When will tongues cease?

[DHK]

Originally posted by Revolt:
ok but when? when when will they cease?
You havent proven when!

Revolt,
Concerning the ministry of Jesus:
Mark 1:32 And at even, when the sun did set, they brought unto him all that were diseased, and them that were possessed with devils.
33 And all the city was gathered together at the door.
34 And he healed many that were sick of divers diseases, and cast out many devils; and suffered not the devils to speak, because they knew him.
---The idea here is, that He healed ALL who came to Him; no modern faith healer does this.

Concerning the cessation of tongues, the answers have been given to you in various posts. You have just rejected them. If I sum them up in one post you will probably reject what I have to say as well. But I can give it a try.
Paul, in 1Cor.12, 13, and 14 is addressing the abuse of the gifts of the Spirit. Near the end of chapter 12 he lists the gifts:

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.
---Notice in this list how that they are put in order. "First," "secondarily," "thirdly," "after that..."
Notice what gift is at the very end. It is tongues. Tongues is the least important of all the gifts. Even though some today make a requirement for salvation; others a requirement for the baptism or filling of the Holy Spirit, Paul says that tongues, compared to the other gifts, is not as important.
Look what he says in verse 31:

31 But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet show I unto you a more excellent way.
---Is that not another way of saying don't covet (desire) tongues. Tongues was not one of the better gifts. It was the least in importance. But now, he says, I will show you a more excellent way, and from there he launches into a beautiful chapter on love. For love is a better gift than all of the gifts of the Spirit put together.

After eloquently describing love, he comes to verse 8:
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."
---Remember that overall context is the gifts of the Spirit. It is at this point that Paul turns the subject of love and makes it once again relevant to the gifts of the Spirit. He makes the point that love will never fail. Love is a permanent gift. Out of all the gifts, it all alone will remain forever, throughout all eternity--it will never fail. Throughout these next few verses he will set in contrast three groups of spiritual gifts. Love is the only one that is a permanent gift.
The second group is mentioned in verse 13:

13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.
---And now there remains faith, hope, and love. These three alone remain. They are semi-permanent gifts. Love is the greatest of these because it is permanent--it will abide forever. But how long will faith and hope last?
We walk by faith and not by sight. (2CCor.5:7)
Heb.11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
---When Christ appears, we have no need for faith.

Rom.8:24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?
25 But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.
---When our Hope, Jesus, comes again, hope will no longer needed.
Faith and hope will end at the coming of Christ; only love will endure forever.
Faith and hope are semi-permanent gifts

Now lets come back to 1Cor.13:8
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.
---From the perspective of Paul, in the time that he was writing (57 or 58 A.D.), he said that prophesies would fail, tongues would cease, and knowledge would vanish away. These three, prophesies, tongues, and revelatory knowledge, are what we would call temporary gifts. They would not last as long as the other gifts. Knowing just that much information, we know that they would cease before the coming of Christ. But the gifts themselves all speak about revelation, and indeed that is the context of these last few verses. The context is revelation, and the gifts of the spirit, not revelation and the coming of Christ.

9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
---Paul says "we know in part." That is we only have part of God's revelation. We only have the Old Testament. The Corinthians did not have the New Testament at that time, and so God gave them supernatural gifts, specifically: prophesying, tongues, and revelatory knowledge. They had the Old Testament, part of the Word of God; they knew in part. Thus, "we prophesy in part." They were given these gifts because the New Testament was not yet complete.

10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
When that which is perfect is come (the Word of God), then that which is in part shall be done (the gifts of the Spirit) shall be done away. The Bible or God's revelation was completed in 96 A.D., near the end of the first century when John completed the Book of Revelation. With that book we have a completed perfected Word of God. We don't need any other revelation. Tongues and the other gifts ceased at that time. They were no longer needed. Not only does this Scripture show this but history bears it out as well. Tongues became unknown after the first century. The modern tongues movement began around 1900. Between 100 and 1800 what became of tongues? If there were any, they were known just among heretics.

Tongues had two purposes:
1. As we have already seen, as a gift to the early church when the New Testament was not yet complete, that they also might have the revelation that we have with a completed New Testament.

2. As a sign to the unbelieving Jew.
1Cor.14:21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
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.
---Verse 22 says that tongues is specifically for the unbeliever.
---Verse 21 is an Old Testament quotation from Isaiah 28:11,12.
In context it speaks of judgement. Even when God speaks to "this people" (unbelieving Israel) with men who will speak in other tongues, Israel will not hear them, therefore God would send them into judgement. Tongues was a sign for the nation of Israel that would not believe on the Messiah, that would not accept this wonderful message in spite of the supernatural signs that accompanied it. God, therefore judged them. That judgement took place in 70 A.D. when the Roman general Titus destroyed the city of Jerusalem. Thus tongues ceased between 70 and 100 A.D., when these two purposes were fully accomplished.
DHK

 

[Revolt]

Originally posted by DHK:

10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
When that which is perfect is come (the Word of God), then that which is in part shall be done (the gifts of the Spirit) shall be done away. The Bible or God's revelation was completed in 96 A.D., near the end of the first century when John completed the Book of Revelation. With that book we have a completed perfected Word of God. We don't need any other revelation. Tongues and the other gifts ceased at that time. They were no longer needed. Not only does this Scripture show this but history bears it out as well. Tongues became unknown after the first century. The modern tongues movement began around 1900. Between 100 and 1800 what became of tongues? If there were any, they were known just among heretics.

[/QB]

ok where in the bible does it say that its the word of God that ends the gifts? where? where? I am so tired of circular logic. It never refers to the completed word not once not a single time!

Now I ask again can you show me the bible or are you going to keep giving me your interpritation?

(PS you gave me an instance were Jesus healed the multitude. How come he didnt heal the multitude at the pool? Jesus and Paul could raise the dead why didnt they clear out grveyards? )

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Revolt:

(PS you gave me an instance were Jesus healed the multitude. How come he didnt heal the multitude at the pool? Jesus and Paul could raise the dead why didnt they clear out grveyards? )

Perhaps on this question you might be better off on opening another thread on "healing and human suffering." It was never God's intention to "clear out graveyards." That would be just about the most horrible thing he could have done. I don't think the people living in the glories of Heaven would like to come back to live again in this sin-cursed world.

In John 9, the disciples asked concerning one who had been blind all his life: Who had sinned, this man or his parents. Jesus replied, that it was neither, but that the glory of God might be made manifest. Why was that man allowed by God to suffer all those years? God could have cured him before that time. But He chose not to. Why? That God's glory might be declared to all those around. God has a purpose in every person's life, whether they be sick or not. It is not always God's will to heal. Paul left Trophimus sick at Miletus. Why? It wasn't the will of God that he be healed. That's just some food for thought.
DHK

 

[Revolt]

Originally posted by DHK:
God has a purpose in every person's life, whether they be sick or not. It is not always God's will to heal. Paul left Trophimus sick at Miletus. Why? It wasn't the will of God that he be healed. That's just some food for thought.
DHK[/QB]

yeah I agree with you wich is why people clearing out hospitals doesnt prove healing has ended.

 

[hrhema]

There is absolutely no proof that the perfect is the Bible. The Bible as a book was not put together for hundreds of years after the deaths of those who wrote the scriptures.

Paul was writing letters of instruction to churches. He wrote to the Church in Corinth which was a gentile church. Not a Jewish church. This is why the idea that tongues were only for the Jews is ridiculous. I don't care if Jews were present. If tongues were only for the Jews then Paul would have written these things in a letter to the church in Jerusalem but he did not.

When you quote Isaiah you need to also quote where he wrote that God was going to turn to the Gentiles to make Israel jealous. Common Biblical sense would tell you that he would give the same gifts to the Gentiles including tongues.

I guess we are all a bunch of spiritual dummies running around since knowledge has ceased by what some posters declare.

You know Jesus himself could not do mighty miracles in Nazareth because of their unbelief. It is obvious that a persons faith and belief has a lot to do with divine healing and that is why hospitals are not cleaned out. There are too many documented cases of divine healing that have transpired over the hundreds of years.

Tongues did not cease with the death of the Apostles. There is historical proof that there were those speaking in tongues even through the dark ages and even the Ana-Baptists spoke in tongues. The Pentecostal movement started in America way before the 1900's but it was not noised abroad as it was in the 1900's. The methodists and even baptists spoke in tongues in the 1600's, 1700's and 1800's and if you study the correct history of these time frames you will find this is true, but those who teaches tongues has ceased don't want to admit this truth because it damages their teachings.

It doesn't make sense to say tongues were only for the Jews when the book of Acts says gentiles spoke in tongues then try to say they did that because Jews were present. The argument you make is total nonsense.

I hear so much comparing to the Greek texts but not all the writings of the New Testament was in greek originally but in Latin yet no one is interpreting the original language. Paul wrote many things in Hebrew himself. Paul was a Roman citizen and even though Greek was spoken it was not the main language of the Roman Empire. Latin was.

Cessanists keep harping on the tongues issue just like they like to harp on the women's issue but neither issue is scriptural. Tongues have not ceased and they will not cease no matter who says they have. God is God and the same God and he is a miracle worker just like he was from the beginning of time and just because you don't believe in the supernatural doesn't make it go away.

The tongues issue is just like other Biblical issues that Calvanists don't believe in though they can never prove it.

I have heard many Calvanist say that demons don't exist. That what Jesus was doing when he cast out demons was healing psychological problems.
The the story of the man possessed by a legion of demons was an exaggeration. They laugh at the idea that witches and socerers and necromancers existed and had any supernatural powers but God said in the Old TEstament they existed. THey say things like no they were dealers in pharmacopia or idol worshipers but no where do you find that a witch or a sorcerer or a necromancer was anything but what they are.

Most people don't want to believe in the supernatural because it frightens them and they feel like they have to deal in denial of these things. Yet, saying they don't exist doesn't change the fact that they do. Just like saying tongues have ceased hasn't changed the fact that they do exist and are of God.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Revolt:

ok where in the bible does it say that its the word of God that ends the gifts? where? where? I am so tired of circular logic. It never refers to the completed word not once not a single time!

Now I ask again can you show me the bible or are you going to keep giving me your interpritation?

We have shown. You have to compare Scripture with Scripture. Take things in their context. The context was "revelation."
"When that which is perfect is come then that which is in part shall be done away."
He is speaking of revelation. What else could it be referring to. Context is everything here. Furthermore the word "that," in "that" which is perfect, is a neuter pronoun. That rules out Christ or His coming. If it referred to Christ in any way, Paul would have used a masculine pronoun, but he didn't. He used a neuter pronoun indicating something else--obviously the Word of God.

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.
--Here it is referred to as the perfect law of liberty.

Psalm 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
--Again, the law of the Lord is perfect.

We have a perfect Word. It was perfected, completed with the Book of Revelation. The Old English word "perfect" means "complete." The context is revelation. The revelation that God has given of Himself was completed by the end of the first century, with the Book of Revelation. If any man shall add unto it God shall add unto him all the plagues that are written therein (Rev.22:18).

The Charismatics do not believe this verse, for they are adding to the Word all the time. They believe in an open revelation. Every time they speak in tongues, prophesy, give a word of knowledge, have a dream or vision, it is of God, they say. If so it needs to be written down, collated, and added to this Holy Book, that we call the Bible. Their experiences have become just as important to them as the Word of God itself, and they are constantly adding to it, by declaring that God gives new revelation. God's revelation to mankind ceased with the Book of Revelation at the end of the first century, as did the gifts of the Spirit.
DHK

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by hrhema:
I hear so much comparing to the Greek texts but not all the writings of the New Testament was in greek originally but in Latin yet no one is interpreting the original language. Paul wrote many things in Hebrew himself. Paul was a Roman citizen and even though Greek was spoken it was not the main language of the Roman Empire. Latin was.

Where did you get this amazing piece of information? Can you document it? Maybe you ought to visit the Versions Forum.

 

[Chemnitz]

I hear so much comparing to the Greek texts but not all the writings of the New Testament was in greek originally but in Latin yet no one is interpreting the original language. Paul wrote many things in Hebrew himself. Paul was a Roman citizen and even though Greek was spoken it was not the main language of the Roman Empire. Latin was.

I'd love to hear the sources for this too, concidering that Greek was the language of scholarship at the time. It was also the dominant language in the Roman territories east of Greece. Latin did not come to prominance until after Rome became the center of the early church.

This is almost as bad as the guy who claims he is translating the Bible from the original Aramaic.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Tongues have ceased. That is, as tongues were practiced by the Corinthians, and only the Corinthian churches, forms and practices for which they elicited a rebuke from the apostle. It seems that the way they worshipped was not the way we did today. From reading the letter of Paul I seem to take that they came together and if anyone had a scripture in mind he stood up and read and expounded the Scripture. If he had the ability to speak in a foreign tongue he did so even if there are none in the congregation who understood the language and he needed an interpreter. But the tongues speaker did this preaching more as a show off for his ability to speak and learn a foreign language than the desire to preach God's word and therefore edify brethren.
On the other hand, I say that tongues have not ceased because there are certain believers called into a foreign ministry who have been given the gift of tongues (learning to speak, read, and write in one or two foreign languages) even today.
However, the kind of "tongues" which is the gibberish practiced today never existed at anytime. It is a devilish concoction, seeking to edify the flesh more than the spirit.

 

[Revolt]

No one has yet to give evidence of the perfect being the word of God. Yes we do have a perfect completed word, but the notion that God was struck mute and powerless when the word Amen followed by a period is ridiculious!

I am still waiting for actual scriptural evidence!

The notion that todays tongues is nothing but giberish also. Have you heard every language? Listin to someone talking in hebrew, zulu, kurdish, whats it sound like to you?

cha la head cha la boku ma n'eshta tamoke byete n'kosie

There are three languages above
Zulu
Japaneese
and the sound it makes when I speak in tongues, can you decifer the difference?

[ June 19, 2002, 06:04 PM: Message edited by: Revolt ]

 

[LadyEagle]

"...whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away."

So, let me get this straight: If tongues have ceased, that means knowledge has vanished. So, does that mean we are all stupid?

 

[pinoybaptist]

Originally posted by Revolt:
<snip>

The notion that todays tongues is nothing but giberish also. Have you heard every language? Listin to someone talking in hebrew, zulu, kurdish, whats it sound like to you?

cha la head cha la boku ma n'eshta tamoke byete n'kosie

There are three languages above
Zulu
Japaneese
and the sound it makes when I speak in tongues, can you decifer the difference?

Exactly the point, Revolt. How do you know that somebody who speaks in tongues is speaking an earthly language unless there is one who can interpret ?
Do you understand all that is being said in your church when your members start all that chattering and gibberish ?
Therefore, as Paul said:
Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me....1 Cor. 14:11
Translation: until somebody interprets, it is gibberish.
Let me use your example:

naiintindihan mo ba ang sinasabi ko ? Maaram ka ba han akon ginsesereng ? Nakasabot ba ka sa giingon nako ? Kabalo gale ka sa akon ya nga ginahambal ?
Those are four languages in my country alone. I speak, read, and write all four of them, plus English and some Spanish.
But if I am worshipping in an English-speaking country, in an English-speaking worship service, and I stand up and preach in any of those languages, to others it is gibberish until somebody interprets. Now, take one of me and multiply me with ten or twenty speaking in different tongues all at the same time
and no one interpreting what is being said, then you have what Paul said:
If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad ?..1 Corinthians 14:23

So, until there is a church that can document and translate all that "tongue-ing" going on, they are gibberish.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by EagleLives911:

So, let me get this straight: If tongues have ceased, that means knowledge has vanished. So, does that mean we are all stupid?

No, this was the gift of knowledge, not common knowledge. The context is revelation, and knowledge speaks of revelatory knowledge, special revelation that God would reveal to some before the Word of God was complete.
DHK

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Revolt:
The notion that todays tongues is nothing but giberish also. Have you heard every language? Listin to someone talking in hebrew, zulu, kurdish, whats it sound like to you?

cha la head cha la boku ma n'eshta tamoke byete n'kosie

There are three languages above
Zulu
Japaneese
and the sound it makes when I speak in tongues, can you decifer the difference?

Linguists can decipher a true language. Professional linguists cannot deciper what modern tongues are today, they all are in agreement that it is not a language, but the syllables that you print do make up a language.

I have posted this before. It should be evident by this that tongues is not for today. This is the same way that modern-day tongues speakers "teach" their flock to speak in tongues.

The Mormon prophet, Brigham Young said that the pure Adamic language is "speaking in tongues."
So, words in the the Adamic Dictionary are really written like this:

pAy
lAy
aLe

Punctuation: There is none, except in some imported foreign words. In those, a hyphen (-) may appear, but it is not always present. One thing is for sure, if it has a hyphen, it is a word borrowed from a Terrestrial (or Telestial) language.

Alphabet:
P, A, L, E, Y In Adamic, this is the order of the letters of the alphabet.
http://nowscape.com/mormon/Adamic.htm

DHK

 

[Revolt]

Originally posted by pinoybaptist:
[QBExactly the point, Revolt. How do you know that somebody who speaks in tongues is speaking an earthly language unless there is one who can interpret ?Do you understand all that is being said in your church when your members start all that chattering and gibberish ?
[/QB]

ok right off the bat I am not even going to look at your argument or take you seriously! You dont know my church. I have never once heard someone or even a group of people or even the whole congregation stand up and speak in tongues together, at my church. We are very careful to follow the rules that are clearly laid out in scripture!

Just because there are some charasmatics out there who do things wrong doesnt mean that everyone with that label does. Does every church that has the name baptist do things right?
(being that I know some baptist churches who belive in speaking in tongues I guess you would have to say no

)

[ June 19, 2002, 09:27 PM: Message edited by: Revolt ]

 

[Revolt]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Revolt:
The notion that todays tongues is nothing but giberish also. Have you heard every language? Listin to someone talking in hebrew, zulu, kurdish, whats it sound like to you?

cha la head cha la boku ma n'eshta tamoke byete n'kosie

There are three languages above
Zulu
Japaneese
and the sound it makes when I speak in tongues, can you decifer the difference?

Linguists can decipher a true language. Professional linguists cannot deciper what modern tongues are today, they all are in agreement that it is not a language, but the syllables that you print do make up a language.

I have posted this before. It should be evident by this that tongues is not for today. This is the same way that modern-day tongues speakers "teach" their flock to speak in tongues.

The Mormon prophet, Brigham Young said that the pure Adamic language is "speaking in tongues."
So, words in the the Adamic Dictionary are really written like this:

pAy
lAy
aLe

Punctuation: There is none, except in some imported foreign words. In those, a hyphen (-) may appear, but it is not always present. One thing is for sure, if it has a hyphen, it is a word borrowed from a Terrestrial (or Telestial) language.

Alphabet:
P, A, L, E, Y In Adamic, this is the order of the letters of the alphabet.
http://nowscape.com/mormon/Adamic.htm

DHK</font>[/QUOTE]In all of this I am still waiting for specific scripture on when where how tongues will cease.
If its the completion of the word of God I WANT SCRIPTURE TO PROVE THIS. in other words give me a reference that the Perfict is the word of God!

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Revolt:

If its the completion of the word of God I WANT SCRIPTURE TO PROVE THIS. in other words give me a reference that the Perfict is the word of God!

Like I mentioned before, even if I gave you the evdence would you accept it? Obviously not. Your Scripture is 1Cor.13:8-13 and 1Cor.14:21,22. These have already been explained to you.
DHK

 

[Walguy]

Originally posted by Revolt:
In all of this I am still waiting for specific scripture on when where how tongues will cease.

Just go back to the first page of this topic and read my post there. I answered that question for you. The 'voices' of the verbs in I Cor 13:8 tell the story clearly.
Of course, the truth is that you would not accept ANY answer to your question that undermines your 'tongue high.' This is why you keep asking it over and over so at some point you can say, "Well, nobody answered me, I guess it's obvious that tongues are for today," ignoring the fact that all your questions have been answered over and over.
I disagree with DHK about the gifts of Knowledge and Prophecy having ended with the completion of the Bible, as I have said before. The revelatory component of those gifts HAS passed away, but that was only one aspect of the gifts. 'Prophecy' also refers to the abilty to deliver an effective verbal message expounding on already existing revelation, and 'Knowledge' is also the ability to understand already existing revelation. I can personally assure everyone that 'Knowledge' is still around, since it happens to be MY Spiritual Gift.
As I said earlier, the 'perfect' to come is the new Heaven and new Earth spoken of in Revelation 21:1, following the last judgment at the end of the Millennium. That is when we will all finally 'understand fully, even as [we] have been fully understood.' (I Cor 13:12) Tongues are not mentioned in reference to this (compare verse 8 with verses 9 and 10) because they would not be around then, having ended many centuries before.
The truth about this stuff is not hard to understand if you're open to it.
And therein seems to lie the problem.

 

[Revolt]

Listin all the scripture you guys have givin me, none of it mentions the word of God. If it did I would say oh your right I am wrong. You guys are adding that into the scripture yourselves. Look at the contex of the verses you have givin me what are the talking adout? LOVE!

you have 4 hrs to convince me

 

[Revolt]

Originally posted by Walguy:

Of course, the truth is that you would not accept ANY answer to your question that undermines your 'tongue high.'

Please explain what a tongue high as I have never experienced what you are talking about.