Were the tongues the same?

[awaken]

Your problem is that by buying into Charismatic doctrine as you have, you open yourself up to so many excesses. If you're going to be an advocate for Charismatic doctrine, you need to be much better informed, because there are so many awful Charismatic doctrines out there.

I do not disagree that there are many wrong teachings out there! I believe EVERY denomination has wrong teachings in it. No denomination is 100% correct.

Fine. But do you believe in a second blessing that makes you a better Christian? You haven't answered me on that yet.

YEs, I have! And I do not appreciate you insinuating that I think I am a better Christian than anyone else when I have stated different. I told you I was saved early and did not receive what I was walking in now until later. Why? Because I was taught that it was not available to us today, so I was in unbelief. So did I receive a second blessing or did I just realized what I had received at the time of my salvation?

Well that's a new debate technique. You misunderstand me, so I say so, then you apparently are saying your misunderstanding points to my misunderstanding. How strange! :rolleyes

:I have no idea what you are saying here or trying to prove! I just stated a clearer understanding of what I believe.

But this is precisely Charismatic doctrine, unknown until the 20th century. The term "Charisma" is taken from the Greek word for "gift" in 1 Cor., carisma (charisma). That's why it is called the Charismatic Movement. The fact that this doctrine of the gifts is so important to you, even though it is not one of the fundamental doctrines of the Bible but a doctrine taken from teaching to the worst church in the NT, makes you a Charismatic. You might as well admit it and use the term for yourself, you are a Charismatic Baptist.

It that means believing that the manifestations of the Spirit is for us today! Then yes! I am! But my belief does not come from any group! I have backed it up with scriptures!

I just got a spam email about prophecies from four Charismatics. A female preacher, Sharon Bolan Yerby says, "For my Spirit is moving through the land, searching for those who will honor and obey Me; those who will stay pure in the midst of the defilement, only they shall be saved." This is Manifest Sons of God doctrine. You've said you believe in revelation beyond the NT (you didn't put it that way). Do you agree with Yerby? If not, how do you know her prophecy is a false one?

How does the Bible tell you to judge prophecy? I do not take every prophecy in just as I do not take every teaching of the Word in!

There are so many other Charismatic excesses it's hard to list them. Healing meetings (not in the Bible), health and wealth Gospel, latter rain doctrine, Oral Roberts sending out holy water and saying to pour it on your wallet, etc., etc. What you've done by becoming a Charismatic is open a huge can of worms. I hope you can deal with that.

I realize that! And I only believe what I find in scriptures! I do not buy into to every doctrine! I am also in a process of re-examining what I was taught under Baptist too!

 

[awaken]

The Bible does say tongues will cease.
1 Corinthians 13:8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
--Tongues shall cease. Paul wrote that in 55 A.D. The question to ask is when tongues would cease. The answer is given in the next few verses.

1 Corinthians 13:9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
--We know in part. The NT was not complete. By 50 A.D. only Matthew and James had been written, and the epistles that they had received. They also had OT revelation. Thus they "knew in part." Therefore prophesy was necessary. It was a necessary gift. Tongues acted as prophesy or teaching when interpreted. It was a vehicle for NT revelation when used properly. That is why it is not needed today. The canon of Scripture is closed. Everything we need to know is within the pages of the inspired Word of God. But they didn't have that. Thus tongues would cease.

When? At the close of the first century when the canon of Scripture was complete.
1 Corinthians 13:10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
The word "perfect" is teleios. It is a Greek word meaning "complete" as it also means complete in English. The Word of God would be completed at the end of the first century when John would right the last book, the Book of Revelation ca. 98 A.D. There was nothing else written after that.
Furthermore, "that which is in part" refers to the revelatory gifts mentioned in verse 8: "prophecy, tongues, and revelatory knowledge (not all knowledge--but knowledge used specifically used for the revelation of God's word). When God's revelation to mankind was completed these gifts would cease.
Again, the noun "teleios" or complete, is a neuter adjective, and therefore cannot refer to Jesus Christ or any other masculine noun. It defines the Word of God, a neuter word. In fact the entire context is about revelation from 13:8 all the way to the end of chapter 14.
Tongues shall cease, and they did.

Again, there is no evidence to suggest that Paul had the completed New Testament in mind in 1 Corinthians 13:10. Instead, the evidence indicates that "perfection" refers to our ultimate maturity as believers.

"but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me." (1 Corinthians 13:10-11)

Paul's illustration speaks of maturity, but notice that he was not talking about the maturity of the New Testament. He was talking about our maturity as believers, which will finally be "perfected" or "completed" when we are transformed at the return of Christ (see 1 Corinthians 15:51-53, Philippians 3:20-21, and 1 John 3:2).

Since Paul used a description of spiritual maturity to elaborate on his statement that "when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears," it provides further confirmation that this "perfection" does not refer to the completion of the New Testament.

You left this out of your theory...
"Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face." (1 Corinthians 13:12)

The exact same Greek phrase ("see face to face") is used in the Greek version of the Old Testament for seeing God face to face (Genesis 32:30), and the apostle John confirms for us that we will see God as He is (face to face) after Jesus returns for us and "perfects" our bodies at His coming (1 John 3:2).

Paul explained his statement about "perfection" by saying that "we shall see face to face," and we can see that it has nothing to do with the completion of the New Testament. Instead, it refers to our being transformed and taken into heaven when Jesus comes for us at the Rapture. Since Paul used this illustration to elaborate on his statement that "when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears," it provides further confirmation that this "perfection" does not refer to the completion of the New Testament.

 

[awaken]

I give you Scripture; you simply ignore them.
Paul said "I thank God I speak in tongues more than you all."
Why? He had need of them as he went from church to church on his missionary journeys. It was a gift given to the church. If it does not edify the body through teaching or prophesy (also a form of teaching), then how does it edify the body? How were they edified?

You have yet to prove this in scriptures. Instead you keep repeating it over and over !

It seems that you don't understand faith. You are like the Charismatics, like the Third Wave in particular who put faith in their faith. The object of my faith is Christ. Faith always has an object. The object of the Muslim's faith is Allah. What is the object of your faith? The object of your faith is your experience in tongues.
Faith is not believing. Faith is not experiencing.

WHere did I say tongues was the object of my faith! AGAIN...adding words to my post! Don't you think others can see that you are doing that also? I said the word is my object. Isn't Christ referred to as the WORD? " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Here is an example of faith:
Romans 4:20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;
21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.
--Faith is being fully persuaded that what God has promised God will do.
That is faith--being persuaded in the promises of God, that what God has said in His Word, God will fulfill.

How have I expressed faith differently? ...and I will add.."Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

From what I have experienced, and read, yes.

Well, I am glad you are not the final judge and jury on what is of God and what is not!

This is false. I give you Scripture after Scripture and you just ignore it all. In fact I just explained 1Cor.15:3,4, and you didn't even recognize it (the gospel), from which my experience is based on. But your doctrine is based on your experience isn't it. You believe what you believe because you speak in tongues. It shapes your doctrine. You allow your experience to dictate the doctrine you believe. Your foundation is experience not the Bible.

Again, putting words in my post that I never said or expressed!

Modern day speaking in tongues is a heresy, unknown to Christianity until it started up in 1905. John of Japan has been trying to educate you in this history, but you have been reluctant to accept it. From then end of the first century to the beginning of the 20th century no such phenomena has been recorded except among cults and pagan religions.

I have not used any other religious theory to prove the manifestation of the Holy Spirit is still here. I have used the Word of God!

I only need the Word of God. Like the RCC who tries to convince me of infant baptism I simply need the Word of God to show me it is wrong. Like some who say you need to become a drug addict to reach a drug addict, I only need the Word of God to show me it is wrong. I simply need the Word of God to show me it is wrong. I tell the person who says that I need to become a drug addict to reach the same, that I don't have to stick my head in a garbage pail to know that it is dirty. I don't have to speak in tongues to know that it is a polluted doctrine and heretical.

I too have used the Word of God! No one said you had to speak in tongues!!

I did; you ignored them.
Luke 14:33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.
--Are you not a Christian; a disciple or follower of Christ?

I have! and I am!

Galatians 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
--Do you understand the meaning of this verse? Does it have any application in your personal life?

I do! ...and I am!

Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
--This was written to all Christians. What part do you play in its fulfillment?

I go where He sends me! I obey what He tells me!

Luke 9:23 And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.
--You don't have any interest in following Jesus? Do you know the implications of this verse--what it means to take up your cross daily?

What does it really mean to be a Christian?

Where did I say I do not have any interest in following Jesus?

This thread is on is the tongues the same in Acts and Corinthians! How come all I do is defend my stand concerning you twisting my words here in replying to your threads? Where have you proven that tongues are the same or differendt In Acts and Corinthians?

 

[DHK]

Nope. There are Baptist charismatics. In fact, there is an entire denomination of them -- except they don't hold to the Pentecostal view of baptism of the HS and tongues.

Read over the thread that John gave.

There was actually a thread on the BB on "Can a Baptist Be Charismatic?"
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=15110

It was back in 2004. The general consensus then was that those that had embraced the Charismatic movement could not be Baptists. The main reason is this. Baptists, first and foremost, believe that the Bible is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice. Not only is it our final authority, it is our only authority when it comes to inspiration. There is no other authority. Revelation has ceased. The canon of Scripture is closed. God is no more giving revelation. That is a very important distinctive among Baptists.

The Charismatics do not believe that. "I have a word of knowledge." "I have a word from the Lord." "The Lord said to me." "I had a vision and the Lord said to me." "The Lord spoke to me in tongues." And many of them regard these as revelations from God, inspired just like the Word of God. This is a heretical view. It is not Baptistic at all. It is impossible to be a Baptist and a Charismatic just on that one point alone.

 

[DHK]

Again, there is no evidence to suggest that Paul had the completed New Testament in mind in 1 Corinthians 13:10. Instead, the evidence indicates that "perfection" refers to our ultimate maturity as believers.

There is no reason that a neuter singular adjective would refer to "mature believers." It doesn't make much sense. It also goes directly against the entire context that Paul is speaking about.
In 12:1, he says: "I would not have you ignorant brethren concerning spiritual gifts. From the first verse of chapter 12 to the last verse of chapter 14, the subject is spiritual gifts. Why would he change the subject in mid-stream to talk of mature believers. He wouldn't.
In chapter 12 he talks about spiritual gifts in general. In chapter 13:1-7 he talks of the gift of love specifically. Then from 13:8 to the end of chapter 14 he narrows his scope to revelatory gifts, especially tongues and prophecy in chapter 14. There is no need to introduce another topic.

"but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me." (1 Corinthians 13:10-11)

Paul's illustration speaks of maturity, but notice that he was not talking about the maturity of the New Testament. He was talking about our maturity as believers, which will finally be "perfected" or "completed" when we are transformed at the return of Christ (see 1 Corinthians 15:51-53, Philippians 3:20-21, and 1 John 3:2).

The word teleios commonly means "complete." It speaks of the completed canon, which came at the end of the first century. Until then revelation came through the revelatory gifts mentioned in 13:8: prophecy, tongues, and revelatory knowledge. These would cease at the end of the first century with the completed NT. Paul refers to himself as an analogy. Before the completion of the NT they were as immature believers, only have a part of the Word of God. Spiritual gifts were given to make up the other part. How he waited for that day until he could look into the mirror of God's Word and see clearly into it.

James 1:23 For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass:
James 1:25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.
--The "glass" is a mirror, the mirror of the Word of God. Paul knew that it was only partial. More would come. Some day it would be "completed." He longed for that day. Of course he would die before that day came, but he didn't know that.
When the canon would be complete the periodic piecemeal revelation of truth would be stopped. There would be no more need for partial revelations for the complete revelation of God's Word would be here.

The sign gifts were given early. They were connected with the childhood of the church. The gifts were not "childish", but they were given when the church was in its infancy. It is worth noting that this epistle is one of the first written. During the apostolic age they say through the mirror of God's Word dimly. They didn't have the full revelation. When the complete revelation would come the obscurities would be removed and they would be able to see clearly. The partial gifts would no longer be needed.

Since Paul used a description of spiritual maturity to elaborate on his statement that "when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears," it provides further confirmation that this "perfection" does not refer to the completion of the New Testament.

The immaturity referred to the church. The church was in its infancy. When the canon was completed they would have the whole picture and would not need revelatory gifts.

You left this out of your theory...
"Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face." (1 Corinthians 13:12)

There is nothing that reveals your "face", your sinfulness, more clearly then the Word of God.

The exact same Greek phrase ("see face to face") is used in the Greek version of the Old Testament for seeing God face to face (Genesis 32:30), and the apostle John confirms for us that we will see God as He is (face to face) after Jesus returns for us and "perfects" our bodies at His coming (1 John 3:2).

The same phrase, glass, mirror, is often used for the Word of God.

Paul explained his statement about "perfection" by saying that "we shall see face to face," and we can see that it has nothing to do with the completion of the New Testament. Instead, it refers to our being transformed and taken into heaven when Jesus comes for us at the Rapture. Since Paul used this illustration to elaborate on his statement that "when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears," it provides further confirmation that this "perfection" does not refer to the completion of the New Testament.

It cannot refer to Christ for Christ is masculine, and that is a neuter adjective. The word is neuter. It is also a singular word, not a plural word. It cannot refer to a "we." The text is about revelation, not the coming of Christ, not the rapture, not the maturity of the believer. Your theories don't fit.

 

[DHK]

You have yet to prove this in scriptures. Instead you keep repeating it over and over !

Tongues was a gift given to the church. Other than a few exceptions in Acts, Paul declares this doctrine here (in a doctrinal book, not in a historical book like Acts). Take note:
1 Corinthians 1:7 So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ:
--He is writing to the church at Corinth. They, the church, came behind in no gift. They had them all.

1 Corinthians 12:1 Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.
--The context of these chapters (12-14) is spiritual gifts (including tongues). Again he is writing to the church about their use.

1 Corinthians 12:7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;
--He starts listing them here for the members of the church telling them that they all can't have the same gift. They must use the gift that they were given. Note the phrase "one is given...to another..."

1 Corinthians 12:12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.
The body here is the local church at Corinth. It has many members. Each member has its own place, its own gift, his own duty, and they should use what they have for the church's benefit. Not all had the gift of tongues, but they were all for the church's benefit.

1 Corinthians 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
--The body they were baptized into was the local church at Corinth. They were one. It didn't matter what their background was.

1 Corinthians 12:14 For the body is not one member, but many.
15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
--They were to act as one body. They were not to covet other gifts, but be satisfied with whatever gifts God had given them.

1 Corinthians 12:20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.
21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.
--Paul emphasizes this point again and again: one body, many members, each member having their own special gift. Use the gift you have.

1 Corinthians 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
--The gifts are listed in order of importance here. Tongues is listed last--the least important of all the gifts.

1 Corinthians 12:29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?
30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?
--He is writing to the church at Corinth and making an important point. Does everyone have the same gifts? No they don't! Are all prophets? No. Do all speak with tongues? No. Then why would you seek for it, when Paul says you don't have it. Only a select few had this gift. It was supernaturally given to just a select few for the benefit of the church, this church at Corinth.
The same things would apply to other churches.

1 Corinthians 14:1 Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.
--He is speaking to the Corinthian church, not to believers of all ages. It was their specific problem. Just like in chapter 6 he deals with their problem of taking each other to court, and chapter 5 of a man who had committed incest. He is dealing with specific problems in this church.

1 Corinthians 14:4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
--What church? The church in Corinth. These gifts were given to the church, not to be used outside of the church. Read the entire chapter. Every verse is directed to the church at Corinth.

Paul went on three missionary journeys. In three missionary journeys he established over 100 churches. Spiritual gifts were given only to churches, not to be used outside of church for they were for the edification of the church. He would use this gift of tongues in the churches that he went to.

WHere did I say tongues was the object of my faith! AGAIN...adding words to my post! Don't you think others can see that you are doing that also? I said the word is my object. Isn't Christ referred to as the WORD? " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

I wasn't adding to your post. You were talking about your experience and you were talking about faith. You said that one must have faith, and you spoke about faith in your experience. That is wrong.

Here are your exact words:
Faith is believing the Word of God before you see it! I read the word....I believed the word...I experienced the word! I believe that puts experience last!

Faith is not believing the word of God before you see it.
What kind of faith is that? It sounds like blind faith. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. IOW, faith comes by hearing the Word of God FIRST. First you hear the word of God, and then faith comes. From other posts you seem to say that you gather faith from your experiences.

How have I expressed faith differently? ...and I will add.."Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

That is more of a description then a definition. A good definition is the one I gave you in Romans 4:20,21.

Again, putting words in my post that I never said or expressed!

The quote of yours I answered. I did not repeat what you said, I refuted what you said. How can I put any words in your mouth when I made my own conclusion from what you said? They were my words, not yours. I will state it again with more clarity if you wish.
IMO, you gain your doctrine from your experiences, allowing your experience to shape your doctrine instead of basing your doctrine on the truths of the inspired Scripture.

I have not used any other religious theory to prove the manifestation of the Holy Spirit is still here. I have used the Word of God!

That may be true. But you need to take into consideration a couple of things here.
According to 2Tim.2:15, have you rightly divided the Word of Truth. Most of us would say, no.
Secondly, and what two of us are pointing out to you. How do you account for 19 centuries of silence on this doctrine? Can it be possible that for 19 centuries this was considered heresy and now suddenly it is not? Or did God suddenly after 19 centuries just pop out of the woodwork, and declare that the sign gifts are now once again operative, though they were silent for 19 centuries. Why would you be correct and stand alone against all the believers of 19 centuries (all those before 1905 back to the end of the first century)? Are you going to disregard all of history?

I too have used the Word of God! No one said you had to speak in tongues!!

Most Charismatics make it mandatory. If not they think that you are not spiritual. They see it as a second blessing. If you haven't been blessed a second time, why haven't you? You obviously aren't spiritual enough. And so it goes. You have spoken in tongues, the one basic requirement to be a part of the Charismatic movement. That puts you "in" and leaves others "out." It makes you more spiritual in their eyes. IOW, we are less spiritual than you. You are thus inferring we must speak in tongues.
You have used the Word of God, some. But have you rightly divided the word of truth? That is the question. When Scripture is taken out of context, then no. When a rebuke is taken as a blessing, then no.

I did; you ignored them.
Luke 14:33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.
--Are you not a Christian; a disciple or follower of Christ?

I have! and I am!
I won't press you on these verses.
But to forsake all that you have;
to deny your self;
to crucify yourself daily;
--This life is not easy. It would be interesting to hear your testimony on how you have obeyed in your walk with Christ.

 

[DHK]

This thread is on is the tongues the same in Acts and Corinthians! How come all I do is defend my stand concerning you twisting my words here in replying to your threads? Where have you proven that tongues are the same or differendt In Acts and Corinthians?

There are some similarities and some differences.
The similarities are that they are always, always, known languages. They are known to the audience but unknown to the speaker.
1. On the Day of Pentecost they were a sign to the Jews. It was a Jewish feast where over 100,000 Jews were present, of whom 3,000 were saved. But all of them heard the apostles speak in tongues. It was a sign that impending judgment was coming--a sign to the unbelieving Jews. The ones that had crucified Christ were there. Peter preached to them.

2. In Acts 10, Peter took Jews with them for a witness. The significance of this occasion was that the gospel was going forth to the Gentiles. Jews needed to witness this or else they would not believe that the Gentiles also would be receiving the message of God. In that respect they would remain in unbelief. It was a definite mark in history where the gospel started going to the Gentiles, and it was witnessed by the Jews, a sign to the Jews.

3. In Acts 19 we have a unique situation. Paul encounters Jews, followers of John the Baptist who had never even heard of the Holy Spirit. John had pointed people to Christ as the Lamb of God, but these were like OT saints still. Paul made sure they were saved, baptized them, and the Holy Spirit fell upon them and they spoke in tongues.
It was a witness to them and to other Jews around that Paul's message was genuinely from God. All that they had known up to that time was a message of repentance by John the Baptist.

These are three uniquely different situations in the book of Acts. We cannot form doctrine from these situations.
The tongues being taught by Paul in First Corinthians were also different languages, but they needed an interpreter, they were for the local churches, gifts for the church, to edify the church, never to be used privately or outside of the church, took the place of prophecy or teaching, would soon die off.

 

[John of Japan]

I do not disagree that there are many wrong teachings out there! I believe EVERY denomination has wrong teachings in it. No denomination is 100% correct.

In the first place, the Charismatic movement is not a denomination. It is a movement, with its adherents in many different churches and denominations. Secondly, among the Charismatices there are many, many false doctrines and practices. It's not a matter of "They are a little wrong but so are we." It's a matter of, the Charismatics are a lot wrong on a lot of doctrines and practices. False doctrine abounds all through the movement.

YEs, I have! And I do not appreciate you insinuating that I think I am a better Christian than anyone else when I have stated different. I told you I was saved early and did not receive what I was walking in now until later. Why? Because I was taught that it was not available to us today, so I was in unbelief. So did I receive a second blessing or did I just realized what I had received at the time of my salvation?

You came on the Baptist Board with an agenda to teach all of the rest of us your Spirit manifestation doctrine. (Teach us? Do you have any idea how many pastors there are on here?) You intimate it made you a better servant of the Lord and a better Christian. (You want me to give you the post # and thread where you gave these impressions?) What are we supposed to think?

:I have no idea what you are saying here or trying to prove! I just stated a clearer understanding of what I believe.

You mis-stated the content of my post, and did not respond to it, turning the meaning of it completely around.

It that means believing that the manifestations of the Spirit is for us today! Then yes! I am! But my belief does not come from any group! I have backed it up with scriptures!

This is disingenuous. You stated that you had decided to show the "Full Gospel" (your term) people where they were wrong. This says to me that you were fully aware of their doctrine. Then you studied on your own and came to your own conclusions--which just happened to be exactly like theirs. No, whether you admit it or not, whether you are aware of it or not, you got you doctrine from the "Full Gospel" people.

How does the Bible tell you to judge prophecy? I do not take every prophecy in just as I do not take every teaching of the Word in!

(1) Foretelling prophecy has ceased, since the canon of Scripture is closed. We still have forth-telling prophecy. Therefore, all prophecy which claims to foretell the future is false prophecy.

(2) If a prophecy fails to be fulfilled, even one time, that prophet is a false prophet, a servant of the devil (Deut. 18:22, Acts 13:6-10). The Charismatic movement is full of such false prophets.

I realize that! And I only believe what I find in scriptures! I do not buy into to every doctrine! I am also in a process of re-examining what I was taught under Baptist too!

Do you know what defines a Baptist? Can you name the Baptist distinctives? If not, you are culturally a Baptist, but not one from Biblical conviction.

 

[Don]

Originally Posted by Don
In Acts 2, who provided the interpretations? In Acts 10, who provided the interpretations?

no one! They spoke in languages that were understood by the ones listening!

Yes!

I did not disagree with you about what they were doing; scripture is quite clear that they were speaking of the wonderful works of God. Where you and I disagree is why they were heard to be speaking in different languages.

They heard it as a witness that they had received what God had promised in Acts 1:8.

"They" were the unbelievers standing by; "they" heard the apostles speaking in tongues; "they" weren't saved yet, so therefore hadn't received what God had promised. You've mixed up the two groups.

That is correct; and I admit that Acts 10 doesn't specify unbelievers being present. However, Acts 10 specifies that the Jewish believers were astonished by the Gentiles speaking in tongues. So that leads to my question: Why were they speaking in tongues? In this case, to show the Jews that God favored the Gentiles as well.

Yes, as a witness that they had received the same as Acts 2...The tongues were the same, used for the same purpose. Praising, magnifying God (praying to God) for a witness to the unbelievers or Jews that what was promised in Acts 1:8 was real and available to all. Jew and Gentile..

So which languages were being spoken in Acts 10?

Correct. Acts 2 is very specific about which languages were heard; are you saying that the same languages were heard in Acts 10?

No, am saying it was for the same purpose, as I said above.

There's a difference between "purpose" and "tongues." You can't say they used the same tongues, and then try to say that they used the same tongues because they used the same purpose.

In other words, you need to step back and ensure everyone's talking about the same definition of "tongues."

So you've never spoken in tongues?

Never in a church service

So you have spoken in a tongue; which language was it?

1 Cor 14:22 very clearly says tongues are a sign for unbelievers; thus, scripture says the sign is tongues. So how can you disagree on what that sign is?

THe sign was given as evidence that Acts 1:8 was here and available..was real! All that Christ had promised has come to pass for the believer and was availabe to all...those of that day, to their children, to those that were far off, as many as the Lord our God shall call. (vs39).

You're not answering the question. Are tongues a sign, or something else?

First, if it's done without interpretation, it's not a "sign of judgment"; Paul says (verse 23) that if it's done without interpretation, unbelievers will think you are insane.

I will post this again..

It turns out that "uninterpreted tongues" have been used in Israel's history as a sign to the unbelieving Israelites that God's judgment had come upon them. Paul was quoting a prophecy from Isaiah 28:11-12:

"Very well then, with foreign lips and strange tongues God will speak to this people, to whom he said, "This is the resting place, let the weary rest"; and, "This is the place of repose"-- but they would not listen." (Isaiah 28:11-12)

This prophecy was fulfilled when the Assyrian army swooped down upon Israel speaking a foreign language (an uninterpreted tongue), carrying Israel off into captivity. Paul used an example from Israel's history to show that uninterpreted tongues are sometimes used as a "sign" for unbelievers that judgment has come upon them.

Then Paul pointed out that if an unbeliever enters a church where Christians seem to have lost their minds, the unbeliever would see this as a sign of impending judgment. This is why Paul said that prophecy is much more beneficial during a church service.

I need to see your source material for this, because I disagree with it in its entirety.

Second, examine what you said about unbelievers hearing them speak in tongues with interpretation. What do you mean by "with interpretation"? Do you mean that an unbeliever will hear someone speak in an unknown language, and someone else will interpret it, and the unbeliever will know it is from God? (that's not the way it worked in Acts 2) Or do you mean that someone will speak in an unknown language, and the unbeliever will understand it in his/her own language? (which is what happened in Acts 2)

I see it happening both ways!
Sometimes they hear in their own language and sometime it needs to be interpreted. Why would God list interpretation of tongues as a manifestation of the Holy Spirit if it was not needed.

Let's not forget that diermēneuō (1 Cor 14:27) means "to unfold the meaning of what is said, explain, expound; to translate into one's native language."

And be wary of how you use "manifestation." In 1 Cor 12, where scripture says "the manifestation of the Spirit," it goes on to identify those gifts that are manifested by us as wisdom, knowledge, faith, healing, etc. These aren't "once in a while" or "under the right conditions" kind of manifestations; they're permanently given to us. The use of manifestation can lead to confusion about either the Spirit is with us once in a while, or it's with us all the time; which do you think it is?

 

[DHK]

I need to see your source material for this, because I disagree with it in its entirety.

I agree. I would like to see some evidence too.

I will post this again..

It turns out that "uninterpreted tongues" have been used in Israel's history as a sign to the unbelieving Israelites that God's judgment had come upon them. Paul was quoting a prophecy from Isaiah 28:11-12:

"Very well then, with foreign lips and strange tongues God will speak to this people, to whom he said, "This is the resting place, let the weary rest"; and, "This is the place of repose"-- but they would not listen." (Isaiah 28:11-12)

This prophecy was fulfilled when the Assyrian army swooped down upon Israel speaking a foreign language (an uninterpreted tongue), carrying Israel off into captivity. Paul used an example from Israel's history to show that uninterpreted tongues are sometimes used as a "sign" for unbelievers that judgment has come upon them.

Where and when did that event take place, and who recorded it?

Furthermore, why didn't Paul specifically refer to it? Paul referred to Isa.28:11,12 as being a fulfillment of prophecy right then and there, not as a past fulfillment, but as one being fulfilled right there in his time. Otherwise the verse would not make any sense whatsoever.

He was speaking to "this people" (Israel), at that time and age, not in the past.

 

[John of Japan]

I need to see your source material for this, because I disagree with it in its entirety.

I agree. I would like to see some evidence too.

Where and when did that event take place, and who recorded it?

Count me in. I'd like to see evidence for this.

 

[awaken]

There are some similarities and some differences.
The similarities are that they are always, always, known languages. They are known to the audience but unknown to the speaker.
1. On the Day of Pentecost they were a sign to the Jews. It was a Jewish feast where over 100,000 Jews were present, of whom 3,000 were saved. But all of them heard the apostles speak in tongues. It was a sign that impending judgment was coming--a sign to the unbelieving Jews. The ones that had crucified Christ were there. Peter preached to them.

2. In Acts 10, Peter took Jews with them for a witness. The significance of this occasion was that the gospel was going forth to the Gentiles. Jews needed to witness this or else they would not believe that the Gentiles also would be receiving the message of God. In that respect they would remain in unbelief. It was a definite mark in history where the gospel started going to the Gentiles, and it was witnessed by the Jews, a sign to the Jews.

3. In Acts 19 we have a unique situation. Paul encounters Jews, followers of John the Baptist who had never even heard of the Holy Spirit. John had pointed people to Christ as the Lamb of God, but these were like OT saints still. Paul made sure they were saved, baptized them, and the Holy Spirit fell upon them and they spoke in tongues.
It was a witness to them and to other Jews around that Paul's message was genuinely from God. All that they had known up to that time was a message of repentance by John the Baptist.

These are three uniquely different situations in the book of Acts. We cannot form doctrine from these situations.
The tongues being taught by Paul in First Corinthians were also different languages, but they needed an interpreter, they were for the local churches, gifts for the church, to edify the church, never to be used privately or outside of the church, took the place of prophecy or teaching, would soon die off.

So you do not admit that they were all praising God, magnifying God, praying to God?

 

[awaken]

There is no reason that a neuter singular adjective would refer to "mature believers." It doesn't make much sense. It also goes directly against the entire context that Paul is speaking about.
In 12:1, he says: "I would not have you ignorant brethren concerning spiritual gifts. From the first verse of chapter 12 to the last verse of chapter 14, the subject is spiritual gifts. Why would he change the subject in mid-stream to talk of mature believers. He wouldn't.
In chapter 12 he talks about spiritual gifts in general. In chapter 13:1-7 he talks of the gift of love specifically. Then from 13:8 to the end of chapter 14 he narrows his scope to revelatory gifts, especially tongues and prophecy in chapter 14. There is no need to introduce another topic.

Many people assume that "perfection" refers to the completion of the New Testament. They correctly point out that this word is translated from the Greek word teleios, which means "perfect," "mature," or "complete," and they argue that "perfection" was achieved when the New Testament was completed. However, there are a number of reasons why 1 Corinthians 13:10 does not refer to the completion of the New Testament:

Here is just one...
Let's assume for a moment that the Greek word teleios means "completion" in 1 Corinthians 13:10, as many people believe. When we substitute the word "completion" for "perfection" then the passage reads:

"For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completion comes, the imperfect disappears." (1 Corinthians 13:10)

This sounds like it could be referring to the completion of the New Testament, but in reality that would just be an assumption. If we believe that this passage is referring to the New Testament then we are reading into the passage something which it does not actually say. For example, it is equally possible that Paul was referring to the completion of our salvation (which will occur when our bodies are transformed at the Rapture), as in the following passage:

"he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus." (Philippians 1:6)

The words "completion" or "perfection" can refer to any number of things. The fact that the Greek word for "perfection" can be translated as "completion" does not prove that Paul was referring to the completed New Testament.

The word teleios commonly means "complete." It speaks of the completed canon, which came at the end of the first century. Until then revelation came through the revelatory gifts mentioned in 13:8: prophecy, tongues, and revelatory knowledge. These would cease at the end of the first century with the completed NT. Paul refers to himself as an analogy. Before the completion of the NT they were as immature believers, only have a part of the Word of God. Spiritual gifts were given to make up the other part. How he waited for that day until he could look into the mirror of God's Word and see clearly into it.

"But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears." (1 Corinthians 13:8-10)

It is clear from the context that the word "imperfect" refers to the spiritual gifts that are mentioned here, although this obviously does not mean that the Holy Spirit is imperfect or that His gifts are imperfect! The gifts of the Spirit are for our use while we are in these fallen, physical bodies on earth, and it is our use of the spiritual gifts which is imperfect, because Paul said that "we know in part and we prophesy in part." However, when "perfection" comes, meaning the perfection or completion of our salvation at the Rapture (or when we get to heaven, whichever comes first), then we will no longer need these gifts of the Spirit.

Notice what Paul said will happen when we receive the completion or perfection of our salvation:

"Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed --in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality." (1 Corinthians 15:51-53)

"But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body." (Philippians 3:20-21)

"Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is." (1 John 3:2)

When Jesus returns for us at His coming then we will instantly be changed from mortality to immortality. Our previous, mortal, fallen state of existence will be completely done away with when "perfection" comes. It is this completion and perfection of our salvation which Paul was referring to in 1 Corinthians 13:10, not the completion of the New Testament.

 

[awaken]

James 1:23 For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass:
James 1:25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.
--The "glass" is a mirror, the mirror of the Word of God. Paul knew that it was only partial. More would come. Some day it would be "completed." He longed for that day. Of course he would die before that day came, but he didn't know that.
When the canon would be complete the periodic piecemeal revelation of truth would be stopped. There would be no more need for partial revelations for the complete revelation of God's Word would be here.

Jesus is the Word of God!
AGAIN...."Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face." (1 Corinthians 13:12)
The exact same Greek phrase ("see face to face") is used in the Greek version of the Old Testament for seeing God face to face:

"So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, "It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared."" (Genesis 32:30)

The apostle John confirms for us that we will see God as He is (face to face) after Jesus returns for us and "perfects" our bodies at the Rapture.. (1 John 3:2)
Paul explained his statement about "perfection" by saying that "we shall see face to face," and we can see that it has nothing to do with the completion of the New Testament. Instead, it refers to our being transformed and taken into heaven when Jesus comes for us at the Rapture. Since Paul used this illustration to elaborate on his statement that "when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears," it provides further confirmation that this "perfection" does not refer to the completion of the New Testament.

The sign gifts were given early. They were connected with the childhood of the church. The gifts were not "childish", but they were given when the church was in its infancy. It is worth noting that this epistle is one of the first written. During the apostolic age they say through the mirror of God's Word dimly. They didn't have the full revelation. When the complete revelation would come the obscurities would be removed and they would be able to see clearly. The partial gifts would no longer be needed.

The immaturity referred to the church. The church was in its infancy. When the canon was completed they would have the whole picture and would not need revelatory gifts.

There is nothing that reveals your "face", your sinfulness, more clearly then the Word of God.

The same phrase, glass, mirror, is often used for the Word of God.

But SEEING face to face refers to when we SEE Him Face to face...from one face to another!
Do you understand ALL there is to the BIble? We are still looking into the Bible darkly! We do not have complete understanding! Are you completely mature, or are you still growing? We have not reached maturity? We as a church also have a lot of division and are not in unity. The gifts were given to bring unity to the church too!

It cannot refer to Christ for Christ is masculine, and that is a neuter adjective. The word is neuter. It is also a singular word, not a plural word. It cannot refer to a "we." The text is about revelation, not the coming of Christ, not the rapture, not the maturity of the believer. Your theories don't fit.

One of the best ways to understand what Paul meant by the Greek word teleios is to examine every place he used it in Scripture and then to determine how he normally used this word. Paul used teleios seven other times in the New Testament:

"Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is--his good, pleasing and perfect [teleios] will." (Romans 12:2)

"We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature [teleios], but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing." (1 Corinthians 2:6)

"Brothers, stop thinking like children. In regard to evil be infants, but in your thinking be adults [teleios]." (1 Corinthians 14:20)

"until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature [teleios], attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ." (Ephesians 4:13)

"All of us who are mature [teleios] should take such a view of things. And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you." (Philippians 3:15)

"We proclaim him, admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone perfect [teleios] in Christ." (Colossians 1:28)

"Epaphras, who is one of you and a servant of Christ Jesus, sends greetings. He is always wrestling in prayer for you, that you may stand firm in all the will of God, mature [teleios] and fully assured." (Colossians 4:12)

With the sole exception of Romans 12:2, it is clear that every time Paul used the Greek word teleios ("perfection") he was referring to the spiritual maturity of believers, which will not be fully complete or perfect until we are resurrected and transformed at the return of Christ.

This gives us valid reason for taking Paul's use of teleios in 1 Corinthians 13:10 as being another reference to the perfection of our spiritual maturity when Jesus returns, as Paul pointed out just two chapters later:

"Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed --in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality." (1 Corinthians 15:51-53)

Here Paul described the completion or perfection of our salvation when we will receive our transformed, immortal bodies at the Rapture. The internal evidence of Paul's consistent use of teleios is a strong reason for understanding "perfection" in 1 Corinthians 13:10 as being a reference to our ultimate perfection in heaven. There is no evidence to suggest that Paul had the completed New Testament in mind in 1 Corinthians 13:10.

THis will be the last time I address this with you on this thread unless we are addressing that tongues are the same in Acts and Corinthians!

 

[awaken]

Tongues was a gift given to the church. Other than a few exceptions in Acts, Paul declares this doctrine here (in a doctrinal book, not in a historical book like Acts). Take note:
1 Corinthians 1:7 So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ:
--He is writing to the church at Corinth. They, the church, came behind in no gift. They had them all.

Notice how long they would have them WAITING FOR THE COMING OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. THey are here until Jesus returns! Discussion closed with that one scripture!

1 Corinthians 12:1 Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.
--The context of these chapters (12-14) is spiritual gifts (including tongues). Again he is writing to the church about their use.

1 Corinthians 12:7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;
--He starts listing them here for the members of the church telling them that they all can't have the same gift. They must use the gift that they were given. Note the phrase "one is given...to another..."

1 Corinthians 12:12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.
The body here is the local church at Corinth. It has many members. Each member has its own place, its own gift, his own duty, and they should use what they have for the church's benefit. Not all had the gift of tongues, but they were all for the church's benefit.

1 Corinthians 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
--The body they were baptized into was the local church at Corinth. They were one. It didn't matter what their background was.

1 Corinthians 12:14 For the body is not one member, but many.
15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
--They were to act as one body. They were not to covet other gifts, but be satisfied with whatever gifts God had given them.

1 Corinthians 12:20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.
21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.
--Paul emphasizes this point again and again: one body, many members, each member having their own special gift. Use the gift you have.

1 Corinthians 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
--The gifts are listed in order of importance here. Tongues is listed last--the least important of all the gifts.

1 Corinthians 12:29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?
30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?
--He is writing to the church at Corinth and making an important point. Does everyone have the same gifts? No they don't! Are all prophets? No. Do all speak with tongues? No. Then why would you seek for it, when Paul says you don't have it. Only a select few had this gift. It was supernaturally given to just a select few for the benefit of the church, this church at Corinth.
The same things would apply to other churches.

1 Corinthians 14:1 Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.
--He is speaking to the Corinthian church, not to believers of all ages. It was their specific problem. Just like in chapter 6 he deals with their problem of taking each other to court, and chapter 5 of a man who had committed incest. He is dealing with specific problems in this church.

1 Corinthians 14:4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
--What church? The church in Corinth. These gifts were given to the church, not to be used outside of the church. Read the entire chapter. Every verse is directed to the church at Corinth.

Paul went on three missionary journeys. In three missionary journeys he established over 100 churches. Spiritual gifts were given only to churches, not to be used outside of church for they were for the edification of the church. He would use this gift of tongues in the churches that he went to.
I wasn't adding to your post. You were talking about your experience and you were talking about faith. You said that one must have faith, and you spoke about faith in your experience. That is wrong.

Here are your exact words:
Faith is believing the Word of God before you see it! I read the word....I believed the word...I experienced the word! I believe that puts experience last!

Faith is not believing the word of God before you see it.
What kind of faith is that? It sounds like blind faith. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. IOW, faith comes by hearing the Word of God FIRST. First you hear the word of God, and then faith comes. From other posts you seem to say that you gather faith from your experiences.
That is more of a description then a definition. A good definition is the one I gave you in Romans 4:20,21.
The quote of yours I answered. I did not repeat what you said, I refuted what you said. How can I put any words in your mouth when I made my own conclusion from what you said? They were my words, not yours. I will state it again with more clarity if you wish.
IMO, you gain your doctrine from your experiences, allowing your experience to shape your doctrine instead of basing your doctrine on the truths of the inspired Scripture.
That may be true. But you need to take into consideration a couple of things here.
According to 2Tim.2:15, have you rightly divided the Word of Truth. Most of us would say, no.
Secondly, and what two of us are pointing out to you. How do you account for 19 centuries of silence on this doctrine? Can it be possible that for 19 centuries this was considered heresy and now suddenly it is not? Or did God suddenly after 19 centuries just pop out of the woodwork, and declare that the sign gifts are now once again operative, though they were silent for 19 centuries. Why would you be correct and stand alone against all the believers of 19 centuries (all those before 1905 back to the end of the first century)? Are you going to disregard all of history?
Most Charismatics make it mandatory. If not they think that you are not spiritual. They see it as a second blessing. If you haven't been blessed a second time, why haven't you? You obviously aren't spiritual enough. And so it goes. You have spoken in tongues, the one basic requirement to be a part of the Charismatic movement. That puts you "in" and leaves others "out." It makes you more spiritual in their eyes. IOW, we are less spiritual than you. You are thus inferring we must speak in tongues.
You have used the Word of God, some. But have you rightly divided the word of truth? That is the question. When Scripture is taken out of context, then no. When a rebuke is taken as a blessing, then no.
I have! and I am!
I won't press you on these verses.
But to forsake all that you have;
to deny your self;
to crucify yourself daily;
--This life is not easy. It would be interesting to hear your testimony on how you have obeyed in your walk with Christ.

You still have not shown anywhere that praying to God in tongues in private is forbidden!!

 

[awaken]

In the first place, the Charismatic movement is not a denomination. It is a movement, with its adherents in many different churches and denominations. Secondly, among the Charismatices there are many, many false doctrines and practices. It's not a matter of "They are a little wrong but so are we." It's a matter of, the Charismatics are a lot wrong on a lot of doctrines and practices. False doctrine abounds all through the movement.
You came on the Baptist Board with an agenda to teach all of the rest of us your Spirit manifestation doctrine. (Teach us? Do you have any idea how many pastors there are on here?) You intimate it made you a better servant of the Lord and a better Christian. (You want me to give you the post # and thread where you gave these impressions?) What are we supposed to think?
You mis-stated the content of my post, and did not respond to it, turning the meaning of it completely around.

I chose to use the word SHARE with you. Again, I have never said it has made me a better christian!

This is disingenuous. You stated that you had decided to show the "Full Gospel" (your term) people where they were wrong. This says to me that you were fully aware of their doctrine. Then you studied on your own and came to your own conclusions--which just happened to be exactly like theirs. No, whether you admit it or not, whether you are aware of it or not, you got you doctrine from the "Full Gospel" people.

IT was a Baptist church that was changing here in the South not a full gospel church. I had many friends in that church and when I began to question them on what was going on they shared with me what I am sharing with you now. After studing it out myself, I realized I too was taught wrong.

(1) Foretelling prophecy has ceased, since the canon of Scripture is closed. We still have forth-telling prophecy. Therefore, all prophecy which claims to foretell the future is false prophecy.

Again, a personal prophecy does not change the Bible or add to it. A personal prophecy from God will edify and build a person up!

(2) If a prophecy fails to be fulfilled, even one time, that prophet is a false prophet, a servant of the devil (Deut. 18:22, Acts 13:6-10). The Charismatic movement is full of such false prophets.

Again, I do not know much about that movement! But there are false in every religion!

Do you know what defines a Baptist? Can you name the Baptist distinctives? If not, you are culturally a Baptist, but not one from Biblical conviction.

I am a a child of God attending a Baptist church. We will not get in heaven because we go to a Baptist church!

 

[awaken]

"They" were the unbelievers standing by; "they" heard the apostles speaking in tongues; "they" weren't saved yet, so therefore hadn't received what God had promised. You've mixed up the two groups.

No, I did not! The ones watching (unbelievers) saw the disciples (believers) speaking the the wonderful works of God (praising God, speaking to God). THe sign was that those speaking in tongues had received the promise.

So which languages were being spoken in Acts 10?

It does not say. My point was that both Acts 2 and Acts 10 were speaking TO GOD, PRAYING TO GOD, PRAISING GOD! Different languages but same purpose!

There's a difference between "purpose" and "tongues." You can't say they used the same tongues, and then try to say that they used the same tongues because they used the same purpose.

I thought the reason this thread was started was to show that the tongues were used for the same purpose in Acts 2 and Corinthians 14? Tongues can be different languages, this I will agree!

In other words, you need to step back and ensure everyone's talking about the same definition of "tongues."

Tongues given by God is an utterance by the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:4) NOt one that the speaker himself understands. (1 Cor. 14:2,14). Different tongues (languages) spoken but the same purpose-speaking to God, magnifying God, praising God, praying in the spirit.

So you have spoken in a tongue; which language was it?

Do not know.

You're not answering the question. Are tongues a sign, or something else?

I did answer the question! It is a sign to unbelievers. When unbelievers hear tongues in there own language from someone that does not speak that language, Or when in a church setting tongues are interpreted.

THe sign was given as evidence that Acts 1:8 was here and available to all!

I need to see your source material for this, because I disagree with it in its entirety.

My source is the Bible and History put together.

Let's not forget that diermēneuō (1 Cor 14:27) means "to unfold the meaning of what is said, explain, expound; to translate into one's native language."

And be wary of how you use "manifestation." In 1 Cor 12, where scripture says "the manifestation of the Spirit," it goes on to identify those gifts that are manifested by us as wisdom, knowledge, faith, healing, etc. These aren't "once in a while" or "under the right conditions" kind of manifestations; they're permanently given to us. The use of manifestation can lead to confusion about either the Spirit is with us once in a while, or it's with us all the time; which do you think it is?

THe Holy Spirit was given on the Day of Pentecost and as far as I can see will be here throughout the church age.

Think about this...if only believers can manifest the Holy Spirit mentioned in chapter 12..then the one interpreting has to be a believer, right? Otherwise it would not be the a manifestation of the Holy Spirit.

 

[awaken]

To get back on topic of this thread...
Tongues are different as different languages...but the purpose is the same!

 

[DHK]

Notice how long they would have them WAITING FOR THE COMING OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. THey are here until Jesus returns! Discussion closed with that one scripture!

"Watch and pray (not in tongues) for ye know not when the Lord may come."
"Even so come Lord Jesus" (last prayer of the Bible)
"I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed to him against that day." (the day of his coming).
--Your argument is moot. In everything we do we are to do keeping in mind that the Lord is coming again. We pray, waiting for the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.
"Looking for that blessed hope and glorious appearing of the great God and Savior, our Lord Jesus Christ."
That has nothing to do with spiritual gift. The church had spiritual gifts for the first century only. They were admonished to use them all the while looking for the appearing of Christ, even as we are today without the spiritual gifts.

You still have not shown anywhere that praying to God in tongues in private is forbidden!!

There is only one example in the Bible given where a person prays in tongues (and it is an example), and that example is in a church setting, praying the blessing before the meal is eaten. It is also a rebuke. It needs an interpreter. How shall they know when to say "Amen" if there is no understanding, or interpreter.

There is no example of private prayer in tongues in the Bible. All private prayer is condemned, and there is no example of it. There is no such thing as a prayer language except in your own mother tongue (native language). No such doctrine is taught in the Bible. I challenge you to prove this doctrine by a proper exegesis of the Word of God.

I would also like you to look at if from a logical point of view, using what you have posted and what other Charismatics of today do.
1. Understand that prayer is communication. It is speaking or talking to God. The only difference between speaking and talking is that talking can be done silently. Speaking infers that you are speaking aloud. But one can talk silently.
--Example
1 Samuel 1:12 And it came to pass, as she continued praying before the LORD, that Eli marked her mouth.
13 Now Hannah, she spake in her heart; only her lips moved, but her voice was not heard: therefore Eli thought she had been drunken.
--She was praying in her own language, but silently.

There are many recorded prayers in the Bible, both silent and aloud.
One thing they all have in common is that they are spoken, communicated with understanding.
Prayer is communication with God.

Secondly, according to your own testimony, you do not understand what you say when you pray. Therefore there is no communication. You do not understand what you say; not even God understands what you say, though he is omniscient.
If I repeat a series of syllables over and over again what meaning does it have. It has no meaning. It is gibberish. It has no meaning to me (though I may think it has), and consequently it has no meaning to God. I am only deceiving myself. I don't understand it and God doesn't understand it. There is no communication and therefore it isn't prayer. Prayer is communication.

If you are praying in tongues:
What sins are you confessing?
Who are you praying for?
What requests are you bringing before God?
Whose salvation are you pleading for?

If there is no communication there is no prayer.
There is no such thing as a private prayer language in tongues. The Bible does not speak of one. Such things are condemned. In fact such things open oneself up to the paranormal. They are denomic not Godly.

 

[awaken]

"Watch and pray (not in tongues) for ye know not when the Lord may come."
"Even so come Lord Jesus" (last prayer of the Bible)
"I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed to him against that day." (the day of his coming).
--Your argument is moot. In everything we do we are to do keeping in mind that the Lord is coming again. We pray, waiting for the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.
"Looking for that blessed hope and glorious appearing of the great God and Savior, our Lord Jesus Christ."
That has nothing to do with spiritual gift. The church had spiritual gifts for the first century only. They were admonished to use them all the while looking for the appearing of Christ, even as we are today without the spiritual gifts.

The scripture you quoted said...
"So that ye come behind in NO gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."
and I will add the next verse..
"Who shall confirmyou unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ."

These verses tell us that the gifts will be here until the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. To deny that is to deny the truth of the scriptures! The Lord did not come in there lifetime! But He might in ours! So we too are waiting! and hopefully come BEHIND in NO gifts!

There is only one example in the Bible given where a person prays in tongues (and it is an example), and that example is in a church setting, praying the blessing before the meal is eaten. It is also a rebuke. It needs an interpreter. How shall they know when to say "Amen" if there is no understanding, or interpreter.

There is no example of private prayer in tongues in the Bible. All private prayer is condemned, and there is no example of it. There is no such thing as a prayer language except in your own mother tongue (native language). No such doctrine is taught in the Bible. I challenge you to prove this doctrine by a proper exegesis of the Word of God.

I have proven that every time they spoke in tongue they were speaking to God. That is praying! Paul called tongues praying in the spirit.

I would also like you to look at if from a logical point of view, using what you have posted and what other Charismatics of today do.
1. Understand that prayer is communication. It is speaking or talking to God. The only difference between speaking and talking is that talking can be done silently. Speaking infers that you are speaking aloud. But one can talk silently.
--Example
1 Samuel 1:12 And it came to pass, as she continued praying before the LORD, that Eli marked her mouth.
13 Now Hannah, she spake in her heart; only her lips moved, but her voice was not heard: therefore Eli thought she had been drunken.
--She was praying in her own language, but silently.

There are many recorded prayers in the Bible, both silent and aloud.
One thing they all have in common is that they are spoken, communicated with understanding.
Prayer is communication with God.

and your point? Praising God is talking and communicating with God.

Secondly, according to your own testimony, you do not understand what you say when you pray. Therefore there is no communication. You do not understand what you say; not even God understands what you say, though he is omniscient.

I never said God does not understand, God understands ALL languages.

If I repeat a series of syllables over and over again what meaning does it have. It has no meaning. It is gibberish. It has no meaning to me (though I may think it has), and consequently it has no meaning to God. I am only deceiving myself. I don't understand it and God doesn't understand it. There is no communication and therefore it isn't prayer. Prayer is communication.

Who said anything about repeating syllables?

If you are praying in tongues:
What sins are you confessing?
Who are you praying for?
What requests are you bringing before God?
Whose salvation are you pleading for?

That is when you are told "Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interprete" When you pray for the interpretation...He will give it!

If there is no communication there is no prayer.
There is no such thing as a private prayer language in tongues. The Bible does not speak of one. Such things are condemned. In fact such things open oneself up to the paranormal. They are denomic not Godly.

Careful..there you go calling things of the devil that is of God.

Prayers can be prayed out loud or in private. Why then can someone not pray in the spirit in private?

Again, this is off topic...the topic is are the tongues the same in Acts and Corinthians?
Are they languages that the speaker does not understand?
Are they speaking to God?
The answer is yes!
In both chapters! The only difference is that Corinthians is correction on HOW to use them, not to forbid them as some teach!