Hi MEE, I'm still lurking around. Rest assure I'm not anybody else. Hmm....is this the kind of tactic people here use? To cast doubts?Originally posted by MEE:
Question! What happened to "Amen?" He dropped by, left his two cents worth of knowledge, about Bible tongues, and dissappeared.
Could he be 'aka' _ _ _? You fill in the blanks!
MEE
-
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!
The Bible Tongues is not what being done today
- Thread starter John3v36
- Start date
Hi MEE, I'm still lurking around. Rest assure I'm not anybody else. Hmm....is this the kind of tactic people here use? To cast doubts? </font>[/QUOTE]No, just curious....Originally posted by Amen:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MEE:
Question! What happened to "Amen?" He dropped by, left his two cents worth of knowledge, about Bible tongues, and dissappeared.
Could he be 'aka' _ _ _? You fill in the blanks!
MEE
MEE
Hi MEE, I'm still lurking around. Rest assure I'm not anybody else. Hmm....is this the kind of tactic people here use? To cast doubts? </font>[/QUOTE]Originally posted by Amen:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MEE:
Question! What happened to "Amen?" He dropped by, left his two cents worth of knowledge, about Bible tongues, and dissappeared.
Could he be 'aka' _ _ _? You fill in the blanks!
MEE
DHK wrote,
**Walguy and I disagree on what "the perfect" means. We do not disagree on the fact that tongues have ceased. In his other posts he has shown that to be true.**
He believes tongues has ceased, but he doesn't prove from scripture _when_ tongues are going to cease. I Corinthians 13 says they will cease. There are people who have more experience with Greek who do not agree with Walguy that tongues have ceased.
Btw, Walguy did an excellent job proving that 'the perfect' in this particular passage does not refer to the Bible. Do you have a response to his message?
***But in the end, it is not the experience that matters. It is the Word of God. My faith is based entirely on the Word of God. The Word of God teaches that tongues have ceased. So naturally I reject these other non-documented experiences that you give.***
You haven't shown anywhere in the Bible where the Bible says that tongues will already ceased. You referred to a passage from Isaiah that doesn't say anything about tongues ceasing, and asserted that the meaning of the passage was a number of things not mentioned in the passage. Can you show how the passage from Isaiah has anything whatsoever to do with tongues ceasing? Can you even show from scripture a connection between the passage and the destruction of the temple?
The only reason you give to believe that 'the Word of God teahes that tongues have ceased' is because you say so. You haven't shown any scripture.
I believe in the Bible, which says that tongues is one of the gifts the Spirit gives to the church. The Bible also shows that there are false manifestations imitating as manifestations of the Spirit. It warns against despising prophesying, but to prove all things. So when I hear testimonies of true or false tongues, I try to be obedient to scripture and not disregard the testimonies or deny their validity.
***The modern day phenomena that we see today only started at the beginning of the 20th century. This is well documented. I think you know this as well. We don't find any evidence of this in 1800 previous years. Was God dead? If tongues was so prevalent why didn't all the great men of God throughout history speak in tongues: Luther, Calvin, Wycliffe, John Huss, John Bunyan, John and Charles Wesley, Charles Spurgeon, etc., etc. History is rampant with great men of God, all of whom never spoke in tongues. We have their biographies. Why is history so silent concerning this phenomena only up until the 20th century?***
The Pentecostal movement can be traced to a revival at the beginning of the 20th century, but there are accounts of people speaking in tongues before that. I have read of people speaking in tongues in the 19th century at Methodist revivals, Holiness revivals, D.L Moody meetings, etc. There were some tongues in the time of the early Quakers as well. I have also read accounts of a few occurances during the middle ages. I seem to recall some authors trying to make a case for Finny speaking in tongues, and even Wesley (the latter in particular seems unlikely, imo.) You should probably run a search on the web on these names and see if any of them did speak in tongues. It is possible that there are some sources you have not looked at. You turned out to be wrong in asserting that there were not tongues in the so-called 'church father's day. If biographies of these men do not mention tongues, it is still possible that some of them spoke in tongues. You cannot know.
Wesley ha a much more even-handed approach to this sort of thing than you are exhibiting. He went to meet with one of the 'French prophets', and was careful not to lash out at it, though he did observe that she didn't say anything that he couldn't find in the Bible.
Biblically, why would I expect that all great men of God spoke in tongues? The Eleven and Paul spoke in tongues (not saying Paul was the 12th, but Judas wasn't around for Pentecost.) But since Paul teaches that not all speak in tongues, I wouldn't expect all great leaders of the church to speak in tongues. Gifts are distributed among the body.
There are plenty of church leaders throughout history who have exercised other gifts of the Spirit that do not fit into your cessationist view of things. There are many accounts of miracles done by men who brought the Gospel to knew people groups in the history of Europe. _Suprised by the Voice of God_ goes into great detail on occurances of the gift of prophecy, words of knowledge, and some miracles in the time of the Scottish Reformation, particularly those done by one of John Knox's mentors.
**It is because I dare not call God a liar, not call into question any man or woman's integrity. That is not the question for me. I won't accept your examples, because God doesn't lie. **
God isn't saying tongues have ceased. You are. You confuse your own ideas with God's word. That is dangerous. The Bible verses you cited to supposedly prove that tongues had ceased didn't have anything to do with tongues ceasing. See my previous post on the Isaiah passage. You made a bunch of assertions about tongues only being for the first century Jews in your commentary on the verse. None of your assertions were in the passage. This is the problem. You treat your own commentary-- which has nothing to do with the passages in question-- as if it were the word of God. Well, often, it is not the Word of God. It is just your own assertions. So the issue is not calling God a liar, it is an issue of seeing the difference between your own ideas and what the word of God really says.
It seems you just believe what you want to believe no matter what the Bible says. Even worse, you believe that what you believe is in the Bible, even when it isn't. Your interpretation of I Corinthians 13 and 'the perfect' is just not possible considering the context. The verses you quote about tongues ceasing from Isaiah and I Corinthians 14 do not say anything about tongues ceasing. You do not even make an argument to support your claims. Could it be that your stubborness, and unwillingness to admit that you could be wrong blinds you from being able to understand the plain sense of the text?
**Walguy and I disagree on what "the perfect" means. We do not disagree on the fact that tongues have ceased. In his other posts he has shown that to be true.**
He believes tongues has ceased, but he doesn't prove from scripture _when_ tongues are going to cease. I Corinthians 13 says they will cease. There are people who have more experience with Greek who do not agree with Walguy that tongues have ceased.
Btw, Walguy did an excellent job proving that 'the perfect' in this particular passage does not refer to the Bible. Do you have a response to his message?
***But in the end, it is not the experience that matters. It is the Word of God. My faith is based entirely on the Word of God. The Word of God teaches that tongues have ceased. So naturally I reject these other non-documented experiences that you give.***
You haven't shown anywhere in the Bible where the Bible says that tongues will already ceased. You referred to a passage from Isaiah that doesn't say anything about tongues ceasing, and asserted that the meaning of the passage was a number of things not mentioned in the passage. Can you show how the passage from Isaiah has anything whatsoever to do with tongues ceasing? Can you even show from scripture a connection between the passage and the destruction of the temple?
The only reason you give to believe that 'the Word of God teahes that tongues have ceased' is because you say so. You haven't shown any scripture.
I believe in the Bible, which says that tongues is one of the gifts the Spirit gives to the church. The Bible also shows that there are false manifestations imitating as manifestations of the Spirit. It warns against despising prophesying, but to prove all things. So when I hear testimonies of true or false tongues, I try to be obedient to scripture and not disregard the testimonies or deny their validity.
***The modern day phenomena that we see today only started at the beginning of the 20th century. This is well documented. I think you know this as well. We don't find any evidence of this in 1800 previous years. Was God dead? If tongues was so prevalent why didn't all the great men of God throughout history speak in tongues: Luther, Calvin, Wycliffe, John Huss, John Bunyan, John and Charles Wesley, Charles Spurgeon, etc., etc. History is rampant with great men of God, all of whom never spoke in tongues. We have their biographies. Why is history so silent concerning this phenomena only up until the 20th century?***
The Pentecostal movement can be traced to a revival at the beginning of the 20th century, but there are accounts of people speaking in tongues before that. I have read of people speaking in tongues in the 19th century at Methodist revivals, Holiness revivals, D.L Moody meetings, etc. There were some tongues in the time of the early Quakers as well. I have also read accounts of a few occurances during the middle ages. I seem to recall some authors trying to make a case for Finny speaking in tongues, and even Wesley (the latter in particular seems unlikely, imo.) You should probably run a search on the web on these names and see if any of them did speak in tongues. It is possible that there are some sources you have not looked at. You turned out to be wrong in asserting that there were not tongues in the so-called 'church father's day. If biographies of these men do not mention tongues, it is still possible that some of them spoke in tongues. You cannot know.
Wesley ha a much more even-handed approach to this sort of thing than you are exhibiting. He went to meet with one of the 'French prophets', and was careful not to lash out at it, though he did observe that she didn't say anything that he couldn't find in the Bible.
Biblically, why would I expect that all great men of God spoke in tongues? The Eleven and Paul spoke in tongues (not saying Paul was the 12th, but Judas wasn't around for Pentecost.) But since Paul teaches that not all speak in tongues, I wouldn't expect all great leaders of the church to speak in tongues. Gifts are distributed among the body.
There are plenty of church leaders throughout history who have exercised other gifts of the Spirit that do not fit into your cessationist view of things. There are many accounts of miracles done by men who brought the Gospel to knew people groups in the history of Europe. _Suprised by the Voice of God_ goes into great detail on occurances of the gift of prophecy, words of knowledge, and some miracles in the time of the Scottish Reformation, particularly those done by one of John Knox's mentors.
**It is because I dare not call God a liar, not call into question any man or woman's integrity. That is not the question for me. I won't accept your examples, because God doesn't lie. **
God isn't saying tongues have ceased. You are. You confuse your own ideas with God's word. That is dangerous. The Bible verses you cited to supposedly prove that tongues had ceased didn't have anything to do with tongues ceasing. See my previous post on the Isaiah passage. You made a bunch of assertions about tongues only being for the first century Jews in your commentary on the verse. None of your assertions were in the passage. This is the problem. You treat your own commentary-- which has nothing to do with the passages in question-- as if it were the word of God. Well, often, it is not the Word of God. It is just your own assertions. So the issue is not calling God a liar, it is an issue of seeing the difference between your own ideas and what the word of God really says.
It seems you just believe what you want to believe no matter what the Bible says. Even worse, you believe that what you believe is in the Bible, even when it isn't. Your interpretation of I Corinthians 13 and 'the perfect' is just not possible considering the context. The verses you quote about tongues ceasing from Isaiah and I Corinthians 14 do not say anything about tongues ceasing. You do not even make an argument to support your claims. Could it be that your stubborness, and unwillingness to admit that you could be wrong blinds you from being able to understand the plain sense of the text?
Link, try reading some of this research! I think you will find it very interesting.
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pentecostal/New-Ch11.htm
MEE
Reasons why tongues have ceased.
1. Tongues today are not real languages, they gibberish. No one has yet proven that they are real languages. Therefore they are false, and not of God. The real Biblical gift has ceased. The modern day phenomena of speaking in tongues started at the beginnin of the 20th Century and from there rapidly grew. For you to attempt to point to one or two inidividuals in history who "might" have spoken in tongues is hardly evidence. There is no hard evidence that people spoke in tongues before the 20th Century. You can't come up with. Not thousands today, but millions speak in a modern day phenomena called gibberish. It is not in the Bible because it is not of God. There are millions who do it. If it is so widespread, and of God, show me in history where such a widespread movement ever took place. Not just one or two individuals who supposedly spoke in tongues, but an entire movement. It can't be done. Tongues have ceased.
The fact that they were real languages in Biblical times points to the fact that they have ceased. Get the picture straight. A foreign language would be spoken for the sake of all that were there except a few Jews. It would be translated into Hebrew or a language that the Jews would be able to understand. It was a sign to the Jews. Paul customarily took Jewish companions with him when he travelled. Also there were Jews dispersed abroad into all the nations at that time. It was a sign to the Jews that the gospel had gone to the Jews as well, even as God had to convince Peter with a vision in Acts 10. It was a sign that the gospel was for the gentile, and it was a sign to the unbelieving Jew, that the gospel was a genuine message from God that they needed to believe.
2. In 1Cor.12:28 Paul puts the gift of tongues as the least of all the gifts. It is not an important issue, or an important gift. It is at the bottom of the list. Those who speak in tongues put it at the top of their list in comparison to the other gifts. They don't seek after the other gifts. They seek after tongues.
3. Concerning the above point, nowhere in the Bible are we ever commanded or even is it suggested that anyone seek for the gift of tongues. There is no command or suggestion for anyone to speak in tongues. Yet this is what is precisely done. Instructions are given to speak in tongues. You are told to pray for tongues. You are told to seek after them. Bible tongues was a gift given miraculously to those were not expecting it.
4. Go through 1Cor.14--a rebuke to speaking in tongues. Those who speak in tongues do not keep the restrictions or conditions that Paul lays out for them.
5. It has already been demonstrated that tongues is for the collective good of all the church. It was not to be spoken outside of the church. It was for the edification of the church. It was not a prayer language. It was for the church only. This is demonstrated in 1Cor.12 where the gifts are listed as gifts of the body. The body is the church--the local church. The gifts are not to be used outside of the local church. They are for the edification and use of the church only. They are not for the selfish purpose of the edification of one person. If you want to edify yourself, go to your room and sing spiritual songs, read your Bible, and pray: all in your own language. That is edifying. Tongues is not.
6. 1 Corinthians 14:1 Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.
--What gift are you to follow after? If any is mentioned at all it is prophecy. Tongues is not even mentioned here. It is the least of all the gifts.
7. 1 Corinthians 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
--In contrast to prophecy (mentioned in vs.1) don't speak in tongues, because no one understands you. You are speaking mysteries. Understanding is the key. It is what Paul emphasizes throughout this whole chapter. This verse is a rebuke to those that speak in tongues.
8. 1 Corinthians 14:3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.
--In contrast to tongues, it is prophecy that edifies, not tongues. Therefore prophesy. Leave tongues alone. It is the least of all the gifts.
9. 1 Corinthians 14:4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
--This is a rebuke. The purpose of all the gifts is to edify the whole church. Tongues (if it edifies at all), will only edify the person that speaks it. Therefore don't speak in tongues. It has no value. It is meant for the entire church. Therefore, Paul says, prophecy. For when you prophesy, the whole church is edified.
10. 1 Corinthians 14:5 I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.
--The "I would" here is used in the sense that "I am not opposed," to all of you speaking in tongues if it is done properly within the guidelines that I give you. But the emphasis is clearly on prophecy. Greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues. The only exception was that proper interpretation was given. And then we know it was a real language being interpreted into another genuine language, and the end result was the same as prophecy--it edified all the people. It was not a prayer language. It was for the whole church.
11. 1 Corinthians 14:6 Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?
--Paul himself wouldn't speak in tongues to them. He had the gift, but he wouldn't use it. That in itself speaks volumes here. Speaking in tongues did not make one spiritual. Again, the emphasis was on prophecy, or by revelation, or by knowledge, or by doctrine--not by tongues. In Acts 2 we find that the new believers continued in the Apostles doctrine daily. No mention is made of tongues. 3,000 people that had just been saved. What was important? Doctrine, not tongues.
12. 1 Corinthians 14:7 And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped?
--Paul gives examples here from musical instruments. Every musical instrument has its own sound. Just like every language has its own distinct sound, and can be differentiated one from the other.
13. 1 Corinthians 14:8 For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?
--The trumpet had (and stil has) various uses. The trumpet was used to call a retreat, to call to march forward, the morning call, etc. If the call to retreat was confused with the call to go forward, there would be disaster, confusion. And so tongues causes disaster and confusion. That is Paul's point here.
14. 1 Corinthians 14:9 So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.
--The point is made even more clear. Unless your words are clearly understood, they have no understand but are as words spoken into the air with no meaning whatsoever. The gift of tongues then is a useless gift. Understanding is key.
15. 1 Corinthians 14:10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification.
--There are many kinds of voices in this world (as there are languages), and they all have significance. But tongues have no significane, because no one can understand them.
16. 1 Corinthians 14:11 Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.
--If I go to a foreign nation, and I don't know a word of that language, I will be to him as a barbarian (foreigner WEB). Try as we may we will not be able to understand each other. The same is true of those that speak in tongues. There is no understanding. It is the least of all the gifts. It is useless.
17. 1 Corinthians 14:12 Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.
--They were zealous to have spiritual gifts, but they were zealous for the wrong gift, for speaking in tongues did not edify the whole church. All the gifts were given for edification of the whole church. Some used tongues for their own private use (as some do today), and Paul rebukes it.
18. 1 Corinthians 14:13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.
--Therefore if tongues is to have any value at all, it must be understood. Pray that you might have someone to interpret the foreign language that God has given you to speak in, or pray that God would give you the gift of interpretation as well as the gift of tongues.
19. 1 Corinthians 14:14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
--Most Charismatics overlook this verse. Speaking in tongues is utterly useless unless you have the interpretation. You have to be able to interpret, that is, have the gift of interpretation yourself--if there is no one else to do it. Otherwise your understanding is unfruitful. It is not edifying. Praying in tongues is not edifying unless you can interpret it. If you don't know what you are saying how can it be edifying? Paul emphasizes that you must have understanding no matter where you are, or when you speak in tongues. But the gift of tongues, nevertheless, still remains a gift given to benefit the entire church, and is NOT a private prayer language.
20. 1 Corinthians 14:15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.
--You must be able to interpret what you say: even what you sing and pray. That is the context given in the above two verses. There must be understanding. The same context is carried into the next verse.
21. 1 Corinthians 14:16 Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?
--Sometimes occasion arose where it was necessary to pray in another language. If there was no interpretation, those (unlearnd) or not acquainted with the language spoken, would not even know when the Amen would be said. You had to had the gift of interpretation as well as the gift of speaking in tongues. I know what this is like. I have had to interpret my own sermon on the mission field. But that is not the gift of tongues or of interpretation. It is plain hard work of studying other languages.
22. 1 Corinthians 14:17 For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.
--Still in the same context, tongues without interpretation gives no edification, no understanding, and is rendered useless.
23. 1 Corinthians 14:18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:
--Paul says this because he used tongues properly. There was a proper use for tongues. The Corinthians misused the gift. They really did not need to use it very often. They all spoke the same language (Greek). It was the universal language of the known world, and they were right in the center of Greek as it were right then.
On the other hand Paul traveled far and wide on three different missionary and established approximately 100 different churches (see Sir William Ramsey's archeological work on the travels of Paul), and had much occasion for the use of tongues in the different nations that he went.
24. 1 Corinthians 14:19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.
--What a put down of tongues!! I would rather speak five words with understanding ("Hello, my name is Paul" 5 words), then 10,000 words in tongues. Why? Tongues don't have understanding.
Tongues is the least of all the gifts. Don't speak in tongues.
25. 1 Corinthians 14:20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.
--This is an interesting verse. He tells them to quit acting like little children act in desiring one of the more showy gifts, like tongues, because they thought it made them look more spiritual. Its outward manifestation was something that this carnal church desired. They were acting childish. Paul rebukes them for this. They ought to be desiring gifts like prophesying which give understanding.
Then he says "howbeit in malice be ye children." This is not the same Greek word that is used in the first part of the verse. It is only used here, and it means infants. Infants don't have malice. It is like Jesus saying: "Except ye be like little children you cannot enter the kingdom of God." Infants were innocent. They didn't compete with one another (for spiritual gifts). Then he says that they ought to desire gifts like prophesying because they give understanding. Again, don't seek tongues. There is no understanding with tongues. It is the least of all the gifts.
More later.
DHK
26. 1 Corinthians 14:21 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.
1 Corinthians 14:22 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.
This is a quote from Isaiah 28:11,12, referring to the Jewish nation. The phrase "this people" can refer to none other than the nation of Israel. It is a prophecy that has come to its fulfillment. That is what Paul is showing here, and that is why he relates it back to Isaiah 28.
There are only three times in the Book of Acts where tongues are used: chapters 2,10, and 19. In all three occurrences Jews were present. Tongues were a sign to the unbelieving Jew. In Acts 2, they were totally amazed: "How speak we every man in our own tongue?" Then Peter went on to explain how this was a prophecy fulfilled from the Book of Joel. But the prophecy was directed to the nation of Israel. "Your sons and your daughters," he said, that is the sons and daughters of the Jewish nation. He was addressing the Jews that had come to the feast at the Day of Pentecost.
In Acts 10 Peter had to be convinced of God in a vision to go with some Gentiles to the house of Cornelius, also a Gentile, to preach the gospel to the Gentiles. But he didn't go alone. He took certain Jewish brethren with him.
Acts 10:23 Then called he them in, and lodged them. And on the morrow Peter went away with them, and certain brethren from Joppa accompanied him.
Acts 10:45-46 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
--It was a sign to the unbelieving Jew (they of the circumcision). They believed now (because of the sign of tongues) that the gospel was for the Gentiles as well.
And so tongues is a sign to the unbelieving Jew as Paul emphasized in 1Cor.14:21,22.
It was the unbelieving Jew of the Apostolic Age in the first century. It was to those Jews that Peter initially preached to. That is when the fulfillment came. Soon after that judgement came. Whether you want to point to a specific judgment or not is up to you. Some say it is the destruction of the Temple and the city of Jerusalem. Some say it is the scattering of the Jews, the dispersion soon after that. Some say that it may be that they were no longer a nation, and did not become one until 1948. That part really doesn't matter. You know what I believe. What does matter is that God did judge them for their unbelief. And the prophecy was fulfilled. And thus it was a sign to the Jew, and in particular, the unbelieving Jew, as Paul further defines in verse 22.
But Charismatics have it all wrong. They speak in tongues in their own churches, among believers, as a sign for believers, where no Jews are present, let alone first century unbelieving Jews. Tongues have ceased. These two verses have conclusively proved, beyond any doubt that tongues have ceased. There are no first century Jews alive today. After 1900 years there better not be!
27. 1 Corinthians 14:22 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.
--It is a sign to the unbelieving Jew (in context with verse 21).
But prophesying serves for them which believe. Prophesying (not a sign), has a genuine purpose. It is for the believer, and is for the edification of the believer. Tongues have ceased. Prophecy edifies.
28. 1 Corinthians 14:23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?
--Tongues are a sign for the unbelieving Jew, it is true. But now Paul quickly goes back to the other purpose that tongues has: that of edifying the church. This time he warns that if an unbeliever happens to enter a church where all (or many) are speaking in tongues, then the unbeliever will quickly come to the conclusion that you all are crazy and have gone mad. And isn't that the truth today.
1 Corinthians 14:24 But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all:
--On the other hand, if all have the ability to prophecy, and are able to give a coherent intelligent message that will edify the entire church, then the "unlearned" or unbeliever, will be convinced of the truth.
29. 1 Corinthians 14:25 And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.
--What is the result of an unbeliever getting saved? He will worship God. How does the unbeliever get saved? By the truth of God being proclaimed through prophecy, not tongues. That was how he was convicted and became saved. This is the conclusion we can draw with verse 24 and 25 taken together.
30. 1 Corinthians 14:26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.
--This verse points to the confusion in the Corinthian church (and in many Charismatic churches). Contrast it to the unity found in the early church at Jerusalem where they all continued together in the Apostles doctrine, and in fellowship, and prayer and in breaking of bread. The church there was orderly, and an emphasis was put on doctrine. Here there was more of a competition. Everyone brought something: word of knowledge, gift of tongues, gift of interpretation, a psalm, gift of prophecy, etc. They all wanted to compete with each other in using their gifts. It was chaotic and confusing. If it is confusing and chaotic, it is not edifying as Paul says it should be.
31. 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.
--This is often neglected by Charismatic churches. The very most that are permitted to speak in tongues are three. And never can they speak at the same time. They must speak one at a time, in order. And they must have an interpreter. These are some strict guidelines, almost never followed.
32. 1 Corinthians 14:28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
--He forcefully speaks here. If there is no interpreter then keep quiet. You cannot speak in tongues if there is no interpreter. That is an absolute. You are out of order in the church if there is no interpreter. When it says to keep silence and speak to yourself and to God, that does not, necessarily mean to speak in tongues. There would be no benefit in that. Speak in prayer in your own language that would be beneficial to both you and God.
33. 1 Corinthians 14:29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.
--God is a God of order. Even the prophets had to speak one at a time, and no more than that.
1 Corinthians 14:29 And let the prophets speak by two or three, and let the others discern.
--Other translation translate the word for "other" in the plural, "others." The meaning of the verse supports sola scriptura. When the prophets spoke the rest of the congregation were to study their Bibles and judge whether or not the message was of God, according to the Scriptures. If it wasn't of the Scriptures, it wasn't of God. Acts 17:11 teaches the same thing.
34. 1 Corinthians 14:30 But if a revelation be made to another sitting by, let the first keep silence.
--Again God is a God of order. Only one at a time may speak.
35. 1 Corinthians 14:31 For ye all can prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be exhorted;
--Again, Paul emphasizes order. The prophets were to prophesy one by one. That was to eliminate confusion.
36. 1 Corinthians 14:32 and the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets;
--The evident meaning here is that they were able to control there desire to speak. They didn't have to speak if they didn't want to. Thus there was no need for the confusion that reigned in the church.
37. 1 Corinthians 14:33 for God is not a God of confusion, but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints,
--The concluding statement of what Paul has been emphasizing all along. God is not a God of confusion. There is to be no confusion in the church. Tongues causes confusion.
38. 1 Corinthians 14:34 let the women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law.
--Let the women keep silence in the church. That was a restriction then, and it is now. It is not permitted for women to speak in tongues, period. They are to be quiet, silent, not to speak in tongues whatsoever. How can anyone think otherwise when reading these verses!
39. 1 Corinthians 14:35 And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home: for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church.
Paul emphasizes the above teaching. "It is shameful for a woman to speak in the church." The Bible is not restricted to just one culture. Jesus did not die just for the sins of the first century people. Tongues are forbidden to women, even as preaching and prophesying is. We see this in other Scripture as well. HE that desires the office of a bishop desires a good thing.
40. 1 Corinthians 14:36 What? was it from you that the word of God went forth? or came it unto you alone?
--With their abundance of spiritual gifts, the Corinthian Church had become very proud, so proud in fact, that Paul rebukes them here and tells them that they aren't the only source of God's Word, neither were they the only recipients of God's Word. They should not be puffed up concerning these spiritual gifts.
41. 1 Corinthians 14:37 If any man thinketh himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him take knowledge of the things which I write unto you, that they are the commandment of the Lord.
--He attacks their false sense of spirituality here. Just because you think you have a spiritual gift, such as speaking in tongues, doesn't mean you do. And if you do, it doesn't make you spiritual. He then warns them. Take knowledge of these things that I have written to you. Be warned of the conditions that I have set forth. Follow them. Again, Paul has not set forth a smorgasbord of conditions to follow. You must follow them all. No women are to speak in tongues. Tongues must have an interpreter. Only two or three at the most are allowed to speak. And most of all they are a sign for the first century unbelieving Jew. So if the first century unbelieving Jew is not present, then tongues have ceased. Their purpose has been fulfilled. They are no longer for today.
42. 1 Corinthians 14:38 But if any man is ignorant, let him be ignorant.
But if you don't accept the above teaching and continue in your obstinacy to it, then you remain ignorant. God does not tolerate such deliberate ignorance.
43. 1 Corinthians 14:39 Wherefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.
--:Look first at the contrast. Desire to prophecy. That is the important thing. Prophecy gives understanding. Tongues does not. Forbid not to speak in tongues—as long as all the above conditions are followed. This command is limited, by its context, to first century Christians.
44. 1 Corinthians 14:40 But let all things be done decently and in order.
--Most of the time tongues were the cause of chaos and confusion. All things were to be done decently and in order. But tongues caused confusion, and it still does. Tongues have ceased.
DHK
1 Corinthians 14:22 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.
This is a quote from Isaiah 28:11,12, referring to the Jewish nation. The phrase "this people" can refer to none other than the nation of Israel. It is a prophecy that has come to its fulfillment. That is what Paul is showing here, and that is why he relates it back to Isaiah 28.
http://www.pbc.org/dp/stedman/1corinthians/3600.html
There are only three times in the Book of Acts where tongues are used: chapters 2,10, and 19. In all three occurrences Jews were present. Tongues were a sign to the unbelieving Jew. In Acts 2, they were totally amazed: "How speak we every man in our own tongue?" Then Peter went on to explain how this was a prophecy fulfilled from the Book of Joel. But the prophecy was directed to the nation of Israel. "Your sons and your daughters," he said, that is the sons and daughters of the Jewish nation. He was addressing the Jews that had come to the feast at the Day of Pentecost.
In Acts 10 Peter had to be convinced of God in a vision to go with some Gentiles to the house of Cornelius, also a Gentile, to preach the gospel to the Gentiles. But he didn't go alone. He took certain Jewish brethren with him.
Acts 10:23 Then called he them in, and lodged them. And on the morrow Peter went away with them, and certain brethren from Joppa accompanied him.
Acts 10:45-46 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
--It was a sign to the unbelieving Jew (they of the circumcision). They believed now (because of the sign of tongues) that the gospel was for the Gentiles as well.
And so tongues is a sign to the unbelieving Jew as Paul emphasized in 1Cor.14:21,22.
It was the unbelieving Jew of the Apostolic Age in the first century. It was to those Jews that Peter initially preached to. That is when the fulfillment came. Soon after that judgement came. Whether you want to point to a specific judgment or not is up to you. Some say it is the destruction of the Temple and the city of Jerusalem. Some say it is the scattering of the Jews, the dispersion soon after that. Some say that it may be that they were no longer a nation, and did not become one until 1948. That part really doesn't matter. You know what I believe. What does matter is that God did judge them for their unbelief. And the prophecy was fulfilled. And thus it was a sign to the Jew, and in particular, the unbelieving Jew, as Paul further defines in verse 22.
But Charismatics have it all wrong. They speak in tongues in their own churches, among believers, as a sign for believers, where no Jews are present, let alone first century unbelieving Jews. Tongues have ceased. These two verses have conclusively proved, beyond any doubt that tongues have ceased. There are no first century Jews alive today. After 1900 years there better not be!
27. 1 Corinthians 14:22 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.
--It is a sign to the unbelieving Jew (in context with verse 21).
But prophesying serves for them which believe. Prophesying (not a sign), has a genuine purpose. It is for the believer, and is for the edification of the believer. Tongues have ceased. Prophecy edifies.
28. 1 Corinthians 14:23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?
--Tongues are a sign for the unbelieving Jew, it is true. But now Paul quickly goes back to the other purpose that tongues has: that of edifying the church. This time he warns that if an unbeliever happens to enter a church where all (or many) are speaking in tongues, then the unbeliever will quickly come to the conclusion that you all are crazy and have gone mad. And isn't that the truth today.
1 Corinthians 14:24 But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all:
--On the other hand, if all have the ability to prophecy, and are able to give a coherent intelligent message that will edify the entire church, then the "unlearned" or unbeliever, will be convinced of the truth.
29. 1 Corinthians 14:25 And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.
--What is the result of an unbeliever getting saved? He will worship God. How does the unbeliever get saved? By the truth of God being proclaimed through prophecy, not tongues. That was how he was convicted and became saved. This is the conclusion we can draw with verse 24 and 25 taken together.
30. 1 Corinthians 14:26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.
--This verse points to the confusion in the Corinthian church (and in many Charismatic churches). Contrast it to the unity found in the early church at Jerusalem where they all continued together in the Apostles doctrine, and in fellowship, and prayer and in breaking of bread. The church there was orderly, and an emphasis was put on doctrine. Here there was more of a competition. Everyone brought something: word of knowledge, gift of tongues, gift of interpretation, a psalm, gift of prophecy, etc. They all wanted to compete with each other in using their gifts. It was chaotic and confusing. If it is confusing and chaotic, it is not edifying as Paul says it should be.
31. 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.
--This is often neglected by Charismatic churches. The very most that are permitted to speak in tongues are three. And never can they speak at the same time. They must speak one at a time, in order. And they must have an interpreter. These are some strict guidelines, almost never followed.
32. 1 Corinthians 14:28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
--He forcefully speaks here. If there is no interpreter then keep quiet. You cannot speak in tongues if there is no interpreter. That is an absolute. You are out of order in the church if there is no interpreter. When it says to keep silence and speak to yourself and to God, that does not, necessarily mean to speak in tongues. There would be no benefit in that. Speak in prayer in your own language that would be beneficial to both you and God.
33. 1 Corinthians 14:29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.
--God is a God of order. Even the prophets had to speak one at a time, and no more than that.
1 Corinthians 14:29 And let the prophets speak by two or three, and let the others discern.
--Other translation translate the word for "other" in the plural, "others." The meaning of the verse supports sola scriptura. When the prophets spoke the rest of the congregation were to study their Bibles and judge whether or not the message was of God, according to the Scriptures. If it wasn't of the Scriptures, it wasn't of God. Acts 17:11 teaches the same thing.
34. 1 Corinthians 14:30 But if a revelation be made to another sitting by, let the first keep silence.
--Again God is a God of order. Only one at a time may speak.
35. 1 Corinthians 14:31 For ye all can prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be exhorted;
--Again, Paul emphasizes order. The prophets were to prophesy one by one. That was to eliminate confusion.
36. 1 Corinthians 14:32 and the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets;
--The evident meaning here is that they were able to control there desire to speak. They didn't have to speak if they didn't want to. Thus there was no need for the confusion that reigned in the church.
37. 1 Corinthians 14:33 for God is not a God of confusion, but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints,
--The concluding statement of what Paul has been emphasizing all along. God is not a God of confusion. There is to be no confusion in the church. Tongues causes confusion.
38. 1 Corinthians 14:34 let the women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law.
--Let the women keep silence in the church. That was a restriction then, and it is now. It is not permitted for women to speak in tongues, period. They are to be quiet, silent, not to speak in tongues whatsoever. How can anyone think otherwise when reading these verses!
39. 1 Corinthians 14:35 And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home: for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church.
Paul emphasizes the above teaching. "It is shameful for a woman to speak in the church." The Bible is not restricted to just one culture. Jesus did not die just for the sins of the first century people. Tongues are forbidden to women, even as preaching and prophesying is. We see this in other Scripture as well. HE that desires the office of a bishop desires a good thing.
40. 1 Corinthians 14:36 What? was it from you that the word of God went forth? or came it unto you alone?
--With their abundance of spiritual gifts, the Corinthian Church had become very proud, so proud in fact, that Paul rebukes them here and tells them that they aren't the only source of God's Word, neither were they the only recipients of God's Word. They should not be puffed up concerning these spiritual gifts.
41. 1 Corinthians 14:37 If any man thinketh himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him take knowledge of the things which I write unto you, that they are the commandment of the Lord.
--He attacks their false sense of spirituality here. Just because you think you have a spiritual gift, such as speaking in tongues, doesn't mean you do. And if you do, it doesn't make you spiritual. He then warns them. Take knowledge of these things that I have written to you. Be warned of the conditions that I have set forth. Follow them. Again, Paul has not set forth a smorgasbord of conditions to follow. You must follow them all. No women are to speak in tongues. Tongues must have an interpreter. Only two or three at the most are allowed to speak. And most of all they are a sign for the first century unbelieving Jew. So if the first century unbelieving Jew is not present, then tongues have ceased. Their purpose has been fulfilled. They are no longer for today.
42. 1 Corinthians 14:38 But if any man is ignorant, let him be ignorant.
But if you don't accept the above teaching and continue in your obstinacy to it, then you remain ignorant. God does not tolerate such deliberate ignorance.
43. 1 Corinthians 14:39 Wherefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.
--:Look first at the contrast. Desire to prophecy. That is the important thing. Prophecy gives understanding. Tongues does not. Forbid not to speak in tongues—as long as all the above conditions are followed. This command is limited, by its context, to first century Christians.
44. 1 Corinthians 14:40 But let all things be done decently and in order.
--Most of the time tongues were the cause of chaos and confusion. All things were to be done decently and in order. But tongues caused confusion, and it still does. Tongues have ceased.
DHK
I have a brief reply now to your post. I probably will not be able to get around to the rest until next week.
**But Charismatics have it all wrong. They speak in tongues in their own churches, among believers, as a sign for believers, where no Jews are present, let alone first century unbelieving Jews. Tongues have ceased. These two verses have conclusively proved, beyond any doubt that tongues have ceased. There are no first century Jews alive today. After 1900 years there better not be!
**
Your interpretation here has no support from the text. There is nothing in the I Corinthians 14 quote from Isaiah that specifies only Jews in the 1st century. After the first century, Foreign languages continued to be spoken among the Jews for centuries and centuries. In fact, Jews have been speaking foreign languages until this day! In the 1800's, some Jews started speaking a revived modified form of the Hebrew language, but last I heard there were more Jews in New York than there are in Israel. That was many years ago, and those stats might not be true any more.
So there is absolutely nothing in the passage to limit 'this people' to the people of the first century. The text you quote appleis the prophecy to the Jews of the Babylonian captivity the first time.
The only reason to limit the prophecy to first century Jews is because you say so. Nothing in the passage says that the prophecy is no longer valid after the temple is destroyed or Jerusalem is destroyed.
Furthermore, the point Paul makes from this passage is the response of _unbelievers_ and the unlearned to tongues, and NOT the response of Jews to dongues. Paul makes a very specific point from this passage in his commentary on it, and it is not the point you are making. Doesn't Paul have more right to explain why he quotes that verse than you do? Whose explanation of it shows up in the Bible? His or yours?
You still have not made a case for how this passage says anything about the cessation of tongues. If the use of tongues as a sign was limited to Jews, then you still haven't given a good case for cessation. No matter how many times you assert that this sign was only for Jews of the first century, you cannot demonstrate from scripture that it was limited to the first centure. Jews did not cease to exist in the first century.
Furthermore, the passage shows use for tongues among them that believe. To them that believe not, tongues serves as a sign. But to them that believe, tongues has another purpose-- mutual edification when accompanied by interpretation. At least we should be able to agree on that use of tongues since you reject the teaching of the passage that tongues edifies the speaker.
You wrote,
***But Charismatics have it all wrong. They speak in tongues in their own churches, among believers, as a sign for believers, where no Jews are present, let alone first century unbelieving Jews. Tongues have ceased. These two verses have conclusively proved, beyond any doubt that tongues have ceased. There are no first century Jews alive today. After 1900 years there better not be!
*****
I Corinthians does not teach that role of tongues among believers is as a sign. Tongues is a sign to them that believe not. But tongues still has a purpose among believers-edification. With interpretation tongues edifies the chuch. I Corinthians 12 lists tongues among the gifts given to profit the body. So it has a use besides being a sign for unbelieving Jews. Unbelieving Jews are not a part of the body. Only believing Jews are a part of the body.
Again, you offer no proof that tongues have ceased. It just isn't in the verses you quote. there is no end-date mentioned in the passage for the sign to them that believe not. You are reading your own ideas into the text.
**But Charismatics have it all wrong. They speak in tongues in their own churches, among believers, as a sign for believers, where no Jews are present, let alone first century unbelieving Jews. Tongues have ceased. These two verses have conclusively proved, beyond any doubt that tongues have ceased. There are no first century Jews alive today. After 1900 years there better not be!
**
Your interpretation here has no support from the text. There is nothing in the I Corinthians 14 quote from Isaiah that specifies only Jews in the 1st century. After the first century, Foreign languages continued to be spoken among the Jews for centuries and centuries. In fact, Jews have been speaking foreign languages until this day! In the 1800's, some Jews started speaking a revived modified form of the Hebrew language, but last I heard there were more Jews in New York than there are in Israel. That was many years ago, and those stats might not be true any more.
So there is absolutely nothing in the passage to limit 'this people' to the people of the first century. The text you quote appleis the prophecy to the Jews of the Babylonian captivity the first time.
The only reason to limit the prophecy to first century Jews is because you say so. Nothing in the passage says that the prophecy is no longer valid after the temple is destroyed or Jerusalem is destroyed.
Furthermore, the point Paul makes from this passage is the response of _unbelievers_ and the unlearned to tongues, and NOT the response of Jews to dongues. Paul makes a very specific point from this passage in his commentary on it, and it is not the point you are making. Doesn't Paul have more right to explain why he quotes that verse than you do? Whose explanation of it shows up in the Bible? His or yours?
You still have not made a case for how this passage says anything about the cessation of tongues. If the use of tongues as a sign was limited to Jews, then you still haven't given a good case for cessation. No matter how many times you assert that this sign was only for Jews of the first century, you cannot demonstrate from scripture that it was limited to the first centure. Jews did not cease to exist in the first century.
Furthermore, the passage shows use for tongues among them that believe. To them that believe not, tongues serves as a sign. But to them that believe, tongues has another purpose-- mutual edification when accompanied by interpretation. At least we should be able to agree on that use of tongues since you reject the teaching of the passage that tongues edifies the speaker.
You wrote,
***But Charismatics have it all wrong. They speak in tongues in their own churches, among believers, as a sign for believers, where no Jews are present, let alone first century unbelieving Jews. Tongues have ceased. These two verses have conclusively proved, beyond any doubt that tongues have ceased. There are no first century Jews alive today. After 1900 years there better not be!
*****
I Corinthians does not teach that role of tongues among believers is as a sign. Tongues is a sign to them that believe not. But tongues still has a purpose among believers-edification. With interpretation tongues edifies the chuch. I Corinthians 12 lists tongues among the gifts given to profit the body. So it has a use besides being a sign for unbelieving Jews. Unbelieving Jews are not a part of the body. Only believing Jews are a part of the body.
Again, you offer no proof that tongues have ceased. It just isn't in the verses you quote. there is no end-date mentioned in the passage for the sign to them that believe not. You are reading your own ideas into the text.
I don't have the documentation for such things either. I have heard the same stories, the same type of thing happening on several occasions. Because I don't have precise documentation does that mean it doesn't happen? One person that has documented such occurences is John MacArthur. Read his book Charismatic Chaos. You can down-load it free from:
http://www.biblebb.com/mac-a-g.htm
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]That is not his book. It is sermons that have been transcribed and put on the Net - with zero documantation of sources MacArthur used.
MEE,
Here is the breakdown of John MacArthur's book, Charismatic Chaos:
Introduction----14 footnotes
Chapter one----47 footnotes
Chapter two---34 footnotes
Chapter three--48 footnotes
Chapter four---15 footnotes
Chapter five--- 33 footnotes
Chapter six---- 76 footnotes
Chapter seven-- 28 footnotes
Chapter eight—19 footnotes
Chapter nine--- 29 footnotes
Chapter ten---- 48 footnotes
Chapter eleven- 14 footnotes
Chapter twelve- 83 footnotes
Epilogue------- 8 footnotes
Total footnotes – 496
The book is 308 pages long, has a nine page subject index, and a three page Scripture index.
I would say that any book that has almost 500 footnotes of sources is a well documented book. I wouldn't go by the false allegation or "hearsay" of Link. In fact I would recommend that you buy a copy of the book for yourself and read it. You might just learn something.
DHK
Here is the breakdown of John MacArthur's book, Charismatic Chaos:
Introduction----14 footnotes
Chapter one----47 footnotes
Chapter two---34 footnotes
Chapter three--48 footnotes
Chapter four---15 footnotes
Chapter five--- 33 footnotes
Chapter six---- 76 footnotes
Chapter seven-- 28 footnotes
Chapter eight—19 footnotes
Chapter nine--- 29 footnotes
Chapter ten---- 48 footnotes
Chapter eleven- 14 footnotes
Chapter twelve- 83 footnotes
Epilogue------- 8 footnotes
Total footnotes – 496
The book is 308 pages long, has a nine page subject index, and a three page Scripture index.
I would say that any book that has almost 500 footnotes of sources is a well documented book. I wouldn't go by the false allegation or "hearsay" of Link. In fact I would recommend that you buy a copy of the book for yourself and read it. You might just learn something.
DHK