatics believe tongues are necessary to be saved? ***

I challenge you to find one person who calls himself "Charismatic" who believes this. I do not doubt you could find a dozen people who fit your description here if you really combed the globe, but you could also find people who called themselves 'Baptists' who believed the same thing if you looked hard enough.

The idea that tongues is necessary for savation is common among groups that call themselves 'Apostolic' who split off from the mainstream of Pentecostalism. They generally deny the trinity, believing Oneness theology, are really into strict rules in regard to clothing and things of that nature, and believe that you have to be baptized "in Jesus' name" and speak in tongues to be saved. I doubt you could find many of them that consider themselves to be a part of the Charismatic movement.

 

[Link]

Ronald H. wrote,

********************
Why is it that God limited the number of people who can speak in Languages (tongues) at one time? There were more than three Apostles speaking in Languages in the book of Acts, and THEY SPOKE AS THEY WANTED, but Paul knew that those in Corinth were faking so VIA THE HOLY SPIRIT he stated:

1 Corinthians
14:27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three , and that by course; and let one interpret.

Now did the Apostles in the book of Acts speak two or three at the most and one after the other?
***************************


Your conclusion is way out in left field. There is nothing in the I Corinthians passage that indicates that the Corinthians were faking. In fact, there is much to the contrary. How could faking edify the speaker? How could it edify the congregation if it were interpreted? Your conclusion is ludicrous. It doesn't make sense that Paul would tell the Corinthians to limit tongues to two or three and let one interpret if he thought they were faking. This is one of the worst examples of eisegesis I have heard in a long time-- well since reading one of DHK's posts from last week anyway. No, yours may till win the prize.

I get the impression from Acts that the 120 were speaking in tongues at the same time, rather than taking turns. But you have to keep context in mind. In Acts 2, the context was God was getting ready to evangelize 3000 souls and the Holy Spirit is being introduced to the church. In I Corinthians, Paul is talking about church meetings in which everything is to be done for edification. Btw, the other two occurances of people-- usually groups of them-- are about people who had just been evangelized and the Holy Spirit had just come upon them. These passages are not about normal church meetings. Cornelius' associates were just becoming Christians on that day. The 12 men who believed in John's baptism were just learning about Jesus. They had just been baptized.

The first several chapters of Acts talk about the ministry of the apostles among the Jews. The Gospel had not yet gone out among the Gentiles. To get from this that some spiritual gifts are only for Jews is not an appropriate use of scripture. I think if Paul were alive, he would argue strongly against the idea of some gifts of the Spirit being only for Jews. I Corinthians identifies tongues as a gift for the body, and the body is made up of Jews and Gentiles that believe.

 

[Walguy]

Originally posted by Link:
Walguy wrote,
***************
There are a total of 13 of Paul's letters in the Bible. There are also 8 more letters by other HS-inspired writers. Out of all 21 of these letters, tongues is mentioned in only 3 chapters of one of the earliest. When Spiritual Gifts are mentioned in later letters, the Sign Gifts (including tongues) are nowhere to be found. THAT makes a powerful statement about the time period when true tongues speaking was going on, and the decline in frequency and importance of tongues and the other Sign Gifts that occurred as the books that were to form the NT were being written over a period of years.
***************

Thank you for bringing a new line of reasoning into this conversation. This thread has been rather repetitive so far.

Does the fact that most of the epistles do not mention 'speaking in tongues' argue that tongues ceased. You said 'that makes a powerful statement.' Silence is not a statement. What you are doing here is arguing from silence.

A lot of cessationists argue that miracles and supernatural thigns trickled off during the time of the New Testament, and then ceased. Using the fact that some of the later epistles say little about miracles, tongues, etc. as an argument that these gifts gradually faded away during the first century is not a 'sola scriptura' argument. Silence of scripture is not an argument from scripture. There is no reason to think that silence about these gifts in scripture means they ceased. The Bible has already established, in one of the fairly early Pauline epistles, that these gifts are for the church. This doctrine has already been established.

It is not even accurate to say that the later books stop mentioning gifts of the Spirit. The book of Revelation is widely considered to be the last book of the Bible written. The book is all about visionary experiences. The book mentions prophets and the works of the two witnesses. The last book of the Bible is one of the most 'Charismatic' books in the Bible. So the belief that the supernaturally gradually fades away in scripture isn't even true.

If we look at references to miracles and other supernatural acts in scripture, we do not see them just gradually trickling away. Aside from the example of the book of Revelation, we can see in Acts that it is not the case of these things gradually fading. Rather, sometimes we read about a huge explosion of miracles. Then we do not read about miracles for a while. Then we read about a lot of miracles again. Toward the beginning of Acts, we see Peter and John doing miracles, Peter released from prison by an angel, etc. Later on we see a few more miracles here and there. Then, we se an explosion of miracles when Paul was in Ephesus. God did great miracles through the hands of Paul. Since there is no mention of miracles in a lot of the cities in the book of Acts, should we assume that Paul did not do miracles during these journeys? If the epistles do not mention a lot of miracles in the later days, should we assume that Paul stopped doing miracles?

No, that would be innaccurate. We cannot argue from silence here. If we argue that Paul did no miracles in the accounts of evangelizing cities because Acts does not mention him doing miracles, then we would contradicting Romans 15:19, which tells u that Paul had done signs and wonders from Jerusalem to Illyricum. Illyricum was likely the furthest place Paul had preached at this time, alocation he may have reached on his Third Missionary journey. But if Acts or the other epistles do not specifically mention what miracles Paul did in Jerusalem or Illyricum does not mean he did not do miracles. Silence about miracles or spiritual gifts in the New Testament record does not mean they were not occuring.

The doctrine of scripture that God gives these gifts to the church has already been established. We cannot assume a doctrine is no longer valid based on the fact that it is not repeated in later epistles.

I once came across an 'extreme dispensationalist' who taught what would be regarded as heresy based on this type of reasoning. She had a preconcieved idea and a theological framework that she used to interpret the text. She was able to show that, early in the New Testament, there is a lot of reference to baptism, and that the baptism of Gentiles occured early on. So she argued that baptism was required for Jewish believers, but not for Gentiles. Her reasoning for this was very similar to the reasoning cessationists use that say that gifts trickled off over time. There was no reason to believe her error unless you already assumed that baptism was not for Gentiles. And there is no reason to read the gradual ceasing of the gifts into the silence of certain passages about spiritual gifts.

Once Jesus taught that the nations had to be baptized, that doctrine has already been established. If later epistles do not repeat it, the doctrine is still true. Similarly, the doctrine that God gives certain gifts to the church has already been established in the Pauline epistles, and it does not need to be repeated in later epistles to be true.


So on the issue of tongues, what can we make of the fact that only four or five passages of scripture mention this gift? Maybe you can argue that some people overemphasize the gift? I might agree with you if that were yoru argument. But if you argue that tongues ceased based on this, then you have no foundation for your argument.

There might be validity to your argument if the Bible didn't mention Spiritual Gifts at all again after I Corinthians. But it does. Two notable places are Romans 12 and I Peter 4:

"Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them; if prophecy, in proportion to our faith; if service, in our serving; he who teaches, in his teaching; he who exhorts, in his exhortation; he who contributes, in liberality; he who gives aid, with zeal; he who does acts of mercy, with cheerfulness." (Romans 12:6-8)
"As each has received a gift, employ it for one another, as good stewards of God's varied grace; whoever speaks, as one who utters oracles of God; whoever renders service, as one who renders it by the strength which God supplies; in order that in everything God may be glorified through Jesus Christ." (I Peter 4:10-11)

The 1st and 3rd gifts Paul mentions in Romans 12 repeat 2 of the gifts listed in I Cor 14, so it is clearly the same thing he is talking about. In this passage Paul gives examples of two kinds of gifts: communicating gifts (prophecy, teaching, exhortation) and serving gifts (service, contributing, giving aid, acts of mercy). The third category of gifts which he mentioned in I Cor are conspicuous by their absence. Remember, tongues were not the only sign gift. There was also healing and miracles. This entire class of gifts is missing from this discussion of Spiritual Gifts. Why would Paul do that if the sign gifts were still important? Why wouldn't he give examples of all three basic categories instead of only two? Either they were no longer important by this time, or Paul and the Holy Spirit are guilty of some serious sloppiness.
Peter, in contrast to Paul, doesn't deal in specifics at all, but only in categories. He mentions 2: speaking gifts and service gifts. Again, no mention of the sign gifts at all. Why would Peter have also left out this entire category of gifts? Either it was by design, because they were no longer important, or we have more carelessness and sloppiness by an Apostle and the Holy Spirit who inspired him.
But it is not only those passages and their silence about tongues that argues powerfully for the decline and disappearance of this gift. There is also the exegesis of I Cor 13, where Paul used specific terms and specific voices of Greek verbs to indicate that tongues would end at a different time and in a different way than prophecy and knowledge, showing that tongues would die out of their own accord, which is exactly what happened.
Finally, there is the matter of the other sign gifts, which I have raised numerous times before without getting an answer. Tongues were not the only sign gift. There were also people in the early Church with the gift of healing, people who God had given power to instantaneously heal any person of any ailment, including severe birth defects and even death. If all of the gifts are still active, where are the people today with the gift of healing? Miraculous healing still happens in response to prayer at God's discretion, but it's pretty obvious that there are no people today who have the ability to call on God's power to produce miraculous healing at their own discretion, which is what the GIFT of healing was.
It is all of these things together that argue so powerfully for the cessation of the sign gifts as a normal part of Church activity by the end of the 1st century, not merely the absence of another mention after I Cor.