Tongues

Brian, I don't think that it is referring to Jesus. It is talking about His return , but not *HIM.*

When "that which is perfect" or "completed" happens, (Gentile dispensation) He will return for His Church. This is why and when the "gifts" will no longer be needed.

Until then, the gifts that were given to "The Church" and will be with her until the time of "His return!"

MEE

 

Hi Carol ,
Hope you are well. I'll say more on the Kingdom Age later but tongues is an independent issue. Paul used a different verb when discussing the ceasing of tongues for a reason. The other two, knowledge and prophecy he uses a verb that means, -when something acts on them they will end- for tongues, he used a verb that means, -they will end on their own-. There is no denying that Paul used different verbs when discussing the ending of prophecy, wisdom, and tongues. He would have used the same verb if they all ended at the same time, They end at different times also cannot really be disputed it just is plain logical. That known about the verb type, my interetaion that tongues went away after 70ad makes perfect sense. I will post more on Kingdom Age later.

In Christ,
Brian

 

Zinger,

The basic split concerning spiritual gifts is between the cessationists and the non-cessationists. As you have read, even among the cessationist camp there are various viewpoints. Another factor that is a cause for some difference is a person’s view on eschatology. Those old classic commentaries, like Matthew Henry, were mostly Presbyterian and either amillennial or postmillennial in their outlook. That would affect their belief on their interpretation of 1Cor.13:8-13, as it also deals with prophecy. One who is premillennial and pretribulational will again have a different outlook. `
Chuck Smith gave little commentary, omitted the more difficult verses, and made sweeping generalizations such as “most commentators…” Actually, did it ever occur to people that many commentaries share similar points of view only because they copy the same ideas. That is why you don’t find many pre-mil commentaries in Matthew Henry’s age.
David Guzik had some good ideas, but notice how he dismisses MacArthur’s view as a novelty. MacArthur has written extensively on this subject. His entire book, “Charismatic Chaos,” can be found on-line, and down-loaded at: http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/CHAOS10.HTM
The following is a section from the chapter on “Speaking in Tongues”

“Now, a statement that Paul makes in chapter 13 bears repeating to you, because it suggests to us that tongues would come to an end. That it served a purpose in the Apostolic era, but it would end. I don't want to get too tied up, but look down in verse 8. "Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part; but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away." Now, the statement made here in verse 8 is that tongues will cease. It means, literally, "to cease permanently." It says there is going to come a time when they stop; prophecy and knowledge will be "done away." That's a passive verb; something will stop prophecy, something will stop knowledge. But we know what it is because verses 9 and 10 tells us, "For we know in part, and we prophesy in part;" there are those two things: prophecy and knowledge. And what's going to stop them is "the perfect" (in verse 10).
You say, "What's the 'perfect' thing?" I believe it is the eternal state. When the eternal state comes, prophecy will end and knowledge will end, but they haven't ended yet. And there is going to be a flourishing of knowledge, and a flourishing of prophecy in the Millennial Kingdom until the "perfect" comes, the perfect state, the eternal state. Prophecy and knowledge will go on and then they will be stopped. Something will act on them to stop them. But tongues will cease by itself (it's a middle voice verb). Tongues will cease by themselves. There will come a time when they cease, and they will cease permanently.
Now this poses a very interesting problem. We need only to ask one question, "Did they cease?" Because if they did, they ceased permanently! Right? Did they cease? They are not going to be around when the "perfect" thing comes, clearly verse 9 only refers to prophecy and knowledge being around at that point, tongues will cease by itself. Nothing will stop it; it will cease by itself. It will just end. Now our Charismatic friends tell us that all the gifts continue and tongues have not ceased. We believe they have, and how can we support that? Just very briefly. When you look at history, when you look at theology, [when] you look at the Bible itself, I believe that you can demonstrate that tongues ceased, and that when they ceased they ceased, and that was it.
First of all, tongues was a miraculous, revelatory gift, and [as] we have noted repeatedly in this study, the Age of Miracles and Revelation ended with the Apostles and those who worked along side of them. The last recorded miracles in the New Testament occurred around A.D. 58; note that, because the last book wasn't written until A.D. 96. So you have almost 40 years with no supernatural wonders going on, even in the time in which the New Testament is still being written. From A.D. 58 to A.D. 96 when John finished the Book of Revelation, no miracle is ever recorded. Miracle gifts like tongues and healings are mentioned only in 1 Corinthians, which is a very early epistle. Two later epistles, Ephesians and Romans, both discuss spiritual gifts, but neither mention these sign gifts. Isn't that an interesting point? The later epistles discussing the gifts don't mention the sign gifts. No mention is made of the miraculous gifts; only in this very early epistle. By that time miracles were already looked on as something in the past; read Hebrews 2, 3, and 4: it was something already in the past. Apostolic authority had already been affirmed; the message needed no further confirmation. And before the first century ended, the New Testament was written, circulated through the churches, and the revelatory gifts had ceased to have a purpose and so they passed away.
Second, tongues were identified as a sign to unbelieving Israel. They signified that God had begun a new work which encompassed the Gentiles, and once that message was made, and that it was made clear to Israel, it was really not necessary to keep repeating it. Again, it was a period of transition. They had been the people primarily involved in the old covenant; now the church was in the new covenant, in the time of transition. The sign was made to Israel; that's done with. We are now in the new covenant; no sense in repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating the sign.”

Guzik rejects a well researched view as simply being novel. If it is new to him, that doesn’t make it wrong. The question is: Is it Biblical? Not: Is it novel?

This post is getting too long as it is. I believe all the spiritual gifts have ceased for today; that they were all given for that special apostolic age, when the Bible was being written. I believe there is evidence for that position.
DHK

 

First, speaking in tongues was only ok in the first century before the Bible was completed. Secondly, I believe Paul is giving his own testimony using the figure of a child to illustrate a truth. Everything he says in these verses are in the first person singular, as in a testimony. "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child." Paul is not literally referring to his early childhood when he was unsaved. All three chapters are in the context of spiritual gifts. What truth is Paul trying to teach us in relation to spiritual gifts. This is at the very end of chapter 13, and the very beginning of chapter 14 begins with a discussion of tongues and prophecy. Ever since verse 8 he has been speaking about prophecy, tongues, and revelatory knowledge, in relation to love and the revelation of God's Word.

Given those facts, I believe that when Paul refers to child, he refers not to his childhood but to his immaturity as a Christian, or being a young Christian. It seemed to be the more immature and carnal Christians that were seeking after tongues in Corinth. His basic message in this testimony was: Grow up! Be mature.

Hey, I am glad you're interested.
DHK

 

Have any of you ever wondered what religion a person would be if they were left alone with a Bible for several months, with no outside influence to effect their perception of the Word?

Have you ever heard of anyone who came to Christ, by the Bible and the Bible alone, without anyone telling them what it means?

Just stirring the pot.



God Bless

 

Good question 3AM! I think I would be just what I am.

BTW, according to your quote above, "Just stirring the pot," have you ever been on another forum called Godplace? They use that phrase frequently.

MEE

 

Have I ever wondered what a person would be like if they only had a bible and were by them selves?

Not in all cases, but I think they would be one undirected individual. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not doubting what God can do b/c he let us know that some would find it.

Jesus said in Matthew 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that FIND it.

Remember the story of the Eunuch (Acts 8:26-39)? Do you remember what the Eunuch was doing? He was reading the scripture and Phillip asked him “Understandest thou what thou readest”? (Acts 8:30). Do you remember what the Eunuch said? He said “ How can I, except some man should guide me? (Acts 8:31).

You see truth was already in front of the eyes of the Eunuch. But although he was alone and with the scriptures he did not fully understand the scripture.

So, If straight is the gate and few find it, what does that mean? It means someone needs to show us.

God bless

 

Singer, I believe that not quenching the Spirit is speaking of not ignoring the leading of the Spirit which causes us to do the "good works" we were created for. That seems consistent with the NT message in general.

John MacArther sees the "perfect" as the eternal state. Historically speaking that would come after the millieum (then comes the "kingdom age") and personally it comes when we die. (if before the Rapture) The argument for this is obviously pretty extensive but to me is very sound. The statements "face to face" and "known as we are known" (something like that) really only fit a time when we are with Christ directly. Perfect refers to a time when prophecy and knowledge are not gifts anymore. If prophecy is proclaiming God's word and knowledge a special understanding of God's word then these will be with the local "churches" until the eternal state comes. We will still needs these gifts for the 1000 year reign. I think you get the point. Check out MacArther's commentary on this issue for the real details.

In Christ,
Brian

 

Singer writes:

""but the thing that unites us all is still the simple Gospel message. May God Bless Us.""

I have often said this on this board. I like your use of the word "simple" as it is a simple gospel, not the complex set of doctrinal ideologies of many denominations. Btw, I am not a Baptist, I go to a non-denominational church.

Singer, I like the gathered assembly because when you worship with others there is accountability and also you have others to pray with and for. Local assemblies are Biblical and God gives spiritual gifts to equip the assembly. The assembly is the "body" spoke of in 1 Cor. 12, it needs all of its parts to function. You may be a missing part from an assembly somewhere. Ever think of youself being a chopped off finger?

Thanks for your good attitude in this conversation. Oh yea, I believe gifts of interpretation, healings and miracles are gone as well.

In Love and truth,
Brian

 

What Apostles Creed? That is a Catholic thing isn't it?
I don't think Tongues is of the devil. I think the manefestations we are seeing TODAY are of the devil. There are GENUINE tongues still in existance, as I gave example in a previous post.

I would have to disagree with just about every bit of your characterization of me (even if it was in jest) because that is not what I would do.

My original question was referring to someone who NEVER got taught by someone else, and only read the Bible and prayed and was led by the Holy Spirit.

What 'denomination' do you think their beliefs would agree with?

Here is how I would have written the little commentary.

"Suppose he lives in the backwoods of Nebraska and has never heard of Church or Christians. All he has is a Bible that his father gave him before he died. His father told him to read it, and apoligized for never teaching him about God. The year is 1875. About 25 years later a Missionary comes and shows him the glorious Gospel message from Romans. He tells her that he is in TOTAL agreement with her and that he had given his heart to Jesus some 24 years ago . He tells her that just after he discovered his need for a Saviour and gave his life to Jesus, he felt led to obey God's Law based on what he read. He said that the Commandments that meant the most to him were the first 4 of the Laws that were on the Stones. He said the last 6 didn't really have any bearing on him because he didn't ever see any other people. He told her that for 24 years now, he has put God first in his life, and has put nothing else before Him, and has enjoyed the break from his mountain lifestyle once a week on the Sabbath. His only regret was that he didn't have anyone to share it with.
He told her further that God had revealed to him that when he died that he would sleep awaiting the resurrection, and that before Jesus came back He would judge the House Of God. He also said that there are some things mysterious to him about Revelation because the prophecies seem to point to some kind of group that does NOT put God first, but that he has never heard of any such group. He expresses his wonder at the lack of Churches in the world, due to the evidence of Churches that were in the Bible.
The Missionary ends up marrying this man because she sees that God has led him into all truth, from the Bible and the Bible alone. They go on the road together proclaiming the Gospel message, and sharing the truth that was revealed to him.

They personally witness the conversion of over 1,000,000 souls in their time as evangelists.

They both die at a very old age, after living a sanctified life, living in the grace of God, and enjoying the abundant life.

They sleep awaiting the resurrection."

God Bless

 

3AM, Do you have replys on what I said about just having a bible?

God bless

 

Hey singer, There is no reason to believe any other gift mentioned in the Bible besides tongues, Interpretation of tongues, healings and miracles have ceased. Tongues and Int. of tongues go together and were a sign that is not needed and they passed away on their own. Miracles and healing were miraculous gifts that authenticated the gospel message as the NT churches were being established. The Bible now is the authority and makes itself authentic. Remember that miracles is basically the raising of the dead, do we see that happening today, at the will of the person doing the raising?, No, we don't so the gift is gone. Healing is the same, the gift was in the people that had it and they used it when they wanted. Do we see folks healing everybody and anybody they want today?, No we don't because the gift is gone. In the early church those with the gift of healing healed anybody they wanted to but they always preached afterward and thus it was edifying for the "church", meaning a particular assembly. The rest of the gifts remain. God gifts us to equip the local assembly. Many have gifts that they do not even know they have because the gifts are just plaiin part of them. We are a snowflake of gifts, no two alike. (I am pretty sure I got that snowflake idea from a John MacArther commentary).
Look at the gifts in the Bible and think of Christians you know and you will see in them a measure of the gifts.

In Love and truth,
Brian

 

Brian, you have your beliefs and I respect that. But the only thing you have to back you claim is your Own interpretation of what the bible says.

We still have a experience with God, plus our interpretation of the bible.

Let me encourage you to find out who is right. Who would you say and why?

Brian

 

Hey Brian,
You say that its my intepretation of the Bible alone but if you think about it I was speaking also of what we actually see manifested now. Of the four gifts I mentioned none are used today the way they were at the birth of christianity. No one raises the dead at will and heals at will, but they did in the begining. Nobody goes around conversing with people of a different language even though they don't speak the language, but they did in the begining. You see, what I believe is based on what God's Word says and what My Eyes see. It is a Biblical and practical approach, combined together.

I can't stress enough that WE CONTROL OUR SPIRITUAL GIFTS. We can use them when we want because they are a part of us. I said before, Why would we have to wait for God to activate a gift that he has already given us!!

Hope that clears up my position a bit
Take Care,
In Christ,
Brian

 

B/c God gives the utterance or the ability to do so (Acts 2:4)

I have asked this time and time again and still have not received an answer. Were the tongues spoken on the day of pentecost spoken to break a language barrier?

Just a yes or no will suffice.

Thanks For your time Brian.

BP

 

The Someone that should show us, is the Holy Spirit. The Eunich didn't need Phillip to guide him, he needed someone to tell him WHO the passage was talking about.

Let's look at the Eunich a little closer.

26. And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert.

God led Phillip DIRECTLY to the Eunich. How awesome is that! People often say that 'God' hasn't shown me that, meaning that they won't believe what you are telling them, because 'God' didn't reveal it to them. But we see HERE that God sent Phillip to the Eunich to reveal to him JESUS. Now, was it because the Eunich couldn't understand, or was it because he had not HEARD of Jesus?

27. And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship,

And Ethiopian Eunich was in Jerusalem to worship? That in itself is interesting to me. Any chance you would think that GOD led him there SO that he could hear about JESUS?

28. Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet.

It just so happened that this man had the book of Isaiah with him. He was obviously a man of some money, and standing. Common people did not posses copies of the Bible.

29. Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.

Notice that the SPIRIT told Phillip to go up to the Eunich.

30. And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?

NOW, WHY did Phillip ask the Eunich if he understood what he was reading? Was it some kind of cryptic passage? NO. It was about the Messiah.

31. And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

In this specific instance we see, that this man needed someone to help him understand WHO this passage was talking about. Why? Because he had not heard of Jesus. How do we know that? Read on.

32. The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:
33. In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.

He was reading Isaiah 53. He had NO idea who it was about. Remember that this time was JUST after Jesus left them. This man had come from Ethiopia, and the news obviously had not made it to them yet.

34. And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?

And HERE is the key. He wanted to KNOW who Isaiah was talking about. He didn't need anyone to explain the text to him. He knew it was talking about Someone who would save the world, but he didn't know who it was.

35. Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

So Phillip told him WHO this passage was talking about. Jesus.

36. And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

And we come to the POINT of this record. The Eunich, who has NEVER heard of Jesus, until this point, KNOWS now, that the VERY next thing that he needs to do, now that he has been given NEW light on the Scriptures and has BELIEVED in Jesus. He needs to be baptized.

37. And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

We see, that the prerequisite for Baptism is BELIEVING. (kinda wipes infant baptism out huh?)

38. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

We also see reference here to HOW the Apostles were baptizing people. They both went DOWN INTO the water.

39. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.

They CAME UP out of the water. Then, once Phillip's work was done, the Spirit took him away.

40. But Philip was found at Azotus: and passing through he preached in all the cities, till he came to Caesarea.

So we see here, that the intent of this incident was not to show that people need help from other men to understand the Bible (that wouldn't work, because WHO told the FIRST person what it means?) but that this particular man needed someone to tell him that the Messiah had come.

The Eunich was being guided by the Holy Spirit to ASK who this passage was about. THAT is why the Spirit sent Phillip, because the Eunich was asking for God to show him WHO this passage was about. There is a HUGE difference in another MAN guiding your understanding, and the Holy Spirit guiding your understanding.

LEAN NOT on you OWN understanding. I think that means everyone, not just the laity.

There is someone I KNOW who came to the knowledge of Jesus through a Bible that he found in a cave. He spent nearly a year reading that Bible, without any direction from men.

What denomination do you think he ended up being?

Without any outside influences telling him things that MAN has come up with to 'understand' God, and ONLY the Holy Spirit guiding him, when he came out of that cave, and rejoined society, what church do you think he joined?

I'll give you a hint. I KNOW him.

God Bless