tongues

[Elk]

Dear Brian,
The reason that we are quiet on the blasting of tongues, is because it is just so sad.
What do you say to a person that is kicking God in the Face because GOD chose to give gifts on to human beings?
How can anyone understand what it is like, until they experienced it?

 

[SpiritualMadMan]

Briguy,

What... No scripture?

And, I thought I gave a pretty good scriptural refutation to the statement that there weren't never no such thing as a 'Baptism in the holy Spirit'????

Fact is, is that I have been refraining from being too heavy handed out of deference for my brothers and sisters who disagree with me and the fact that this *is* a Baptist Board.

Unfortunately, I do not think that anything I could share from scripture would make a bit of difference to some posters, here.

So, rather than get into a knock down drag-out over a non-salvation issue...

I've been mute.

Especially since the history of tongues in the NT isn't a stake. What's at stake is whether they have ceased or not.

And, as far as I've been able to determine the contrary side rests on what my side considers a faulty interpretation of when and under what conditions tongues shall cease.

But, the ardor with which the contrary position is defended, based on basically one scripture, is nearly that of a cornered Badger.

Quite frankly, I get enough scratches from my daughters cat.

So, come on... How about just a teeny tiny bit of credit for the scripture that *was* presented...

 

[Tractster]

Originally posted by SpiritualMadMan:
Briguy,

What... No scripture?

And, I thought I gave a pretty good scriptural refutation to the statement that there weren't never no such thing as a 'Baptism in the holy Spirit'????

Fact is, is that I have been refraining from being too heavy handed out of deference for my brothers and sisters who disagree with me and the fact that this *is* a Baptist Board.

Unfortunately, I do not think that anything I could share from scripture would make a bit of difference to some posters, here.

So, rather than get into a knock down drag-out over a non-salvation issue...

I've been mute.

Especially since the history of tongues in the NT isn't a stake. What's at stake is whether they have ceased or not.

And, as far as I've been able to determine the contrary side rests on what my side considers a faulty interpretation of when and under what conditions tongues shall cease.

But, the ardor with which the contrary position is defended, based on basically one scripture, is nearly that of a cornered Badger.

Quite frankly, I get enough scratches from my daughters cat.

So, come on... How about just a teeny tiny bit of credit for the scripture that *was* presented...

Billy Graham, James Robison (both Baptist) and Tony Evans, agree with you, SpiritualMadMan.

One poster even said Baptists who speak in tongues are deceived. While Graham doesn't speak in tongues, he does believe it is a gift for the church today. Wonder if this means poor Graham is deceived.

Then again, the apostles were called "drunk" when the public heard them speaking in tongues in Acts 2.

Like you, SMM, I too will exercise caution and respect on the subject because this is a Baptist board.

That said, if someone can show me in the Scriptures where it says HOW, WHEN and WHERE tongues will cease, I would accept it. I have to see specifics, otherwise, all commentary is merely speculation. For instance, does the Scripture say it will cease when the last apostle died, in the second centure B.C., at the close of Luke's writing of Acts? In which of the early churches would the gift be last seen?


Roscoe

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Tractster:
That said, if someone can show me in the Scriptures where it says HOW, WHEN and WHERE tongues will cease, I would accept it. I have to see specifics, otherwise, all commentary is merely speculation. For instance, does the Scripture say it will cease when the last apostle died, in the second centure B.C., at the close of Luke's writing of Acts? In which of the early churches would the gift be last seen?

Roscoe

The major problem is: If one could present evidence how, when, where tongues have ceased, would you accept it? "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." Some people will not believe that Jesus rose from the dead no matter what the evidence is. Tongues is the same way. People prefer to believe an experience over the Word of God. There already has been plenty of Scripture presented throughout the pages of this thread.

Biblical Tongues had two purposes:
1. They served as a means of revelation to the early churches while the Word of God was not yet complete. This is clearly seen in 1Cor.8-13, as well as in other Scriptures.

2. But the other more obvious reason is: it is a sign to the unbelieving Jew that the gospel message of the Apostles is authentic, and from God. This sign is a fulfillment of prophecy for the Jew, and still they would not believe. Because they refused to believe, God sent judgement and destroyed the city of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. It is doubtful that the gift of tongues was given to anyone after that date, and had completely died out by the end of the first century by the time that the Word of God was completed.

1 Corinthians 14:21-22 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. 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.

Men of other tongues will speak to this people, it says in verse 21. This is a quote from the book of Isaiah. The people being referred to is the nation of Israel. God says that men of other languages will speak to Israel, and they still will not believe.
Then in verse 22, Paul plainly says, "Wherefore tongues are for a sign to them that believe not."
They are are a sign for the unbelieving Jew, not just any unbeliever, but the unbelieving Jew. You must take both verses 21 and 22 together in their context. Tongues was for a sign to the unbelieving Jew of the first century for them to validate the authenticity of the gospel message of the Apostles.
In all three cases in the Book of Acts where tongues are mentioned, Jews were present.
Is this happening today, or even possible today? Of course not!
DHK

 

[SpiritualMadMan]

I fail to see the specificity in throwing out six chapters without comment... That's quite like SCO suing IBM and throwing several million lines of code at IBM and saying here's the proof you're in the wrong...

1 Corinthians 8 - On eating meat and offending Brothers of 'weak' conscience.

1 Corinthians 9 - Finishes the above line of thinking. And, continues with rights of income for the Gspels sake.

1 Corinthians 10 - More on conscience and pre-amble to the Lord's Supper

Interesting Verse: 1Co 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

Especially when followed with an example of how Paul followed Christ: 1Co 14:18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:

1 Corinthians 11 - Propriety in Worship and the Lord's Supper

1 Corinthians 12 - An introduction and delineation of the 9 manifestations of the Spirit Controlling Presence

1 Corinthians 13 - On Charity or Love in action

If the conclusion of the matter were in Chapter 13. Paul would have stopped talking about Spiritual Gifts after showing Love as the 'more excellent way'. But, he didn't. He made the 'more excellent way' a parenthetical clause during a discourse on the proper working of the Gifts of the Spirit. They have to be executed in Love for the edification of the whole church when done openly in a public gathering.

We dare not stop at Chapter 13. For to do so would be to miss the entire point and conclusion of Paul address on Spiritual Gifts. I find it interesting that DHK would want to stop his exegesis at 13 and not even tackle chapter 14. I think I know why, though.

1Co 14:1 Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy. Seems to be Prophecy is given pre-eminence even over charity if my English Grammar is any good.

And, I really must ask for specifics. I find it interesting that you would throw six chapters out, with six being the number of man, instead of all 7 chapters, with seven being God perefect number or number of completion.

And, I would like chapter and verse that says that tongues were only a sign for unbelieving Jews and that the gentiel church was excluded.

Way back on page five I posted this as a partial refutation that after the initial expansion of the church niether the gifts or tongues was required of any usefulness.

Word of God - Point to Ponder:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Act 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
Act 19:3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
Act 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
Act 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Act 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Things to note:

Speaking in tongues was not necessary because they had already believe on Jesus and they were communicating adequately with known human languages?

Apparently, my rhetorical question here was missed completely? This is one of Classical Pentecosts 'proof texts' that Speaking in Tongues is the initial physical evidence of being Baptized in the Holy Spirit.

The very reason they were asked if they'd recieved was because there were no tongue talkers in the fellowship!

This was some time after the initial outpouring at Pentecost and the fledgling church was getting pretty well established.

Again, a major point here that the expansion had already been well established at this point. And, they all spoke a common language.

Why then tongues at this late date?

Also, note how important it was to Paul and Apollos. It was the number one issue undertaken *after* it was established that 'the disciples' were 'believers'.

Also, they were already believers. Yet, *still* lacked something Paul considered *very* important.

Italics added this post.

 

[New In Christ]

DHK wrote:

Then in verse 22, Paul plainly says, "Wherefore tongues are for a sign to them that believe not."
They are are a sign for the unbelieving Jew, not just any unbeliever, but the unbelieving Jew. You must take both verses 21 and 22 together in their context. Tongues was for a sign to the unbelieving Jew of the first century for them to validate the authenticity of the gospel message of the Apostles.

...and Spirtual MadMan wrote:

Also, they were already believers. Yet, *still* lacked something Paul considered *very* important.

I find both of your sundry postings beneficial. I would be interested in a bit more development of the point of view that holds tongues were a sign for the unbeliever, specifically the NT Jewish unbeliever. Further developed response/rebuttal to this position would also be of interest.

Thank you.

 

[SpiritualMadMan]

It will be hard to rebut until the premise is, again, put forth.

However, rebuttal is subject to a contrary interpretation of the facts, and scriptural record as it can be alluded that Tongues were a 'proof sign' to the jews that Gentiles were in fact included in God's Plan of Salvation through Jesus.

I say this because wherever Gentile believers spoke in tongues there were usually Jewish observers around that needed convincing that Gentile Dogs could even be saved at all.

Though I am not sure if the record will support that in every case.

From the commentaries, though...

Barnes

Tongues - The power of speaking foreign languages.
Are for a sign - An “indication,” an evidence, or a proof that God has imparted this power, and that he attends the preaching of the gospel with his approbation. It is a “sign,” or a “miracle,” which, like all other miracles, may be designed to convince the unbelieving world that the religion is from God.
Not to them that believe - Not to Christians. They are already convinced of the truth of religion, and they would not be benefited by that which was spoken in a language which they could not understand,
But to them that believe not - It is a miracle designed to convince them of the truth of the Christian religion. God alone could confer the power of thus speaking; and as it was conferred expressly to aid in the propagation of the gospel, it proved that it was from God; see the note on Act_2:1-15.

Apparently Barnes did not hold the view that verse 21 made verse 22 a Jewish Unbeliever only issue.

Clarke

Wherefore tongues are for a sign - The miraculous gift of tongues was never designed for the benefit of those who have already believed, but for the instruction of unbelievers, that they might see from such a miracle that this is the work of God; and so embrace the Gospel. But as, in the times of the prophet, the strange Babylonish tongues came in the way of punishment, and not in the way of mercy; take heed that it be not the case now: that, by dwelling on the gift, ye forget the Giver; and what was designed for you as a blessing, may prove to you to be a curse. For if, because ye have the gift of tongues, ye will choose for your own aggrandizement to use them in the public congregation where none understands them, God may curse your blessings.[/b]Neither did Clarke, apparently.

Gill

1Co 14:22 - Wherefore tongues are for a sign,.... Of wrath and punishment inflicted on a rebellious and unbelieving people, and not of grace and kindness, as prophesying, or speaking to them by the prophets, was; and so this is an inference from what is said in the preceding verse, and shows, that there was no reason why believers should be so very desirous of them. But if these words refer to all that is said before on this subject, the word "sign" may be taken for a miracle; and so a new argument is formed against an over fondness for divers tongues, and the use of them in public worship, showing the preferableness of prophecy to them; for speaking with divers tongues was used in a miraculous way,

not to them that believe; who have no need of miracles to raise their attention to what is said, and that it may gain credit with them, or to confirm their faith in it:

but to them that believe not; to prepare them to listen to what might be suggested to them, when they see the persons speaking were endued with miraculous powers, and to engage their assent to it, and belief of it; and so with such persons, and for such purposes, was the gift of speaking with divers tongues used by the apostles, Act_2:4 but inasmuch as the Corinthian church consisted of believers, there was no need of such a sign or miracle among them; wherefore, if they desired such gifts, and to make use of them, they should choose to do it, not in the church, but among unbelievers:

Gill, too, doesn't seem to qualify the unbelievers.

JFB

1Co 14:22 - Thus from Isaiah it appears, reasons Paul, that "tongues" (unknown and uninterpreted) are not a sign mainly intended for believers (though at the conversion of Cornelius and the Gentiles with him, tongues were vouchsafed to him and them to confirm their faith), but mainly to be a condemnation to those, the majority, who, like Israel in Isaiah's day, reject the sign and the accompanying message. Compare "yet . . . will they not hear Me" (1Co_14:21). "Sign" is often used for a condemnatory sign (Eze_4:3-4; Mat_12:39-42). Since they will not understand, they shall not understand.

JFB almost agrees, but doesn't specifically state a qualification of the ethnicity of the unbelievers in question.

Mathew Henry's entry is too long to post. But, He, too, doesn't support a specific ethnicity for the unbelievers to be convinced.

Wesley

1Co 14:22 - Tongues are intended for a sign to unbelievers - To engage their attention, and convince them the message is of God. Whereas prophecy is not so much for unbelievers, as for the confirmation of them that already believe.

A bit terse. But, still not specific unbeliever.

So, I will tend to be convinced that both Jew and Gentile unbelievers alike are convinced and convicted by tongues.

Now consider this:

1Co 14:13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.
1Co 14:14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
1Co 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.
1Co 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?
1Co 14:17 For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.
1Co 14:18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:

The context is tongues.

And, tongues is mentioned as manifest-able in three applications:

Public Speaking

Prayerfully

in Song

So, from this I will propose that *if* tongues were to continue to the present (and, I maintain they do) then the public utterance of tongues in the open congregation, ie., a 'message in tongues' is not the only valid manifestation of this gift.

I can also sing in Tongues, which is not proscribed if an interpreter is not present.

And, I can pray in Tongues, which also is not proscribed if an interpreter is not present.

Paul said he would do both.

That he spoke in Tongues more than they all.

But, for the churches sake he would rather speak a few understandable words. Note, please, that this is a *rather* not an exclusion.

In fact later he gives a specific injunction

1Co 14:39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.

Not to forbid people to speak in tongues.

Also, note that this was a Gentile church. Who, though immature in Christ, was well established.

Yet, tongues remained an integral part, though abused and misused, of it's worship.

 

[MEE]

Originally posted by Briguy:
Carol, Carol, Carol, I just am never going to get you to see the error of your ways, am I

Carol, I want you to make an observation of this thread. When addressed with the hard hitting scriptures, the tongue speakers have no response. They may fire up a verse or two but never address the verses presented to them. That has to say something about what is going on here. I wish that tongues were around today and that missionaries could go to tribes and speak the native language without any study but that is not what the Bible teaches. Think about it, if the gift of tongues was for today, we wouldn't need for missionaries to go to school for years learning to speak other languages.

Anyway, I know your intents are great and you love the same God as I do. Please never stop searching the Word for it's truths.

Have a great Christmas

In Christ,
Brian

Brian, Brian, Brian, when am I going to get you to see that I'm not in error?

I read most all the things that are posted about people who speak in tongues, as the "Spirit of God" gives the utterance.

Yes there is a lot being said that I could comment on, but would anyone listen? NOPE!

Some, on this board, don't know the difference between the "gift of tongues" and receiving the "baptism of the Holy Ghost" or filled with His Spirit. They think that they are the same thing. Granted...given by the same God, but not used in the same way.

Everyone wants to go to 1 Cor. 14 and bring out that you don't have to speak in tongues. That chapter is mainly talking about "the gift of tongues," which is not required for salvation and not a person being filled with the "Spirit of God."

Those people *already* had been filled with the Holy Spirit, with the evidence of speaking in other tongues! The Corinthians were a bit confused about how things were to be done concerning speaking in tongues. Paul took care of that!

As far as tongues being ceased, when the Spirit of God was first poured out (evidenced by speaking in other tongue) (Acts 2:1-4) Peter told them in Acts 2:39) For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

If I'm not mistaken, and I'm not, He is still calling!

Now Brian, do you believe me? I doubt it!

Are we still friends?

MEE

 

[New In Christ]

DHK wrote (responding to SpiritualMadMan):

The Book of Acts, a book of history, is absolutely necessary to the theology of Pentecostal, Charismatic, and other related groups. I challenged MEE on this, and he couldn't do it. "Without the book of Acts show me the clear plan of salvation through a doctrinal book such as the book of Romans. He could not do it. Cults that demand that either one be baptized or speak in tongues for their salvation must depend solely on the Book of Acts for their theology. However, doctrine is taught in the epistles, and history is given in the book of Acts. The Acts are just that--Acts. They are the Acts of the Apostles, a history of them. It is unwise to develop your theology from that Book. And this is what you have done in this case also.

I'm neither attempting to oppose nor defend tongues, but I do not entirely agree with the above.

I do agree it is best to develop theology from books that are doctrinal in nature; however, Acts does give insight and support to other areas of our Christian doctrine. Whereas a correct doctrine of salvation, for example, can be developed from other books, Acts shows us, through the example of Paul and Silas and the Roman Jailor, how that doctrine was applied. We are able to see just how immediate salvation is. Likewise, the acceptance of Gentiles can be developed from Paul's writings, but Peter's vision and subsequent ministry to Cornelius show just how complete that acceptance was. Most importantly, Acts is holy writ. It stands apart from general history. I would hesitate to insist that any theology be developed without all pertinent scripture, historical or otherwise, being considered.

I'm not sure I agree that a doctrine of tongues could not be developed apart from Acts, either. Granted, the face of that theological construct would possibly be much different than it is now. But, the writings of Paul, such as 1 Corinthians, DO mention and give some prescription for the usage of tongues. As I read the passage, I could certainly see how some type of a doctrinal position on tongues could be developed from this. Nevertheless, I wish not to speculate much more than that.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by SpiritualMadMan:
I fail to see the specificity in throwing out six chapters without comment... That's quite like SCO suing IBM and throwing several million lines of code at IBM and saying here's the proof you're in the wrong...

Six million lines is a bit much. The moderators wouldn't think much of trying to post that much material here. I recommend buying a book from someone like John MacArthur: "Charismatic Chaos" (you can download this one) or "The Charismatics."

Especially when followed with an example of how Paul followed Christ: 1Co 14:18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:

Most of his statements in chapter 14, as is this one, is a rebuke. He thanks the Lord that he spoke in tongues more than they all did. Why? Because they misused the gift. He would rather them not use it all. He said very plainly that he would rather speak in five words with understanding than 10,000 in tongues. The statement was a rebuke.

I find it interesting that DHK would want to stop his exegesis at 13 and not even tackle chapter 14. I think I know why, though.

1Co 14:1 Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy. Seems to be Prophecy is given pre-eminence even over charity if my English Grammar is any good.

I highly doubt that you do know the reason. The reason that I did not tackle the whole of chapter 14 is that I have done it already, and more than once. You may ask MEE. I went through the entire chapter for her, verse by verse. If I recall, there was no rebuttal. My statement still stands: The person who believes in tongues either has not read 1Cor.14, willfully is ignorant of its teaching, or is in direct and knowing disobedience to its instruction. No person can read that chapter and conclude that tongues is still for today, at the same time keep all the conditions set forth by the Apostle Paul. It is obvious from what you have further said that you "wrest the Scriptures to your own destruction," as Peter has said.

And, I really must ask for specifics. I find it interesting that you would throw six chapters out, with six being the number of man, instead of all 7 chapters, with seven being God perefect number or number of completion.

Buy a commentary.

And, I would like chapter and verse that says that tongues were only a sign for unbelieving Jews and that the gentiel church was excluded.

Can you read? I already posted them for you.
Show me in the Bible where there was a "gentile church" and a "Jewish church." You have a wrong concept of church.
DHK

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by SpiritualMadMan:

From the commentaries, though...

Barnes: Tongues - The power of speaking foreign languages.
Are for a sign - An “indication,” an evidence, or a proof that God has imparted this power, and that he attends the preaching of the gospel with his approbation. It is a “sign,” or a “miracle,” which, like all other miracles, may be designed to convince the unbelieving world that the religion is from God.
Not to them that believe - Not to Christians. They are already convinced of the truth of religion, and they would not be benefited by that which was spoken in a language which they could not understand,
But to them that believe not - It is a miracle designed to convince them of the truth of the Christian religion. God alone could confer the power of thus speaking; and as it was conferred expressly to aid in the propagation of the gospel, it proved that it was from God; see the note on Act_2:1-15.

Apparently Barnes did not hold the view that verse 21 made verse 22 a Jewish Unbeliever only issue.

Apparently not, or you just like to deliberately misrepresent people.
He says very plainly, "It is a miracle to convince them (the unbeliever)of the truth of religion." So why are you trying to misrepresent what Barnes said? He also gave the reference in Acts 2 where the JEWS came on the Day of Pentecost to Jerusalem. Tongues was a sign for the Jews, the unbelieving Jews. This was the position of Barnes, whom you have deliberately misrepresented.

Clarke

Wherefore tongues are for a sign - The miraculous gift of tongues was never designed for the benefit of those who have already believed, but for the instruction of unbelievers, that they might see from such a miracle that this is the work of God; and so embrace the Gospel. But as, in the times of the prophet, the strange Babylonish tongues came in the way of punishment, and not in the way of mercy; take heed that it be not the case now: that, by dwelling on the gift, ye forget the Giver; and what was designed for you as a blessing, may prove to you to be a curse. For if, because ye have the gift of tongues, ye will choose for your own aggrandizement to use them in the public congregation where none understands them, God may curse your blessings.

Neither did Clarke, apparently.

Again, another deliberate misrepresentation.
Gill specifically mentions "the instruction of the unbelievers that they might see this is a work from God." This is the purpose I had already stated. Then he ties that in with "in the times of the prophet" (being Isaiah) referring to the nation of Israel. The unbelievers Gil was referring to was Israel. Look again at the context.

Gill

1Co 14:22 - Wherefore tongues are for a sign,.... Of wrath and punishment inflicted on a rebellious and unbelieving people, and not of grace and kindness, as prophesying, or speaking to them by the prophets, was; and so this is an inference from what is said in the preceding verse, and shows, that there was no reason why believers should be so very desirous of them. But if these words refer to all that is said before on this subject, the word "sign" may be taken for a miracle; and so a new argument is formed against an over fondness for divers tongues, and the use of them in public worship, showing the preferableness of prophecy to them; for speaking with divers tongues was used in a miraculous way,

not to them that believe; who have no need of miracles to raise their attention to what is said, and that it may gain credit with them, or to confirm their faith in it:

but to them that believe not; to prepare them to listen to what might be suggested to them, when they see the persons speaking were endued with miraculous powers, and to engage their assent to it, and belief of it; and so with such persons, and for such purposes, was the gift of speaking with divers tongues used by the apostles, Act_2:4 but inasmuch as the Corinthian church consisted of believers, there was no need of such a sign or miracle among them; wherefore, if they desired such gifts, and to make use of them, they should choose to do it, not in the church, but among unbelievers:

Gill, too, doesn't seem to qualify the unbelievers.

Misrepresented again. Gill talks of the nation of Israel in the first paragraph and unbelievers in the last paragraph quoted. Please tie the two together

JFB

1Co 14:22 - Thus from Isaiah it appears, reasons Paul, that "tongues" (unknown and uninterpreted) are not a sign mainly intended for believers (though at the conversion of Cornelius and the Gentiles with him, tongues were vouchsafed to him and them to confirm their faith), but mainly to be a condemnation to those, the majority, who, like Israel in Isaiah's day, reject the sign and the accompanying message. Compare "yet . . . will they not hear Me" (1Co_14:21). "Sign" is often used for a condemnatory sign (Eze_4:3-4; Mat_12:39-42). Since they will not understand, they shall not understand.

JFB almost agrees, but doesn't specifically state a qualification of the ethnicity of the unbelievers in question.

JFB says: "They will not understand, "they" referring to the Jews, for whom the sign was for. He even gives Old Testament references. Why do you continue to misrepresent these men? In every case tongues is a sign to the unbelieving Jew as plainly stated in 1Cor.14:21,22.
You just don't want to believe God. It is as simple as that.

Mathew Henry's entry is too long to post. But, He, too, doesn't support a specific ethnicity for the unbelievers to be convinced.

You really expect me to believe you on that?

Wesley

1Co 14:22 - Tongues are intended for a sign to unbelievers - To engage their attention, and convince them the message is of God. Whereas prophecy is not so much for unbelievers, as for the confirmation of them that already believe.

A bit terse. But, still not specific unbeliever.

Wesley is always known for his brevity in his comments. You cannot prove anything by silence.

So, I will tend to be convinced that both Jew and Gentile unbelievers alike are convinced and convicted by tongues.

In other words you will continue to deny the clear teaching of God's Word no matter how clearly it may be written.

Now consider this:
1Co 14:13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.
1Co 14:14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
1Co 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.
1Co 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?
1Co 14:17 For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.
1Co 14:18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:

The context is tongues.
And, tongues is mentioned as manifest-able in three applications:

Public Speaking
Prayerfully
in Song

No, you are wrong. There is no indication that tongues are for song, or for prayer. One of the purposes for the gift of tongues (while the New Testament was not yet completed) was for the public edification of the church), so your first point is the only valid point that you have.

So, from this I will propose that *if* tongues were to continue to the present (and, I maintain they do) then the public utterance of tongues in the open congregation, ie., a 'message in tongues' is not the only valid manifestation of this gift.[/QB]

You have two problems:
1. The New Testament is finished, thus the gift of tongues is no longer needed.
2. There are no longer any first century unbelieving Jews that need the sign of tongues to convince them of the authenticity of the gospel message.
Since you don't have those reasons, tongues is a useless and unbiblical gift for you to have.

I can also sing in Tongues, which is not proscribed if an interpreter is not present.

Definitely not! You misunderstand the Scriptures. Nowhere does the Scriptures teach this.

And, I can pray in Tongues, which also is not proscribed if an interpreter is not present.

This is another misuse of tongues which the Bible does not teach.

Paul said he would do both.

Where?

That he spoke in Tongues more than they all.
But, for the churches sake he would rather speak a few understandable words. Note, please, that this is a *rather* not an exclusion.

No, it was a strong rebuke not to do so.

In fact later he gives a specific injunction
1Co 14:39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.

You fail to grasp the context of this chapter. He was speaking to first century Christians at the church of Corinth. This is not applicable to us today. God spoke to Moses in a burning bush. That is no longer applicable either. The burning bush was for Moses. The tongues were for first century Christians. Neither one were promised to be a sign for all ages.

Also, note that this was a Gentile church. Who, though immature in Christ, was well established.

You're still confused. There is no such thing as a Gentile Church. There were both Gentiles and Jews in this church. No church is Gentile; and no church is Jew. We are all one in Christ. When the Gentile left his pagan religion he got saved and became a Christian. When the Jew left Judaism and got saved he became a Christian. The only kind of church there was was a Christian church. We are all one in Christ.

Yet, tongues remained an integral part, though abused and misused, of it's worship.

Tongues have ceased; did cease by the time of the end of the first century.
DHK

 

[Briguy]

Thanks DHK!!!! You didn't leave me much to add

Mike, the point about scripture not being refuted was not saying that you didn't use scripture for your position. It was more saying that some deep interpretation was given and not addressed, except by someone who quoted another scholar who agreed. You need to tell me what the different verbs mean in 1 cor. 13, that we discussed, if they don't mean what Walguy and I have said. You tried to address the "sign" issue and now DHK has showed that those great thinkers agree with us. As for Tony Evans I have never heard his stance on tongues. I know that he was not accurate in his latest (I think latest, came out last winter) book and Moody press almost did not publish it, so perhaps he is in error here as well. Billy G is an Evangelist, not a Bible teacher. He specializes in salvation. He is not the guy you want to learn deep scriptual truths from. Not to put him down, as he is a great winner of souls and I'm sure is fulfilling God's mission that was set before him. Anyway, 1 cor. 14 is a rebuke. I can't say that enough. It also was written almost 20 years before the fall of J. and in the height of the "sign" being given, so of course tongues were a gift at that time.

Carol, we still are friends

but I am not convinced that there are two "tongues". I see the same word for each use of "tongues" and so it is all the same. Acts has some special occurences. In the verses given by Mike, I don't think the people were real believers when they did not know there was a Holy Ghost. They became believers when the full revelation became clear to them. The baptism they receieved before was that of repentence, as John the Baptist taught. Don't make more of that account then it deserves.

All for now,
Brian

 

[SpiritualMadMan]

Mike has left the building.

 

[Tractster]

If people follow the views offered in "Charismatic Chaos" by John MacArthur,they will be misguided and have many misconceptions about the Pentecostal/Charismatic teaching.

MacArthur focuses on extremes and uses a broad brush to condemn the whole movement. He mistakenly places the teachings of Word of Faith leaders and certain televangelists into the camp of classical Pentecostals and Charismatic. It's obvious that he doesn't know the difference. The book also has contradictions, which is not unusual for MacArthur, and simply false information.

Better books by non-charismatic authors would include the works of Tony Evans, Charles Stanley (former Pentecostal), Billy Graham and R. C. Sproul (former Charismatic). Unlike MacArthur, these writers give a fair and balanced view of the teachings on tongues (in my opinion).

I once considered writing a book to rebut "Charismatic Chaos." Who knows, I still may do so. Anyone who has been around Pentecostals and Charismatics for any length of time will see the many holes in MacArthur's arguments.

At first, I thought the weaknesses were due to poor homework. Then the revised version of the book appeared and it had more of the same errors.

Then, a few years later, I saw MacArthur's teaching on lorship salvation. And.. well. More of the same.

Alas.

Roscoe

 

[SpiritualMadMan]

Bump...

Briguy, I thought you were more fair and open minded than that?

I expected such treatment from DHK.

But, for you to give tacit approval of his accusation that I

This was the position of Barnes, whom you have deliberately misrepresented.

Which I did not.

I did not, unfortunately, take the time to read all of Barnes notes. My bad.

Yet, it seems to me that such an important proof-text as DHK maintains 1 Corinthians is, would have at least had a note at the appropriate place.

But, instead of instructing gently DHK only wanted to prove his point and destroy those that disagreed with him.

Is this the wisdom from above that is easy to be entreated?

 

[SpiritualMadMan]

During my devotion time this morning I was struck by something that had slipped my mind. (I am going through “Streams in the Desert” (L.B. Cowman) and “Beside Still Waters” (C.H. Spurgeon))


In making a distinction between Jewish unbelievers and Gentile unbelievers one somewhat important theme of the New Testament Covenant is set aside.

In the Old Covenant God, for the most part, dealt with Nations not individuals.

This covenant was to Israel. And, everything that happened in the World was predicated on God’s Plan for Israel.

In the New Covenant, one that has irrevocably replaced the Old Covenant, God deals with individuals, primarily, not Nations.

In Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile.

So, while during the Old Covenant a distinction can be made between God’s dealings between Israel and the Gentiles, During the New Covenant no such distinction can be made except on a cultural interaction level.

One other interesting point, the Church of Jesus Christ is the Israel of God, now.

Galatians 6:15-16 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

Galatians 3:28-29 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Col 3:10-11 And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him: Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.

I therefore respectfully submit that a direct quote ‘trumps’ an exegetical ‘inference’.

And, that the issue of whether Tongues are a sign for only Jewish unbelievers is mute .

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by SpiritualMadMan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />This was the position of Barnes, whom you have deliberately misrepresented.

Which I did not.

I did not, unfortunately, take the time to read all of Barnes notes. My bad.

Yet, it seems to me that such an important proof-text as DHK maintains 1 Corinthians is, would have at least had a note at the appropriate place.

But, instead of instructing gently DHK only wanted to prove his point and destroy those that disagreed with him.

Is this the wisdom from above that is easy to be entreated? </font>[/QUOTE]Barnes was misrepresented, whether deliberately or not. As you indicated, you did not take the time to read the entire quote from Barnes. But whose fault is that before quoting him?

1 Corinthians 14:21-22 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. 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 not a simple proof text as you refer to it. Tongues, in the Book of Acts, is mentioned only three times--in chapter two on the Day of Pentecost, in chapter 10 at the house of Cornelius, and in chapter 19 at Ephesus where some Jewish believers who were baptized by John beleived and spoke in tongues.
In all three cases unbelieving Jews were present. All Jerusalem was filled with Jews on the Day of Pentecost. The purpose that they came was to celebrate the Jewish feast. The word "unbelieving" refers to unbelief in the gospel message, not in Jehovah, and also it refers to the fact that Jewish Christians did not believe that salvation was possible for Gentiles.
Now consider Acts 10:

Acts 10:45-47 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,
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

The Jews of the circumcision believed. That is they were saved. But they did not believe that Gentiles could be saved. Tongues were for a sign to the unbelieving Jew--the Jew that in this case would not believe that the gospel could save the gentile.
Verses 46 and 47 indicate their acceptance of the Gentile by their response: "Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized." Even Peter, before his vision, was reluctant to go to Cornelius's house. The tongues was a sign to the unbelieving Jew. Everytime tongues is mentioned in the Book of Acts there are Jews present.

The teaching in 1Cor.14:21,22 is very clear. I don't see how anyone can have any other interpretation. Verse 21 is a quote from Isaiah speaking of the Jewish unbelief in spite of the sign of tongues, in spite of people of other nations speaking to them in other languages, still they would not believe.
Verse 22 follows that up with a straight forward statement: Wherefore tongues are for a sign to them that do not believe. It can't be any clearer.
The word "wherefore" in verse 21 has some significance too, in that it ties the two verses together. Whenever you see a wherefore, look before to see whyfore, the wherefore is therefore.

Tongues have ceased. Their purpose for existing no longer exists. Satan is a great deceiver. He has given you a false imitation of what used to be a real gift. And you have fallen for it. Look to the Word of God and not to experience.
DHK

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by SpiritualMadMan:
In the New Covenant, one that has irrevocably replaced the Old Covenant, God deals with individuals, primarily, not Nations.

The Old Covenant is not irrevocably replaced. God made a promise to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, that will yet be fulfilled. For now Israel is spiritually blinded, and has been temporarily set on a shelf as it were. But God has not forgotten Israel. He has not forgotten the covenants that He made with Israel. They will be fulfilled in the future when Christ comes again and sets up His Millennial Kingdom.
To say that the church has replaced Israel is a heresy that is being promoted by some. It is an anti-semitic lie.

In Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile.

Quite true. I am glad that you have finally come to see this.

So, while during the Old Covenant a distinction can be made between God’s dealings between Israel and the Gentiles, During the New Covenant no such distinction can be made except on a cultural interaction level.

This is true in the sense that both Jew and Gentile in this day and age of grace must be saved in the same way, i.e., of trusting Christ as their Saviour. They both leave their false religions, and they both become Christians.

One other interesting point, the Church of Jesus Christ is the Israel of God, now.

This is called "Replacement Theology," and it is heretical. The Bible doesn't teach it. The Bible teaches that at some future date "All Israel shall be saved" (Romans 11:26). It teaches that when Christ comes again:

Revelation 1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

...they that pierced him (the Jews) will wail because of Him. Thus there will be a unique and present Jewish nation distinct from the church, when Christ comes. Just as there is now.

Galatians 6:15-16 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

Israel of God--not the Israel after the flesh, among whom those teachers wish to enrol you; but the spiritual seed of Abraham by faith (Ga 3:9,29). (Jamieson, Faucett, and Brown)
It simply refers to the spiritual seed of Abraham which God promised to Abraham 2100 years before Christ. It has no relevance to the Church replacing Israel.

Galatians 3:28-29 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

So, we are Abraham's spiritual seed, as promised. We are his seed by faith. But we are not Jews, not Israelites. If so, what tribe are you from?

Col 3:10-11 And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him: Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.

That verse makes it clear doesn't it.

I therefore respectfully submit that a direct quote ‘trumps’ an exegetical ‘inference’.

And, that the issue of whether Tongues are a sign for only Jewish unbelievers is mute .

Your "exegetical inference" hasn't inferred or given any evidence of anything, except that we are one in Christ. Christ promises concerning the Jews still hold as true today, as they did in the day that they were given to Abraham. The church never replaced Israel.

Tongues are still a sign to the Jews. You can't just dismiss what is written in the Bible that easy.
DHK

 

[Briguy]

Hi Mike, Sorry to come across wrong by agreeing with DHK. I think I was basically agreeing to the general points he was making, especially in regards to the scripture used. DHK is probably a real great guy. At times I can see how he can be taken for rude or less then loving. He fights hard for many biblical truths. Anyway, I have tried not to ever put people down because I know how far from perfect I am and how far I need to go as I grow in the grace of Jesus.

Now that you have had a couple weeks on this topic and have had more time to think, is your position on tongues wavering some or has all this caused you to embrace tongues even more. How are you feeling about my saying that we control the use of our gift not God? (in the sense that He gave the gift and allows us the freedom to use it when we want). I am just interested to see how you are reall feeling now. Take care and I apologize for any negative feelings my last post caused you. I truely did not intend to be hurtful.

DHK, Are you decorating even a little for Christmas this year????

In Christian Love,
Brian

 

[SpiritualMadMan]

Briguy,

? Embrace tongues more?
No, I have always stated that I am a reluctant Pentecostal.

No, even though you (and, I hate to admit it DHK) have given me some challenges to research and study on, my belief that all Nine Manifestations of the Holy Spirit's Presence continue through to the present remains strongly intact.

? Embrace tongues less?
No, they (tongues) have a place in my life and will not be removed.

Both camps have a tendency to 'proof-text' to prove their point. (Unfortunately!)

DHK *is* a bit 'difficult' to handle as he does come across as strident most of the time. And, at times even vehement. Of course that is my perception. Granted.

There is an old tale, told various ways depending upon the denomination of the teller, that has an Old-Time Pentecostal arriving in Heaven and as he is led down a long hallway is flabbergasted to see a door marked 'Radically Anti-Tongues Baptists'.

He is literally speechless that *such* a group as they would *ever* Even be considered for Heavens Portals.

A little further down the hall they finally come to a door marked 'Classical Old-Time Pentecostals' and he is ushered in.

Only to find that all the doors go into a common room!

No doubt I will have to give DHK a brotherly hug when we meet on that day. (Should I bring anti-septic? )

I only hope that any vehemence I sense from DHK does not grow to a root of bitterness against any other groups that Name Jesus Christ God's Son, Savior and Man's ONLY hope of Salvation.