Speaking in Tongues- What is it? [Archive]

View Full Version : Speaking in Tongues- What is it?

Claudia_T

06-14-2005, 11:20 PM

Please take the time to read the following article. It's fascinating.

Speaking in Tongues by Jeff Wehr

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Chinese gentleman visited a charismatic church in which the members

were speaking in tongues. One of the elders of the church recognized

the Chinese man and visited his business the following week. When he

asked the Chinese man how he liked the church service, the man shook

his head in disapproval.

The elder said, "What was wrong? I thought I heard a lady speak in

tongues that sounded like Chinese."

The Chinese man said, "She did speak in Chinese, and she was cursing

God the whole time."

This is just one of many such examples, of which I have heard, of

individuals who believed that they were praising God, but who were in

fact cursing Him.

How could this be? Certainly the Holy Spirit would not lead someone to

curse God. Could the devil have a counterfeit of the Biblical speaking in

tongues?

For those of you who have never heard of this phenomenon of people

speaking in an ecstatic tongue, let me take a brief moment to explain.

Today between 7% and 20% of all Christians "speak in tongues" from

time to time in a language that is not their mother tongue. The example

above, of the lady who spoke in Chinese, is exceptional because usually

those who speak in "tongues," speak in a language that linguists say

has no systematic resemblance to any human language that is spoken

today. It is this most common form of "speaking in tongues" (the

nonhuman, nonintelligible language) upon which we will focus our study.

This phenomenon of spontaneously speaking in a language that is

generally strange to humanity is of recent origin. While there were

several incidents of tongue speaking during the 1800s, the first wave of it

occurred at the beginning of the twentieth century.

It began on December 31, 1900, at Bethel College in Topeka, Kansas.

When Pastor Charles Parham laid his hands upon some of the students,

they began to speak in a form of speech that was not recognizable to

anyone. One of those young students was Miss Agnes Ozman.

Six years later, in 1906, Ozman and several other students, who had

received this experience, moved to Los Angeles and held meetings

which started the "first Pentecostal effusion."

Since then, this tongue-speaking experience has taken in over 300

million Christians. What phenomenal growth! However, why is it

happening now?

Some say it is a sign of the soon coming of Christ, and perhaps it is.

Yet, that alone does not explain or prove that it is of God, or of Satan.

We do know that this form of ecstatic speech in an unknown language is

not peculiar to Christianity--or even to religious people. This same

phenomenon of speech is found among non-Christian religions,

especially in Asia and Africa. This ecstatic speech is also found among

atheists and agnostics.

Certainly it is not the Holy Spirit who is performing this phenomenon in

religions that reject Jesus as the Saviour, and through others who even

deny the existence of God, but it is happening. Research has shown

that all of these forms of ecstatic speech in Christian and non-Christian

communities is identically the same "cross-linguistically" and

"cross-culturally."

Along with this gift to speak in an unknown tongue has come the gift to

interpret these ecstatic utterances. Are these interpreters accurate?

An experiment was performed in which someone speaking in an ecstatic

tongue was recorded on tape. They then replayed the tape to several

different people who claimed to have the gift to interpret these

utterances. However, there was no similarity in the several

interpretations. They ranged in their interpretation from saying that the

utterances referred to a prayer for the health of someone's children--to

praising God for a recent and successful church, fund-raising effort. It is

evident from this example that the interpreters were not accurate. So

where are they getting their gift to interpret?

Of course, this phenomenon raises some very serious questions. If it is

of the Holy Spirit, why do people misinterpret what is said? After all, the

Bible says that the Holy Spirit will teach us all things. See John 14:26. If

this is of the Holy Spirit, then why is He manifesting the same gift

through different religions that teach contradictory beliefs. After all, the

Bible says that the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth. See John 16:13.

It is easy enough to see that Satan would want to join the world's

religions together through some spiritual manifestation. However, what

does the Bible say concerning the speaking in tongues or in a different

language?

Mark 16
First of all, Jesus foretold that His disciples would speak with "new

tongues," "And these signs shall follow them that believe; in my name

shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall

take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt

them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." Mark

16:17-18.

The context of Jesus' words is His commission for His disciples to

evangelize the world. The speaking with "new tongues" was to enable

the disciples to speak with people who spoke other languages. The

disciples would speak in a language that was "new" to them but

understood by their audience.

When Jesus trained His disciples during His three-and-one-half-year

ministry, He limited their training to reach out to the Jews living in Israel

and Samaria. However, after Jesus ascended into heaven, He desired to

send His disciples to every nation, tongue, and people. Consequently,

He gifted them to speak in "new tongues" or languages.

Acts 2
In Acts 2:1-13 we have recorded the fulfillment of Jesus' prediction. The

disciples and other fellow believers, 120 in number, gathered together for

prayer and consecration in preparation to receive the outpouring of the

Holy Spirit.

When the day of Pentecost had come, the Holy Spirit came upon every

individual, and they "began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit

gave them utterance." Verse 4.

The speaking in an "other tongue" did not come by man's own efforts,

but it was a gift the Holy Spirit bestowed upon the followers of Christ

when they were gathered together. "Jews, devout men, out of every

nation under heaven. . . . And they were all amazed and marvelled . . .

because that every man heard them speak in his own language." Verses

5, 7, 6.

Notice that the gift of the Holy Spirit to speak in a foreign and known

human language was bestowed upon believers--not upon unbelievers.

The purpose of the gift was to give unbelievers an opportunity to hear the

gospel in their own language. Consequently, the gift itself would serve as

a sign to unbelievers that the message they heard was from Heaven.

The result of Jesus' followers receiving the gift to speak in a different

language was the conversion of "three thousand" precious souls to

Christ in one day. Verse 41.

There were also present those who scoffed and mocked the disciples by

suggesting that the disciples were drunk. See verse 13. They heard the

gospel in their own language, thereby signifying that the gift bestowed

upon the disciples was a definite sign that the message had the signet

of Heaven. Yet, they rejected the message and the messengers.

Acts 10
The next example of "speaking in tongues" is found in Acts chapter 10.

In this passage, the apostle Peter has an opportunity to teach Gentile

believers in Caesarea. The Holy Spirit "fell on all them which heard the

word. . . . For they heard them speak with tongues." Verse 44, 46.

On this occasion as well, the Holy Spirit came upon the believers--both

Jew and Gentile Christians. The Holy Spirit "fell" upon them suddenly,

representing that it was a special endowment from Heaven and not from

man. The purpose of the gift was the communication of what God had

accomplished through His Son Jesus.

Again we find this gift employed in a large metropolis where many

different peoples and languages were represented. When Peter gave his

report on the events of Caesarea, he said, "The Holy Ghost fell on them

[in Caesarea], as on us at the beginning [in Jerusalem at Pentecost]."

Acts 11:15. Of course, what happened in Jerusalem was that every man

heard the gospel in his mother language.

It is important to note that Luke, the writer of the book of Acts, did not

need to explain the manifestation of "speaking in tongues" in Caesarea.

Why? Because he, the author, had already defined the gift in Acts

chapter 2. Peter himself confirms that it was the identical manifestation

of the Holy Spirit as experienced at Pentecost.

Acts 19
In Acts chapter 19 we see this gift exercised in another major

city--Ephesus. Here the apostle Paul met with some believers who had

no knowledge of the work of the Holy Spirit. Because these disciples in

Ephesus were baptized with John's baptism, Paul instructed them about

the true baptism "in the name of the Lord Jesus." Verse 5.

Paul then baptized them in the name of Jesus and laid his hands upon

them, and "the Holy Ghost came on them." Verse 6.

This practice of the laying on of hands is often represented with the

reception of the Holy Spirit, and as a sign that those involved were called

to evangelize the world. Of course, the laying on of hands is not

necessary for someone to receive the Holy Spirit. See Acts 2:1-4;

9:10-18; 10:46-48. Nor does everyone "speak in tongues" because he

received the laying on of hands. See Acts 2:41; 8:38-39; 9:18; 16:15, 33.

It was simply a practice in those days as they dedicated themselves to

receive God's Spirit, to accept Jesus as Lord, and to fulfill the gospel

commission.

Greek scholars tell us that the Greek form of the verb "to speak" in this

passage is in the imperfect tense, indicating that the gift was bestowed

for continuous and prolonged use. The believers in Jerusalem and

Caesarea also received the same permanent gift to proclaim the gospel

far and near.

Commenting on these verses, Sister White wrote, "Thus they were

qualified to labor as missionaries in Ephesus and its vicinity, and also to

go forth to proclaim the gospel in Asia Minor." Review and Herald,

August 31, 1911.

1 Corinthians 12-14
Now the passages that have generated the greatest amount of confusion

and controversy are those found in 1 Corinthians chapters 12 through 14.

Some have suggested that Acts chapters 2, 10, and 19 do indeed

describe speaking in a foreign language known to man, but that the gift

represented in Corinthians is different. They argue that this form of

ecstatic tongues is an angelic language used for personal prayer and the

edification of the church.

However, when we study the terminology found in all of these passages

from Mark 16:17 to Acts chapters 2, 10, and 19, we find that the Greek

word for "tongue" is the same. In fact, the verb "to speak" in tongues is

the same in all of these accounts. Consequently, there is only one gift of

tongues.

Because the gift of tongues had become a permanent gift for those who

received it, Paul gave some rules for the exercising of the gift during

church. Apparently, many of the Corinthian believers were (1) causing

commotion because several were speaking in tongues at the same time,

(2) there was no one present who understood what they were saying,

and (3) to the nonbelievers, who were watching, it seemed awkward,

disorderly, and confusing. See 1 Corinthians 14:23.

When one considers that the purpose of "speaking in tongues" was to

reach unbelievers, it was disastrous when many of the Corinthian

believers were misappropriating the gift. The gift was to be a sign to

unbelievers that God had a message of salvation for them personally.

See 1 Corinthians 14:21-22.

First, Paul counsels them to speak in order, and then let only one

interpret. See 1 Corinthians 14:27. The word for "interpret" means to

"translate"--as from one known language to another. Consequently, one

man would speak in an intelligible foreign language and then another

man would translate it into the local language.

Second, if there is no one to interpret, let the one who speaks in tongues

keep silent. See 1 Corinthians 14:28. The gift of tongues was given to

communicate truth. If a believer speaks in German, but there are no

unbelievers who understand German, then another believer who

understands German should translate the message in a language that

the others can understand, otherwise, the message is aimless and

unintelligible to all. Paul testified that he would rather speak five words

that people could understand than ten thousand words that no one could

understand. See 1 Corinthians 14:18-19.

However, some have misunderstood the words of Paul when he said,

"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not

charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal." 1

Corinthians 13:1. The Greek conditional clause used in this passage

indicates that Paul is speaking hypothetically. In other words, we know

that man does not speak in the language of angels, but even if he could,

it would profit him nothing if he had not the love of God in his heart.

Then in another place Paul says, "For he that speaketh in an unknown

tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth

him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries." 1 Corinthians 14:2.

The believer who speaks "in the spirit" is speaking by the Holy Spirit.

What is he speaking? He "speaketh mysteries"? Does God inspire men

to speak about odd and secret things? No. Believers are the "stewards

of the mysteries of God." 1 Corinthians 4:1. His servants speak about

the "mystery of godliness." 1 Timothy 3:16. We are to make known the

mystery of God. We are to declare the truth about God that has been

previously misunderstood. This truth is revealed by the power of the Holy

Spirit. As Paul said, "And for me, that utterance may be given unto me,

that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the

gospel." Ephesians 6:19.

But why does it say that "no man understandeth him"? The problem in

Corinth was that nobody present could understand him. He spoke in an

intelligible language, but there was no one present who could understand

that particular language. Consequently, he was not speaking unto men.

As Paul said, "So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy

to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall

speak into the air." 1 Corinthians 14:9.

In summary, let it be understood that (1) Jesus predicted the need and

the endowment of this special gift to speak in a foreign and "new

tongue," so that the gospel could be preached throughout the world. (2)

The very manifestation of this gift was to be a "sign" to unbelievers that

the message they were hearing was from Heaven. (3) The gift of tongues

is not some ecstatic and unintelligible tongue, but it is indeed a known

human language. The purpose of the gift was to communicate the gospel

to the world's billions who have spoken thousands of different languages

and dialects. (4) There is indeed a counterfeit to the Biblical speaking in

tongues. It has taken the world by storm. Satan will use this counterfeit

manifestation to communicate error. He endeavors to work upon the

senses and the lower nature of man, namely, man's appetite, passions,

and desires. This is to keep man from settling into the truth with his

higher nature, namely, man's intellect, reason, and conscience.

So often Satan has found success by playing upon the emotions of man

and his senses, thereby bypassing his intellect, reason, and

conscience. However, God's people must be intelligent upon that which

is written in the Word of God. They must choose to do right, because it

is right and because right doing is pleasing to God. They must allow

their conscience to be wooed only by the Holy Spirit.

Jesus said, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that

proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Matthew 4:4. Yet, so many are

unsatisfied with the plain words of Scripture. They have a false

salvational security because of this spiritual manifestation of tongues.

Yet, those who shall make up the kingdom of God must live by faith.

Day by day, moment by moment, they must walk with their Lord and

Saviour. They must hunger and thirst for righteousness. See Matthew

5:6.

In summary, none of us are saved because we speak in tongues.

Speaking in tongues is not even evidence that someone is saved. Many

non-Christians and atheists speak in the same ecstatic and unintelligible

tongue. Jesus warned the religious world, "Except ye see signs and

wonders, ye will not believe." John 4:48. We are not to put our faith in

the signs and wonders. They will increase as time draws to a close. We

are to trust in the promises of God and prepare to live with our Maker

and Redeemer forever and ever.

------------------

Claudia Thompson

http://www.christiangraphics.org
http://www.countrymanordesigns.com
http://www.religiouscounterfeits.org

Claudia_T

06-15-2005, 12:28 AM

I want to add something of my own now about tongues. I have heard too many Christians acting as if they cannot be "saved" unless they speak in tongues. And they seem to think they are in some sort of specially chosen of God group because they do. But first of all, they do not even know what the Biblibal definition of speaking in tongues is... but second of all...

Read Matthew chapter 7:
12: Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
13: Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
15: Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16: Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17: Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18: A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19: Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20: Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
21: Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22: Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23: And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
24: Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
25: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
26: And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
27: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

Now stop and really think of what Jesus is trying to tell us here.

He begins by telling us to enter the strait gate. He says to do what the law and the prophets tell you to do, doing unto others as you would have them to unto you.

Then Jesus uses an illustration saying:
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

Jesus said many Christians will say Lord, Lord... but DONT EVEN KNOW HIM.
Lk:6:46: And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?

These Christians would cast out devils, and do all sorts of things but the problem was THEY DID INIQUITY... iniquity simply means they sin. Sin is transgression of the Law. Remember Jesus started this thing with telling us to obey the law and the prophets.

“Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that be saved? And he said unto them, Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are: Then shall ye begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets. But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity.” Luke 13:23-2.7

You have taught in our streets, we have cast out devils, (you may as well add in there "we have spoken in tongues") ... but Jesus will say "I dont know you, you that sin."

Jn:17:3: And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

You see, if you dont do what Jesus SAYS then you prove that you do not know Him, you do not know His ways. You dont know His principles for living.

1Jn:2:3: And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.

1Jn:2:4: He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

1Jn:3:24: And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.

If Jesus is not abiding in you and you are not keeping His commandments, then you do not know Him and you can speak in tongues all you want but that wont do you a bit of good.

Satan uses this speaking in tongues as a decoy.. a diversion, to get Christians to really rest in a false security, thinking they are saved when they are actually not abiding in Christ at all. The Bible says we do not know God is we keep not His commandments, and Jesus said He is going to be telling some Christians that He does not know THEM... "ye that work iniquity (sin... transgression of the law".

1Jn:3:4: Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

(think of the parable of the ten virgins when you read this)

Jeremiah 16:9: For thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will cause to cease out of this place in your eyes, and in your days, the voice of mirth, and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom, and the voice of the bride.
10: And it shall come to pass, when thou shalt shew this people all these words, and they shall say unto thee, Wherefore hath the LORD pronounced all this great evil against us? or what is our iniquity? or what is our sin that we have committed against the LORD our God?
11: Then shalt thou say unto them, Because your fathers have forsaken me, saith the LORD, and have walked after other gods, and have served them, and have worshipped them, and have forsaken me, and have not kept my law;
12: And ye have done worse than your fathers; for, behold, ye walk every one after the imagination of his evil heart, that they may not hearken unto me:
13: Therefore will I cast you out of this land into a land that ye know not, neither ye nor your fathers; and there shall ye serve other gods day and night; where I will not shew you favour.

Many Christians need to really reconsider their obsession with speaking in tongues... firstly by studying the Scriptures to discover what it actually IS...

Secondly they need to put their focus on loving God. 1Cor:2:9: "But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him."

The question is Do you love God? REALLY? Jn:14:15: If ye love me, keep my commandments.

Jn:15:10: If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

You can NEVER earn your way to heaven... you can never get to heaven by your own merits.

HOWEVER... the question is Do you love God? If you do, then you will prove this by doing what He says. "Lord, Lord, we have spoken in tongues" isnt going to do a bit of good for you, if you dont love God.

Ezek:33:31: And they come unto thee as the people cometh, and they sit before thee as my people, and they hear thy words, but they will not do them: for with their mouth they shew much love, but their heart goeth after their covetousness.

------------------

Claudia Thompson

http://www.christiangraphics.org
http://www.countrymanordesigns.com
http://www.religiouscounterfeits.org

Ben W

06-15-2005, 04:41 AM

Were you aware that this has occured in a number of SDA churches?

atestring

06-15-2005, 07:49 AM

Dear claudia,
Can you tell me who this Chineese man is? Does he have a name?
What is the name of the Church that this happened in?
When did this happen?
What were the chineese words used to curse?
I have heard this story for over 30 years and nobody can tell me where, when , who , or what about this story. The only difference in your story is that the story used to bee about a chineese laundry man.
Why don't you tell mr jeff who wrote this that the stroy is suppose to start with the phrase,
"once upon a time."

Ed Edwards

06-15-2005, 08:10 AM

Amen, Brother Atestring!

This story has all eight marks of an urban legend (AKA: modern myth).

I've also seen some urban legends that even
have specific who, where, when, what, etc.
Anyway, the fact the story has evolved is
interesting. Most urban legends do NOT evolve
to the point where they are logical and make
scientific sense. The old "missing hours of Joshua" legend indicates that the author
didn't even understand what computers can and
cannot do :(

DHK

06-15-2005, 03:34 PM

Does your post indicate Ed, that you believe, when God extended the day for Joshua in order for him to vanquish the Amelekites; you believe that this historical event as recorded in the Word of God is simply "urban myth." ??

Pete

06-15-2005, 04:52 PM

I feel like stirring...Just for a change... ;) :D

Dear atestring,
Can you tell me the current population of China? (To the nearest 1,000 will do ;) ) In addition to the previous question, could you provide us with the current number of Chinese descent and/or speaking Americans? (I'm starting to feel generous, to the nearest 10,000 will do ;) )
What are their names?
Can you provide signed statements from all of them that none were involved in any event matching the one described in original post?

Ah, needed that :D

Was going to go on to a couple of serious ones, but wayyy past my bed time smile.gif

graemlins/sleeping_2.gif graemlins/sleeping_2.gif

Oh, & DHK I think Ed was probably refering to THIS (http://www.snopes.com/religion/lostday.htm)

atestring

06-15-2005, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by Pete:
I feel like stirring...Just for a change... ;) :D

Dear atestring,
Can you tell me the current population of China? (To the nearest 1,000 will do ;) ) In addition to the previous question, could you provide us with the current number of Chinese descent and/or speaking Americans? (I'm starting to feel generous, to the nearest 10,000 will do ;) )
What are their names?
Can you provide signed statements from all of them that none were involved in any event matching the one described in original post?

Ah, needed that :D

Was going to go on to a couple of serious ones, but wayyy past my bed time smile.gif

graemlins/sleeping_2.gif graemlins/sleeping_2.gif

Oh, & DHK I think Ed was probably refering to THIS (http://www.snopes.com/religion/lostday.htm) Can you find one Chineese man that will admit that this is his story and be prepared to...
Never mind I won't dignify your question by answering it.

DHK

06-15-2005, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by atestring:

Never mind I won't dignify your question by answering it. There is plenty of documentation Atestring. But what is the use in telling you. If I told you where to look you wouldn't accept it anyway, or bother to spend the money, or find it in a library. Or you wouldn't believe it because you are prejudiced against the source.

But here it is anyway (see if my prediction is true).

Go, and buy the hard copy (not what you find on the internet) of MacArthur's book, "Charismatic Chaos," and he will provide you plenty of evidence, all documented. You must buy the book. That which is found on the internet is condensed, and does not provide the footnotes which has the documentation that you keep asking for. Go and buy the book.
DHK

atestring

06-15-2005, 07:56 PM

Originally posted by DHK:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by atestring:

Never mind I won't dignify your question by answering it. There is plenty of documentation Atestring. But what is the use in telling you. If I told you where to look you wouldn't accept it anyway, or bother to spend the money, or find it in a library. Or you wouldn't believe it because you are prejudiced against the source.

But here it is anyway (see if my prediction is true).

Go, and buy the hard copy (not what you find on the internet) of MacArthur's book, "Charismatic Chaos," and he will provide you plenty of evidence, all documented. You must buy the book. That which is found on the internet is condensed, and does not provide the footnotes which has the documentation that you keep asking for. Go and buy the book.
DHK [/QUOTE]I hve the book at home.
It is not worth the paper it is written on.
But tell me the page number that has documentation of the chineese man in this story.
While you are at it give me some documentation of your vancouver greek Scholar!
Have you got any other myths?

Ed Edwards

06-15-2005, 09:04 PM

Originally posted by DHK:
Does your post indicate Ed, that you believe, when God extended the day for Joshua in order for him to vanquish the Amelekites; you believe that this historical event as recorded in the Word of God is simply "urban myth." ?? Sorry, my bad.

I said:
//The old "missing hours of Joshua" legend
indicates that the author
didn't even understand what computers can and
cannot do :( //

I should have said for clarity:
//The old "missing hours of Joshua FOUND BY COMPUTER" legend
indicates that the author (of the legend)
didn't even understand what computers can and
cannot do :( //

Obviously "missing hours of Joshua" is from
the Bible and NOT a myth. But no computer could
find the missing hours, for computers just
output stuff as a result of the programming
and the input, they don't find 'missing' stuff.

Link

06-15-2005, 10:02 PM

I have heard or read of anecdotal accounts of people who heard others speak in tongues that they recognized. The bulk of the stories I have heard have been about people saying good things in tongues. In fact, the only ‘cursing God’ stories I recall reading about have been on this forum.

I recall hearing that a Bible college professor at the time, Ray Trask, whose brother later because General Overseer of the Assembly of God, had worked on a mission field and knew a little of a certain Asian language. Later, in another country, the US I suppose, he heard a message in tongues in this language, and he knew enough of it to recognize the phrase ‘the Bread of life.’ Someone in the church gave the interpretation, and it was about the Bread of life.

Jack Heyford, an author, teacher, and pastor has told his experience of meeting an American on an airplane who did not believe in God. Heyford offered to send the man some apologetic books for him to read, but he refused. As he was sitting there, he sensed the Holy Spirit telling him to speak in tongues. Eventually, he did. He told the man he could say some words that he thought might be the man’s language and asked the man to listen. The man said it was an ancient dialect of his language, and it was about light coming down from above. Heyford then explained what speaking in tongues was, and that he had been speaking in tongues. He offered to send the books again and the man accepted his offer and agreed to read them.

Don Basham wrote a book on tongues in the 70’s or 80’s that mentioned someone praying for some Maoris in tongues in New Zealand. It turns out the man was speaking Maori and the natives understood what he was praying about.

I have also known people who have heard messages given in tongues, gotten the interpretation, but someone else gave it before they had a chance to speak up. This happened to a friend of mine in middle school. He was a gifted teenaged preacher, and often volunteered to preach in our Bible class at the Christian school we sent to. He told me how he’d heard someone give a message in tongues in our church, and he got the interpretation. Someone else gave the same interpretation he got. One of my roommates in college had had the same experience. I have heard the same thing about prophecies, where one person knows the prophecy, but someone else gives it first in the meeting. (This fits well with the idea in I Corinthians 14 of letting the first prophet hold his peace, so the second can prophecy, because God is not dependant on that particular prophet to convey his message.)

Does speaking in tongues make someone more spiritual and holy than other believers? No, and neither does prophecy. Balaam prophesied by the Spirit of God. Does that mean Balaam was as holy as Moses, or that he went to heaven? No. Caiaphas prophesied the death of Christ, while plotting to have Him killed. Jesus gave Judas the power to do miracles along with the other apostles.

Signs and wonders can demonstrate the power of God in those who do them, and testify to the truth of the message that is preached. But if someone does signs and wonders, that does not mean he will never err from the truth, or that he does the Father’s will. Jesus will reject some who call Him ‘Lord’ but did not do what He says. Should this verse be used to condemn those who do miracles, prophecy, and cast out devils? Of course not. Jesus did these things, and He was righteous. His apostles did such things. We just need to be wise to the fact that if someone does miracles and lives a sinful life, not to think that he is holy. Miracles are not a guarantee of salvation.

There are some who quote ‘wicked and evil generation seeketh after a sign’ as if this quote indicated that all who sought for signs were wicked and adulterous. If a wicked and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, it does not follow that all who seek for signs are wicked and adulterous. The wicked and adulterous eat dinner. Does that make all who eat dinner wicked and adulterous? No. The apostles asked God to do signs and wonders in Acts 4, and they had a good reason for it, for the sake of Jesus Christ. They wanted to preach the Gospel accompanied by signs and wonders, a very Biblical thing to do.

Are there counterfeit tongues? I think there are. Demons are apparently able to make people talk, and they are able to speak many languages. There may also be some people who babble and think they are exercising a spiritual gift out there as well. But neither of these things detract from the genuineness of the real gift that we see in scripture.

Some people will ask if the Chinese laundryman in the urban legend heard people cursing God in ‘tongues’ what is to prove that your tongues are not demonic. Since one cannot understand his own message in tongues without the gift of interpretation, this can be a frightening question for some. But let us think about what Jesus said on the subject. In Luke 11, Jesus asked if any of them, if their children asked for a fish, would give them a snake, etc. He then asked if they, being evil, knew how to give good gifts to their children, how much more would the Father give good gifts to them that ask Him. In light of Jesus teaching, should a Christian, who is confident and secure that He is a child of God, be afraid that God has given him a bad thing when he asked for a good gift? Of course not. As I John teaches, we can know that we are his children if we obey him, and have love one for another. God has also given us other gifts in the larger body to help protect the body from a false manifestation of tongues, gifts like the interpretation of tongues and discernment of spirits. So true children of God who are walking with the Lord in faith and holiness should not be paranoid about having received false gifts.

What is speaking in tongues, and how does it work? ‘Tongues’ is an old-fashioned word for ‘languages’ used to translate the fact that the Greek word for languages is the same word for tongue. Speaking in tongues is speaking in languages. In I Corinthians 14, we see that there was a gift of speaking in tongues used in the congregation. The speaker, apparently, did not know what he was saying unless he or someone else had a gift of interpretation. If tongues were used in the church, they had to be interpreted. Paul puts no restriction on using tongues in private prayer.

Speaking in tongues builds up the one who does it, but it only builds up the church if there is interpretation. In I Corinthians 14, in the situation that Paul described, no one understood the message in tongues unless it was interpreted. In Acts 2, the crowd, made up of speakers of many languages, could understand the message spoken in tongues.

prophecynut

06-15-2005, 10:41 PM

"Assembly of God" "Jack Hayford" "Don Basham"

All are involved in the charismatic movement. All of them speak in gibberish; they never heard true speaking in tongues. Just how do you expect them to tell the difference when all they ever done is counterfeit the true gift. Don Basham used to teach people how to deliver themselves from demons through rebukes. Anybody comes to my church attempting to decieve others with their babbling are gonna get booted out of the church.

Buy MacArthur's book! I have three by him; The Charismatics; Speaking In Tongues and Spiritual Gifts.

Stop sucking on milk and act like mature Christians!

cindig2

06-15-2005, 11:23 PM

Amen prophecynut. I agree 100% with you. I have John MacArthur's book, it is very good.

Link

06-16-2005, 03:58 AM

Prophecynut

I see you offer no scripture or logic to support your idea that these men are only familiar with gibberish. You do not believe their experiences about tongues because they speak in tongues? That is silly. Of course if they have experienced true speaking in tongues, they will be inclined to believe in it.

If someone believes something that you do not, does that mean their testimony about an experience is a lie?

I believe you are wrong about your beliefs in tongues. Does that mean if you testify about something you experienced, that I should consider you to be a liar?

So what if Basham did tell believers to rebuke believers out of themselves, assuming that is true. Does that mean his accounts of his experiences were not valid? No, of course not. Do you have any reason for not believe Heyford or Trask besides the fact that they believe the opposite of yourself on this issue?

Apparently, Heyford's experience has offered some empirical proof that he does not only speak gibberish when he speaks in tongues. If your reason for rejecting Heyford's testimony is that he just speaks gibberish when he speaks in tongues, this reason has been taken away from you, because there is evidence that Heyford once spoke an Indian language that an Indian recognized when he spoke in tongues.

I read over McArthur's book and didn't find a decent argument against gifts of the Spirit today. MacArthur had three main types of arguments as I recall. (It's been over 10 years since I checked the book out.)

1. The strawman argument-- MacArthur chose crazy examples of Charismatic abuses and then presented them as typical of Charismatics.

2. MacArthur labeled the types of experiences he does not agree with as 'mysticism' and then called them 'mysticism' as if that made them bad. A lot of experiences recorded in the Bible would be labelled 'mysticism' if we applied the same standard.

3. MacArthur comes up with an elaborate argument about God only doing miracles during time periods when scriptures were being written. His argument has not weight to it because the Bible does NOT TEACH the miracles would not occur at other times, and most of his arguments come from a time period before the 'last days' when God promised to pour out His Spirit on all flesh. This was a time period before the Holy Spirit was poured out on the saints as He is today. Jack Deere points out how MacArthur so narrowly defines the word 'miracle' to fit his argument. I also see several examples of miracles recorded in scripture that apparently occured during times when the Bible was not being written. What evidence is there that scripture was being written in Elisha's time? From the text of scripture, we can conclude that the scriptural accounts of Elisha were written much later. Yet during that time period, God did many miracles through Elisha.

Basically, MacArthur's case against spiritual gifts does not have a leg to stand on.

atestring

06-16-2005, 10:37 PM

Amen,
Link

atestring

06-16-2005, 10:41 PM

dk&h
Do you have those page numbers yet?

cindig2

06-16-2005, 11:26 PM

Charles Stanley has a series entitled "Speaking In Tongues," that is also very good and informative. Charles Stanley grew up in a Pentecostal family, his grandfather was a Pentecostal preacher. He believes that it is the devils way to muddy the gospel by people looking for "experiences."
Been there, done that. People that believe in tongues say there are three different types. The one on the Day of Pentecost, tongues in church, and a private prayer language. Tongues were always a language. What if salvation meant one thing in a certain verse, but something else in another, I don't think so. The word tongue means language. I don't believe the Holy Spirit would give a gift that just anyone could counterfeit. Now, a language, that can't be counterfeited. Why would it say in the Bible to make sure there is an interperter before you speak in tongues? hmmmmmm.....

DHK

06-17-2005, 01:19 AM

Originally posted by atestring:
dk&h
Do you have those page numbers yet? 2. Since obviously tongues speaking can be imitated, and is, by heathen, Spiritists, etc., it is a questionable evidence. Deception and counterfeit can enter in. This thought alone should make us to seriously question such teaching.

This is precisely what happened to me while I was still in the Tongues Movement. As denominational Missionary-Secretary I was visiting and ministering in our churches in Ontario one summer. While I was in one of these churches, the pastor approached me about the possibility that he and his family could go to Jamaica as missionaries. I took his application forms back with me to our headquarters in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan [in west central Canada], where I presented them to our Missionary Council.

Eventually this family was sent out to Jamaica. Not too long after their arrival there I received a letter from this brother. Part of this letter reads as follows:

"Throughout Jamaica there is a class of people known as `Pocomania.’ This word means `half-mad or a little mad.’ They believe in all kinds of superstitions and practice all manner of evil. Since they are generally very poor, they usually worship in the open air. A very common sight here is to see groups of these people beating their drums and singing on the streets and along the roads. Last Sunday evening I saw five large groups in about as many city blocks. Often you can hear their drums beating until late at night. They speak in tongues and sing our choruses, and because of this it brings a great reproach upon the true Gospel and makes the preaching of the Gospel difficult."

I was shocked, particularly by the words, "They speak in tongues." All my life I was taught and myself preached that tongues speaking was THE evidence of Holy spirit baptism, that all tongues speaking was of God, and now I was informed that heathen also speak with tongues! What was this? Had it not been that I knew the missionary personally I likely would not have believed him. But here was one of our own men telling me this! That really got me thinking and investigating, only to discover that many non- Christians also speak in tongues—heathen witch doctors, Spiritists, Mormons, one branch of the Mohammedans, etc.

Once I spoke in a mission church at Alix, Alberta. During my message I mentioned the above incident about Jamaica. When I had concluded my message, a young man from the Cook Islands [near New Zealand], who was in the meeting that night, got up and publicly confirmed what I had said, that heathen also speak in tongues on his island.

So by the teaching that tongues speaking is THE evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, the door is opened to the possibility of false or counterfeit tongues being accepted as genuine evidence of the Holy Spirit fullness. On the other hand, what better evidence is there than a transformed life, a Christ-like life with the fruit of the Spirit in manifestation: "Love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance" (Gal. 5:22-23)? This is difficult to imitate or counterfeit!

I also remember the excitement expressed by some Tongues people who had visited the Mormon Temple at Salt Lake City, Utah [USA]. They told me that they had discovered that Mormons, too, speak with tongues, and they had come away with the impression that there must be a close relationship between them, some kind of spiritual kinship! Apparently, if only they speak with tongues, then some false doctrine can be overlooked! And therein lies a big danger today. The modern (new) Charismatic Movement admits that there are tongues speakers who know no repentance or new birth as we know it and as the Bible teaches it.SEE HERE (http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/17%20Reasons/17reasons04.htm)

I hope this answers your question once and for all. If speaking in tongues is of the Holy Spirit why are there "hundreds" of expeiences such as these, many of them documented??
DHK

atestring

06-17-2005, 08:21 AM

Originally posted by DHK:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by atestring:
dk&h
Do you have those page numbers yet? 2. Since obviously tongues speaking can be imitated, and is, by heathen, Spiritists, etc., it is a questionable evidence. Deception and counterfeit can enter in. This thought alone should make us to seriously question such teaching.

This is precisely what happened to me while I was still in the Tongues Movement. As denominational Missionary-Secretary I was visiting and ministering in our churches in Ontario one summer. While I was in one of these churches, the pastor approached me about the possibility that he and his family could go to Jamaica as missionaries. I took his application forms back with me to our headquarters in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan [in west central Canada], where I presented them to our Missionary Council.

Eventually this family was sent out to Jamaica. Not too long after their arrival there I received a letter from this brother. Part of this letter reads as follows:

"Throughout Jamaica there is a class of people known as `Pocomania.’ This word means `half-mad or a little mad.’ They believe in all kinds of superstitions and practice all manner of evil. Since they are generally very poor, they usually worship in the open air. A very common sight here is to see groups of these people beating their drums and singing on the streets and along the roads. Last Sunday evening I saw five large groups in about as many city blocks. Often you can hear their drums beating until late at night. They speak in tongues and sing our choruses, and because of this it brings a great reproach upon the true Gospel and makes the preaching of the Gospel difficult."

I was shocked, particularly by the words, "They speak in tongues." All my life I was taught and myself preached that tongues speaking was THE evidence of Holy spirit baptism, that all tongues speaking was of God, and now I was informed that heathen also speak with tongues! What was this? Had it not been that I knew the missionary personally I likely would not have believed him. But here was one of our own men telling me this! That really got me thinking and investigating, only to discover that many non- Christians also speak in tongues—heathen witch doctors, Spiritists, Mormons, one branch of the Mohammedans, etc.

Once I spoke in a mission church at Alix, Alberta. During my message I mentioned the above incident about Jamaica. When I had concluded my message, a young man from the Cook Islands [near New Zealand], who was in the meeting that night, got up and publicly confirmed what I had said, that heathen also speak in tongues on his island.

So by the teaching that tongues speaking is THE evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, the door is opened to the possibility of false or counterfeit tongues being accepted as genuine evidence of the Holy Spirit fullness. On the other hand, what better evidence is there than a transformed life, a Christ-like life with the fruit of the Spirit in manifestation: "Love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance" (Gal. 5:22-23)? This is difficult to imitate or counterfeit!

I also remember the excitement expressed by some Tongues people who had visited the Mormon Temple at Salt Lake City, Utah [USA]. They told me that they had discovered that Mormons, too, speak with tongues, and they had come away with the impression that there must be a close relationship between them, some kind of spiritual kinship! Apparently, if only they speak with tongues, then some false doctrine can be overlooked! And therein lies a big danger today. The modern (new) Charismatic Movement admits that there are tongues speakers who know no repentance or new birth as we know it and as the Bible teaches it.SEE HERE (http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/17%20Reasons/17reasons04.htm)

I hope this answers your question once and for all. If speaking in tongues is of the Holy Spirit why are there "hundreds" of expeiences such as these, many of them documented??
DHK [/QUOTE]

Ed Edwards

06-17-2005, 08:40 AM

DHK: "If speaking in tongues is of the Holy Spirit why are there "hundreds" of experiences such as these, many of them documented??//

That is an interesting comparison: comparing 100s of
documented experiences with millions of undocumented
legitimate experiences.

BTW, is the Spiritual Gift of Discernment granted
today as it was in the first century?
The Spiritual Gift of Discernment is the supernatural
ability to discern if a spirit is from God, from
Satan, or just a human thing.

atestring

06-17-2005, 03:37 PM

DHK

06-17-2005, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by atestring:
What is the name of the Church in Jamaca?
Where is the page number for the Chineese man? I gave you the name of the website which also has the name of the person who went to Jamaica. If you don't find the name of the church in Jamaica, and feel like calling the said person a liar, and his testimony false, then I suggest that you email him and ask him the name of the church, and any other verifiable information that you want.

As for the Chinese man that incident came from Claudia, not me. Ask her.

Truthfully, are computer illiterate? Can you not find out these things for yourself on your own computer? Do you know how to use a search engine? Or are you so blind to see the truth, that you want to remain blind in your obstinacy to the truth, no matter how much truth is presented to you.
DHK

DHK

06-17-2005, 04:10 PM

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
DHK: "If speaking in tongues is of the Holy Spirit why are there "hundreds" of experiences such as these, many of them documented??//
That is the point entirely isn't Ed. Speaking in tongues isn't of the Holy Spirit. If anything it is of another spirit, but not the Holy Spirit.
DHK

atestring

06-17-2005, 09:00 PM

Dk&h
I already ask Claudia in a post to document her story.
You are the one that stuck your nowe into this and since you did I have challenged you to produce.
There are millions of articles on the internet. Which is where you obviously live. I do not value your recomendations as to what i will look up.
(personal attack edited)

[ June 17, 2005, 11:17 PM: Message edited by: DHK ]

DHK

06-17-2005, 11:22 PM

Originally posted by atestring:
Dk&h
I already ask Claudia in a post to document her story.
You are the one that stuck your nowe into this and since you did I have challenged you to produce.
There are millions of articles on the internet. Which is where you obviously live. I do not value your recomendations as to what i will look up.
(personal attack edited) Why are you so afraid of going to the site itself which documents what went on in Jamaica and ask the author for the further documentation that you insist that you need. You pester me for such information, but are afraid to go to the source yourself. I point this out to you because I don't want to play your game. If you want information either find it on the internet, in books, or by asking intelligent asking questions. Badgering, intolerant, insulting, and personal attacks will not be tolerated. I suggest you take time to reread the rules of posting here, before you answer this post. I don't want to be compelled to delete it.
DHK

Link

06-17-2005, 11:55 PM

DHK wrote,
**That is the point entirely isn't Ed. Speaking in tongues isn't of the Holy Spirit. If anything it is of another spirit, but not the Holy Spirit.**

This is the danger of opposing gifts of the Spirit. At the very least, you are tredding a fine line close to blasphemy. The Bible clearly teaches that the apostles spoke in tongues when they were filled with the Holy Spirit. It does not say that they were filled with some other Spirit when they did this. To genericaly condemn speaking in tongues as you have done, is to condemn the apostles. Remember that words spoken against the Spirit cannot be forgiven in this age or in the age to come. What you are doing is very foolish. This is not a topic where it is wise to push the edge of the envelope.

Also, you arguments against tongues that you are posting hold no weight. So what if there are counterfeits of speaking in tongues? Any thinking, experienced tongue-speaking Christian would have to be open to this possibility. The early Christians may have been aware of false tongues in their day, since there were probably demonic ramblers going around. It is clear from scripture that demons can speak through people in foreign languages-- foreign to us, as the modern English language had not developed at that time. (Germanic was probably just getting on its feet.)

So what if Jamaican pagans do something similar to speaking in tongues, or if demons speak through people in real foreign languages at times? That does not detract from the true speaking in tongues by the Spirit that the apostles did, any more than it detracts from the reality of the gift today.

Link

06-17-2005, 11:58 PM

cinding2 wrote
**I don't believe the Holy Spirit would give a gift that just anyone could counterfeit.**

It is interesting that you should make such a comment when the rest of your post is supporting the idea that modern speaking in tongues is counterfeit. If you did not believe the gift can be counterfeited, you would accept all alleged speaking in tongues as authentic. I doubt those who speak in tongues on this forum would agree with that extreme view.

Ed Edwards

06-18-2005, 12:00 AM

DHK: "Speaking in tongues isn't of the Holy Spirit."

THE HOLY BIBLE, 1Co 14:37-39 (KJV1611):
If any man thinke himselfe to be a Prophet,
or spiritual, let him acknowledge, that the things
that I write vnto you, are the commandements of the Lord.
38 But if any man bee ignorant, let him be ignorant.
39 Wherefore brethren, couet to prophesie,
and forbid not to speake with tongues.
graemlins/wavey.gif

Link

06-18-2005, 12:03 AM

Where does the Bible even mention a tongue that comes from demons. Should the experience of a Chinese laundry man or missionary to Jamaica become the basis for doctrine? The basis for rejecting a Biblical gift?

[ June 18, 2005, 12:15 AM: Message edited by: Link ]

music4Him

06-18-2005, 12:30 AM

This is fruitless......for all the negative documents about tongues that can and can't be verified. (To me the Bible should have the authority and be good enough as to if tongues are real? But that would still be anybody's opinion depending on their belief. ;) )

As for my opinion about the comment that Claudia made about people being told they can't be saved without speaking in tongues......that is very sad for those who believe this. :( Yes I speak/sing/pray in tongues, but I know that tongues are a gift and would never, never tell someone they couldn't be saved without it. For those who have bought into this type of church who says that you have to speak in tongues.... John 3:16 plainly says.... For God so loved the world that he sent his only beggoten son that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. It doesn't say you got to speak in tongues to be saved, just believe in Jesus. God is always on time and if you are meant to have the gift of tongues it'll come in God's timing. In the mean time praise God with the tongue you have and be thankful for what you have. graemlins/flower.gif

Music4Him

DHK

06-18-2005, 01:35 AM

Originally posted by music4Him:
This is fruitless......for all the negative documents about tongues that can and can't be verified. (To me the Bible should have the authority and be good enough as to if tongues are real? But that would still be anybody's opinion depending on their belief. ;) )

As for my opinion about the comment that Claudia made about people being told they can't be saved without speaking in tongues......that is very sad for those who believe this. What is sad is those those that don't beleive things like this happen even when there is irrefutable information that they do. Claudia described one instance of many that she had heard. Keep that in mind.

I have also relaeted in detail a similar instance two or three times of a well meaning individual (Charismatic Christian) who happened to be speaking in Greek "I love the devil" over and over again." I don't like to post the details of this any more because people like atestring will get on my case and ask for names, places, church names, names of individuals involved, etc. And when all that information is not given he resorts to the most ungodly name-calling, some of which I have been compelled to delete. Is this fair? Is it fair to bring up a verifiable incident and then be falsely accused as a liar, when one doesn't know the facts in question. What atestring fails to realize that in this country there are what we call "Privacy Laws," where if people do not want their names spread all over the internet they have the perfect right to keep anonymous. That is precisely why my moniker is DHK. It gives me some sense of anonyminity. And yet atestring demands that the names of the people involved in such incidents be spread all over the internet when these individuals specifically say NO! But Atestring doesn't understand that no means no.

I have had enough needling and badgering of this subject. You people can call me a liar. But I tell you the truth. I have witnessed it myself first hand: well meaning people thinking they are speaking in tongues, and worshiping the devil instead.

And this is precisely what Paul was speaking of in 1Cor.12:1-3

1 Corinthians 12:1-3 Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.
2 Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led.
3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

If you have problems figuring out what Paul is saying here let me know.
DHK

atestring

06-18-2005, 10:37 AM

dkh,

Is it wrong to challenge an accusation like the vancouver greek scholar and the chineese man and jamacian stories.
These are serious accusations!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you really believe them, shouldn't you want them documented in case you were challenged??

I do not understand accusations that say ;that those who speak in tongues are of the devil, while you have been quoted to say that there are people that speak in tongues and you believe that they can give clear evidence of salvation.

atestring

06-18-2005, 10:45 AM

dkh,
If you don't want ot document these claims then that is your right.
I do not believe such claims that cannot be challenged .
Anybody can make claims.
What if I said that Bible Baptist in canada are a group that uses profanity and takes God's name in vain constantly ?
Would you want proof or would you expect people on this board to believe it because i said so?
What if I then said , I want release my proof because of privacy reasons?

atestring

06-18-2005, 10:59 AM

Beware
There is no rule on this board that says that you have to document anything.
Dear Bb members keep this in mind and do not believe everything that is said or a link that happens to be on the internet.
Any nut on the internet can post anything they please.
This is my last statement on this thread.

Ed Edwards

06-18-2005, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by atestring:
Beware
... Dear Bb members keep this in mind and do not believe everything that is said or a link that happens to be on the internet.
Any nut on the internet can post anything they please.
Amen, Brother Atestring -- Preach it! graemlins/thumbs.gif

DHK

06-18-2005, 01:37 PM

Can any BB member go around saying that atestring belongs to a Satanist church and offers up human sacrifices?
You just said there is no rule I have to document everything. That may be true. But there is a rule about false accusations, which you continue to make. There is a rule attacking people as liars, which you continue to do. You have over-steppped your bounds.
DHK

dianetavegia

06-18-2005, 01:54 PM

While waiting at Wal-Mart today, a very loud woman on her cell phone proceeded to explain the different 'kind' of tongues 'spirit filled' people will get and how speaking in tongues was 'a step up to another level' in being filled with the Holy Spirit, according to HER pastor. :rolleyes: She proclaimed that HER tongues was heavenly tongues but some women in their church just speak in tongues which isn't as special as hers....

DHK

06-18-2005, 02:09 PM

Originally posted by atestring:
Beware
Any nut on the internet can post anything they please.
He went to Jamaica himself. He reported what he saw. You call into question his integrity on the internet where everyone can see it. That is slanderous and unethical, and if said person were to be reading this you could be sued. Go to the site, and email him and have your questions answered and verified. Why is that so hard for you to do. I gave you the link. Or, is because you delight in defaming people. If this type of action goes on I believe it ought to be brought to the board's attention. Defamatory and accusatory remarks without cause is totally unwarranted, and is cause for libel. It is an attack on the person to discredit their reputation. It is cause to bring a lawsuit against such a one. You have a channce to make things right with that brother whom you have defamed. I suggest you do it.
DHK

Brian30755

06-18-2005, 09:57 PM

While waiting at Wal-Mart today, a very loud woman on her cell phone proceeded to explain the different 'kind' of tongues 'spirit filled' people will get and how speaking in tongues was 'a step up to another level' in being filled with the Holy Spirit, according to HER pastor. She proclaimed that HER tongues was heavenly tongues but some women in their church just speak in tongues which isn't as special as hers....Yet another reason to stay away from Wal-Mart.

music4Him

06-19-2005, 01:07 AM

Originally posted by dianetavegia:
While waiting at Wal-Mart today, a very loud woman on her cell phone proceeded to explain the different 'kind' of tongues 'spirit filled' people will get and how speaking in tongues was 'a step up to another level' in being filled with the Holy Spirit, according to HER pastor. :rolleyes: She proclaimed that HER tongues was heavenly tongues but some women in their church just speak in tongues which isn't as special as hers.... Wow Diane! I'd sure like to inlighten her on a few things, if this was indeed what she said she missed it...
If I could had been there Id tell her 2 things # 1.... pride goeth beforeth a falleth. graemlins/laugh.gif
# 2 I thought there was only 2 levels (saved and unsaved).
Where are our tape recorders when we need them? :eek:

prophecynut

06-19-2005, 04:10 AM

Profile for music4Him has her denomination as a "combination between Baptist and Full Gospel." Does this mean she has a split personality? graemlins/laugh.gif

music4Him

06-19-2005, 07:22 PM

Originally posted by prophecynut:
Profile for music4Him has her denomination as a "combination between Baptist and Full Gospel." Does this mean she has a split personality? graemlins/laugh.gif So observant of you PN.
So do I ask you for your appology for your personal attack on me? Because I know a few "Full Gospel Baptist", but because I refuse to hang one denominational tag on me.... you have to find something (even if it is off topic) to attack me with? BTW, I'm glad God made me different.

prophecynut

06-19-2005, 09:48 PM

On one hand you compliment my keen observation, on the other you accuse me of attacking you. :confused:

Baptist are conservatives while "Full Gospel" are on the far side, two extremes that are sometimes in conclict. Nothing serious though, just a little pun here and there. graemlins/love2.gif

Link

06-20-2005, 09:20 AM

DHK,

Whether there are false manifestations of tongues is not even an issue. It is clear that demons could speak through people in Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew or whatever other language the Biblical authors heard them speak in.

If the Chinese laundry man or Jamaica missionary stories are true, what difference does it make? The Bible shows us that there are true manifestations of tongues. The false manifestations no more minimize the validity of the true experiences today than the experience of the apostles in Acts.

DHK

06-20-2005, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by Link:
DHK,

Whether there are false manifestations of tongues is not even an issue. It is clear that demons could speak through people in Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew or whatever other language the Biblical authors heard them speak in.

If the Chinese laundry man or Jamaica missionary stories are true, what difference does it make? The Bible shows us that there are true manifestations of tongues. The false manifestations no more minimize the validity of the true experiences today than the experience of the apostles in Acts. Quite true link. It shows that there are false manifestations of tongues, something that the Charismatics of today must learn to accept. It also shows that tongues transcends almost all religions. This also can be demonstrated. The question therefore must be asked: Is this movement of speaking in tongues of God? And the answer is quite obvious. It is an ecumenical movement being used of the devil to bring all religions together, eventually forming a one world church of the anti-christ. It is not of God at all.

You say that the Bible teaches that there are true manifestations of tongues. I disagree. The Bible does not teach this at all. The purpose of tongues has ceased, and one would have to greatly distort every verse in 1Cor.14 to make tongues fit for todays time. It is clearly not for today; it was a sign for the unbelieving Jews of the first century--those that had crucified our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. If those people are not in your church today, then tongues is not for today. It is a cut and dry case.
DHK

Link

06-23-2005, 07:44 AM

DHK wrote

**The Bible does not teach this at all. The purpose of tongues has ceased, and one would have to greatly distort every verse in 1Cor.14 to make tongues fit for todays time**

On the contrary, one would have to distort I Corinthians 14 to argue that tongues are not given or are not permitted. I Corinthians 14 teaches ‘forbid not to speak in tongues.’ The passage gives instructions on how to speak in tongues and interpret them in church meetings—commandments that are never ‘cancelled’ by other passages of scripture.

In previous threads, you have put forth the idea that the quote from Isaiah in I Corinthians 14, about God speaking through men who speak other languages, was a prophecy about the judgment of Israel. I have pointed out the problems with this interpretation, and also the fact that, even if one accepted your interpretation, there is still no reason to think that tongues have ceased. I have yet to see you deal with some of these points I have raised. I will summarize some of the points I made previously below.

1. If tongues are for a sign, it does not stand to reason that tongues are ONLY for a sign.

Even if were to one interpret the Old Testament quote about tongues being for a sign to the Jews specifically regarding the destruction of Jerusalem or other first-century events—something not argued in the passage in question—it does not stand to reason that tongues have ceased.

The line of reasoning you espouse is that since tongues are for a sign, that when the sign was fulfilled, tongues must also have ceased. This does not stand to reason. It is clear from I Corinthians 14 that there are purposes for tongues other than being a sign. For example, tongues served to build up the congregation if it were accompanied by an interpretation. Therefore it is clear that tongues served a function other than as a sign.

No matter how one interprets the quote from Isaiah in the context of I Corinthians 14, there is no argument for the cessation of tongues in this passage.

‘Tongues are for a sign’ does not equal ‘tongues have ceased’.

2. Paul says that tongues are for a sign to unbelievers, not that they are a sign to Jews exclusively.

Notice that Paul quotes the Isaiah passage about God speaking to ‘this people’ through men of other tongues. What point does he make from this quote? Does he talk about God cutting Israel off, having the temple destroyed, or scattering them among the Gentiles? No, he does not.

The Isaiah passage had a shorter-term fulfillment in the distant past. Assyria had taken Israel into captivity, speaking to them in Aramaic, probably, or some other Levantine tongues. The Babylonians had marched the Judeans over to Babylon, naked, shouting at them in Akkadian or Aramaic, or whatever tongue they used to communicate to captive nations.

We need to look at the CONTEXT and the point Paul is making to understand why Paul quotes this verse. Paul goes on to say that tongues are for a sign to them that believe not, and that prophecy is a sign for them that believe. He then describes two scenarios: one about an unbeliever or unlearned person coming into a church meeting in which all speak in tongues, and considering them all to be mad; and another scenario in which an unbeliever comes into a meeting of the church in which all prophesy and falls down on his face, declaring that God is truly among/in them.

There are those that argue that if tongues are for a sign, speaking in tongues is supposed to make unbelievers (or unbelieving Jews if they take that stance) believe. This does not line up with Paul’s example in that passage. Paul says that tongues are a sign for them that believe not, and then gives an example of unbelievers responding with unbelief when they hear tongues.

It makes sense to interpret the passage this way: Paul is extracting a principle about speaking in tongues from this passage in Isaiah. Unbelievers do not ‘hear’ God when they hear speaking in tongues, just like unbelieving Israel. Notice Paul says wherefore tongues are for a sign to them that believe not. He does not say they are a sign to Israel, unbelieving Jews, etc. He says ‘them that believe not.’ Obviously there are Gentiles who believe not.

A ‘sign’ can be a fulfilled prophecy. Some people do not understand why the Jews would ask Jesus to perform a sign after He did miracles. They probably wanted a predictive sign. The book of Deuteronomy said that if a prophet predicted something that did not come to pass, to stone that prophet. Hezekiah was given a predictive sign that he would live and go into the house of the Lord. The shadow on the stairs moved backwards. Isaiah predicted it, and it happened.

In I Corinthians 14, there is a predictive prophecy of unbelievers (in context Judah, or possibly Israel) not ‘hearing’ God though he spoke through men of other tongues and other lips. Unbelievers who hear tongues generally respond the same way.

Paul goes on use this as an argument for tongues only being spoken in the assembly if they are interpreted, and for the speaker in tongues keeping silent in the assembly if the tongues are not interpreted.

I Corinthians says nothing about tongues being a sign of the destruction of the temple, razing of Jerusalem, scattering of Judean Jews, Jews being cut off from the ‘olive tree’ or any such thing. Paul makes the point he wants to make from the passage he quotes from Isaiah, and we are not at liberty to make up points he does not draw out. Paul often derives principles from Old Testament texts like this. He quotes ‘Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn.’ When he quotes this, he is not saying that a church must hire an ox to be on staff—an interpretation similar to trying to read the cessation of tongues into the Isaiah quote in I Corinthians 14.

We need to understand Paul’s use of the Old Testament in the context of what Paul is saying, without reading our own ideas and interpretations into it.

Link

music4Him

06-25-2005, 03:36 PM

Originally posted by Link:

I Corinthians says nothing about tongues being a sign of the destruction of the temple, razing of Jerusalem, scattering of Judean Jews, Jews being cut off from the ‘olive tree’ or any such thing. Paul makes the point he wants to make from the passage he quotes from Isaiah, and we are not at liberty to make up points he does not draw out. Paul often derives principles from Old Testament texts like this. He quotes ‘Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn.’ When he quotes this, he is not saying that a church must hire an ox to be on staff—an interpretation similar to trying to read the cessation of tongues into the Isaiah quote in I Corinthians 14.

Link graemlins/thumbs.gif

DHK

06-26-2005, 02:35 AM

Linl:
On the contrary, one would have to distort I Corinthians 14 to argue that tongues are not given or are not permitted. I Corinthians 14 teaches ‘forbid not to speak in tongues.’ The passage gives instructions on how to speak in tongues and interpret them in church meetings—commandments that are never ‘cancelled’ by other passages of scripture.Does Exodus teach us that God speaks to us through burning bushes?
Does it teach us that God’s authority comes through budding staves?
Does it teach us that we will be fed by manna falling from the sky, that looks like coriander seed?

Why is it that you cannot go out each morning and gather at least an omer of manna for yourself each day? Why shouldn’t that be for you as well? It’s in the Bible isn’t it? Could it be that it was just for one time period, for one generation of people, and even for one specific people at that? Is it just possible that God does things at certain times in history and doesn’t repeat them again throughout history? Does God still feed people via manna on the ground that looks like coriander seed. Well, does he??
Neither does he allow the gift of tongues to be used any longer. It has ceased. It has fulfilled its purpose. And when he wrote, “Forbid not to speak in tongues,” it was written to first century Christians,” just as the instruction to take up no more manna than you needed, was given to the Israelites and not to you. Those instructions have obviously ceased, just as the instructions and the commands concerning tongues. For tongues have ceased. Once we get that one fact into our minds things become much more clear.

In previous threads, you have put forth the idea that the quote from Isaiah in I Corinthians 14, about God speaking through men who speak other languages, was a prophecy about the judgment of Israel. I have pointed out the problems with this interpretation, and also the fact that, even if one accepted your interpretation, there is still no reason to think that tongues have ceased. I have yet to see you deal with some of these points I have raised. I will summarize some of the points I made previously below.The context is clear. Paul was no fool. He quoted from Isa.28:11,12. The passage is in ICor.14:21,22. There is only one viable interpretation here—a literal one that makes sense.

1 Corinthians 14:21-22 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

There were three major reasons for tongues:
1. The most prominent was that it was a sign to the unbelieving Jew, as put so plainly here.
2. It was to give revelation to those who did not have the needed revelation that they didn’t have until the New Testament was complete. That function also ceased at the end of the first century when the Book of Revelation was complete, thus making the canon of Scripture complete.
3. It was one of the signs (signs and wonders) that were the mark of an apostle.
These are the main reasons for the gift of tongues, and all of these reasons were completed at the end of the first century such that tongues has no profit or use today. The gift has ceased.

In 1Cor.14:21, Paul quotes from the law, and directs his quote to “this people,” “this people” being the Jews. Thus men from other nations would speak other languages than Hebrew, and still they would not believe that it would be the message of God. God’s message up until that time always came from the Hebrew Scriptures, and they always had a prophet, a rabbi, someone anointed by God through the traditional means of the Judaic system. Now to see (on the day of Pentecost, for example) fishermen from Galilee, hated publicans (Matthew), and other ordinary people preaching God’s message in languages other than Hebrew, was a sign from God that this indeed was God’s message. God had never spoken in this way before. And Isaiah had said that it would come to pass in this way. Part of the prophecy had been fulfilled already. The other nations are mentioned in Acts 2. There are about 13 of them. Tongues was a sign to the Jews. God demonstrated it in a miraculous way on the day of Pentecost to all the Jews who had come to that feast.

1. If tongues are for a sign, it does not stand to reason that tongues are ONLY for a sign.I didn’t say it was. Read my notes above.

Even if were to one interpret the Old Testament quote about tongues being for a sign to the Jews specifically regarding the destruction of Jerusalem or other first-century events—something not argued in the passage in question—it does not stand to reason that tongues have ceased.“Even if one were to interpret the OT quote about tongues being a sign to the Jews” What are you talking about??? That is pretty much exactly what it says. How can you interpret it any other way! Verse 21 says that it is a sign to the nation of Israel.
Verse 22 says that it is a sign to the unbeliever.
Therefore it is a sign to the unbelieving Jew.
Take things in their context and this is the only logical conclusion that one can come to.

Peter specifically was addressing in his sermon in Acts 2, those ones that had crucified Christ, that is, the first century Jews. If the first century Jews are all gone and dead, there is no purpose for the gift of tongues. Are there first century Jews in your church? I would surely like to meet them, or not! Tongues have ceased. They have no more viable function today.

The line of reasoning you espouse is that since tongues are for a sign, that when the sign was fulfilled, tongues must also have ceased. This does not stand to reason. It is clear from I Corinthians 14 that there are purposes for tongues other than being a sign. For example, tongues served to build up the congregation if it were accompanied by an interpretation. Therefore it is clear that tongues served a function other than as a sign.Yes, as I stated that was one of the purposes of tongues for first century Christians before the Bible was completed.

No matter how one interprets the quote from Isaiah in the context of I Corinthians 14, there is no argument for the cessation of tongues in this passage.Then you better read the passage again.

‘Tongues are for a sign’ does not equal ‘tongues have ceased’.What happens if the sign isn’t there any more? Then what kind of sign is it? A sign that isn’t a sign?
When a bridge is out a sign is put well in front of the bridge warning motorists ”Bridge Out”. When the bridge is completed the sign is taken down for it is no longer needed. The sign was only temporary. The sign was only needed as long as the bridge was being made, as long as it was not finished. But when that which was completed was come then that which was temporary (the sign) was taken away. Tongues were a temporary sign until the Word of God was complete. The sign is gone. The Word of God is complete. The sign is gone. The Jews of the first century have seen their sign and rejected it. The sign is gone. Tongues have ceased.

2. Paul says that tongues are for a sign to unbelievers, not that they are a sign to Jews exclusively.The first word of verse 22 is “wherefore.” The Greek word is “hoste,” meaning “so too,” or also, therefore, as well,” It is a connective that connects verse 22 to verse 21. Thus the “unbelievers” of verse 22 are connected to the Jews of verse 21. The context demands a meaning of “unbelieving Jews. Either way, if I give you the benefit of the doubt, and say that it is a sign either to the Jew or to the unbeliever, that is not the way it operates in most churches today, is it? Neither Jews nor unbelievers are present. It is used when the believers are present. That is making a mockery of the Word of God.

Notice that Paul quotes the Isaiah passage about God speaking to ‘this people’ through men of other tongues. What point does he make from this quote? Does he talk about God cutting Israel off, having the temple destroyed, or scattering them among the Gentiles? No, he does not.

The Isaiah passage had a shorter-term fulfillment in the distant past. Assyria had taken Israel into captivity, speaking to them in Aramaic, probably, or some other Levantine tongues. The Babylonians had marched the Judeans over to Babylon, naked, shouting at them in Akkadian or Aramaic, or whatever tongue they used to communicate to captive nations.Your conclusion here is far too narrow, and thus does not make sense in the context that Paul quotes it. In fact Paul would not have quoted it at all if what you say is true. “The Isaiah passage had a short term fulfillment in the distant past.” Hogwash! If that were the case, then Paul would not have any need of quoting this passage at all. The very fact that it does have relevance in the first century and was being fulfilled at that very time was the reason that Paul was quoting it. It is true that many prophecies have double fulfillments, and that may be one of them—a near fulfilment and a far reaching fulfillment, but it cannot be confined to the near fulfillment. That is the same as saying that Isaiah 7:14 is applicable only to King Ahaz and no one else. “The Lord himself shall give you a sign; a virgin shall conceive…” Was this a sign only for Isaiah?? I don’t think so. It had a far reaching prophetical fulfilment as well—the birth of the Lord Jesus Christ. There was a sign there to Ahaz. I am not sure exactly what it was. But we know what the greater sign was—the birth of Christ. One verse; one prophecy; two fulfillments. And thus it is with Isaiah 28:11,12. You cannot confine that prophecy back to the time of Isaiah. It is applicable to the time of Paul. They spoke with different languages other than their sacred language of Hebrew. They spoke in all the different languages that are listed in Acts chapter two.
DHK

DHK

06-26-2005, 02:36 AM

We need to look at the CONTEXT and the point Paul is making to understand why Paul quotes this verse. Paul goes on to say that tongues are for a sign to them that believe not, and that prophecy is a sign for them that believe. He then describes two scenarios: one about an unbeliever or unlearned person coming into a church meeting in which all speak in tongues, and considering them all to be mad; and another scenario in which an unbeliever comes into a meeting of the church in which all prophesy and falls down on his face, declaring that God is truly among/in them.Ain’t that the truth! Enter into a Charismatic church today where “all” speak in tongues (or many) and said unbeliever will indeed think that you are mad.

There are those that argue that if tongues are for a sign, speaking in tongues is supposed to make unbelievers (or unbelieving Jews if they take that stance) believe. This does not line up with Paul’s example in that passage. Paul says that tongues are a sign for them that believe not, and then gives an example of unbelievers responding with unbelief when they hear tongues.You have it wrong here. Tongues are a sign for the unbelieving Jew (or again just for the unbeliever if you like). But that doesn’t mean they will be saved by it. There is no guarantee of that. In fact Christ said the exact opposite.

Matthew 12:39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:

Luke 16:30-31 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

People don’t get saved because of signs. The people of Capernaum, the city in which Jesus did the most miracles was the place in which the least number of people believed on him. “And he could do no more miracles there because of their unbelief.”
Tongues are a sign for the unbelieving Jew in two ways:
1. For the unbelieving Jew in that this was a message from God given to the Apostles, and that it needs to be obeyed. The Apostles were God’s messengers that need to be heeded and their message needed to be obeyed.
2. It was also a message to unbelieving Jews in the sense that they may have believed Christ for salvation, but still did not believe that salvation had gone to the Gentiles, such as the Jews that went with Peter to the house of Cornelius. They had to be convinced that salvation was now for the Gentiles as well. Tongues gave them that sign. It was a sign to the Jews.
Is tongues a sign to you that salvation has now gone out to the Gentile nations, or do you already know that? I hope you know the answer to that question, and don’t need a supernatural sign to tell you.

It makes sense to interpret the passage this way: Paul is extracting a principle about speaking in tongues from this passage in Isaiah. Unbelievers do not ‘hear’ God when they hear speaking in tongues, just like unbelieving Israel. Notice Paul says wherefore tongues are for a sign to them that believe not. He does not say they are a sign to Israel, unbelieving Jews, etc. He says ‘them that believe not.’ Obviously there are Gentiles who believe not.Certainly there are unbelieving Gentiles that believe not. And Jesus said that he would give them a sign, but it wasn’t tongues. He gave them the sign of Jonas—as Jonas was three days and three nights in the belly of the fish, so would Jesus be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. This is the only sign that would be given to the Gentiles. It is called the gospel. “The Jews require a sign; the Greeks, wisdom.” Again the two verses (21 and 22) are connected together by the conjunction “wherefore.” Thus the meaning becomes evident: “unbelieving Jews.”
Had the Corinthians followed the restrictions that Paul placed upon them for speaking in tongues, there would have been no confusion in the church about speaking in tongues. They were not allowed to speak in tongues without an interpreter. If they had followed that one principle, the speaking in languages would be no different than the prophecy. Paul also told them that only two, or at the most three could speak in tongues and that in order, or one by one. That would limit everything and bring order to the service.. And again, there must be an interpreter. There had to be order to the service, but instead there was only chaos.

A ‘sign’ can be a fulfilled prophecy. Some people do not understand why the Jews would ask Jesus to perform a sign after He did miracles. They probably wanted a predictive sign. The book of Deuteronomy said that if a prophet predicted something that did not come to pass, to stone that prophet. Hezekiah was given a predictive sign that he would live and go into the house of the Lord. The shadow on the stairs moved backwards. Isaiah predicted it, and it happened.Yes, a sign could be a predictive prophecy. Tongues was a sign. It was the fulfillment of a predictive prophecy given in Isaiah 28:11,12.

In I Corinthians 14, there is a predictive prophecy of unbelievers (in context Judah, or possibly Israel) not ‘hearing’ God though he spoke through men of other tongues and other lips. Unbelievers who hear tongues generally respond the same way.

Paul goes on use this as an argument for tongues only being spoken in the assembly if they are interpreted, and for the speaker in tongues keeping silent in the assembly if the tongues are not interpretedNo disagreement. Tongues was a sign to the Jews, and in particularly to the unbelieving Jews. It does not guarantee that those Jews or unbelievers would be saved, even if the tongues were interpreted.

I Corinthians says nothing about tongues being a sign of the destruction of the temple, razing of Jerusalem, scattering of Judean Jews, Jews being cut off from the ‘olive tree’ or any such thing. Paul makes the point he wants to make from the passage he quotes from Isaiah, and we are not at liberty to make up points he does not draw out. Paul often derives principles from Old Testament texts like this. He quotes ‘Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn.’ When he quotes this, he is not saying that a church must hire an ox to be on staff—an interpretation similar to trying to read the cessation of tongues into the Isaiah quote in I Corinthians 14.I did not say that the passage said anything about the destruction of the Temple. What I had previously said is that the passage infers that when a nation does not obey God when he gives them a warning in the way of a sign, judgement usually follows. This is very evident from the passage in Isaiah 28:11ff. The Jews crucified our Lord of glory. They still were granted a chance to come to repentance. They remained stiffnecked and in the hardness of their hearts refused to repent. They refused the sign of tongues that was given to them. All that was left for them was God’s judgment. That came in the form of the destruction of their Temple in 70 A.D., and in the scattering of their nation. No, it doesn’t say that in the passage of 1Cor.14:21,22. I didn’t say it did. But the passage infers that judgement would be imminent. That is God’s pattern. Disobedience to God leads to judgement. Study the Book of Judges and see the cycle that the Jews went through. Disobedience to following after Jehovah always led to judgement. It never failed. God was faithful to His Word. God hasn’t changed His methods or his Word.

We need to understand Paul’s use of the Old Testament in the context of what Paul is saying, without reading our own ideas and interpretations into it.I agree. Why don’t you take your own advice?
DHK

tamborine lady

06-26-2005, 08:57 AM

graemlins/type.gif

Hey, here's a thought!! Let's set the Holy Ghost free and let Him do His work!!

graemlins/applause.gif graemlins/thumbs.gif graemlins/laugh.gif

Peace,

Tam

DHK

06-26-2005, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by tamborine lady:
graemlins/type.gif

Hey, here's a thought!! Let's set the Holy Ghost free and let Him do His work!!

graemlins/applause.gif graemlins/thumbs.gif graemlins/laugh.gif

Peace,

Tam Yes, I agree. Let's allow the Holy Spirit to do His work. His work is described in the Scripture as this:

John 16:7-11 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;
10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;
11Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.

Hmmmmm. No mention of tongues here.
DHK

tamborine lady

06-27-2005, 09:09 PM

graemlins/type.gif

John 16-13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come.

Alas, some people "can't HANDLE the truth"!!

;)

Peace,

Tam

DHK

06-27-2005, 10:58 PM

Originally posted by tamborine lady:
graemlins/type.gif

John 16-13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come.

Alas, some people "can't HANDLE the truth"!!

;)

Peace,

Tam Ironically Tam,
Those in the Charismatic movement who emphasize tongues emphasize the Holy Spirit and His ministry far more than Christ. It is the Spirit that is exalted in these circles, contrary to what this verse teaches.
DHK

Link

06-28-2005, 06:15 AM

DHK wrote,

**Does Exodus teach us that God speaks to us through burning bushes?
Does it teach us that God's authority comes through budding staves?
Does it teach us that we will be fed by manna falling from the sky, that looks like coriander seed?***

The Bible shows us that God can speak through a burning bush or make staves bud. The Bible is clear when manna from heaven ended. The Bible does not teach that the gifts ended.

Gifts of the Spirit are different. The Bible teaches that the gifts of the Spirit are given to each to profit the whole. It also teaches that in the last days, God's Spirit will be poured out on all flesh.

***Neither does he allow the gift of tongues to be used any longer. It has ceased. It has fulfilled its purpose. And when he wrote, "Forbid not to speak in tongues," it was written to first century Christians," just as the instruction to take up no more manna than you needed, was given to the Israelites and not to you.****

The doctrinal statements about the salvation in the book of Romans were written to first century Christians that lived in Rome. Does that mean that they do not apply today? If you interpret doctrinal statements on how God relates to the saints as applicable to saints today when it relates to other topics, why do you insist that doctrinal statements about gifts of the Spirit do not apply to the saints today?

How do you interpret the verses about women keeping silent in the churches? Do those commands ONLY apply to first century Christians, or only the first century Corinthian Christians? Or do you believe they apply today?

*** Those instructions have obviously ceased, just as the instructions and the commands concerning tongues. For tongues have ceased. Once we get that one fact into our minds things become much more clear. ***

You disregard direct commands of scripture based on elaborate theological argument.

***The context is clear. Paul was no fool. He quoted from Isa.28:11,12. The passage is in ICor.14:21,22. There is only one viable interpretation here-a literal one that makes sense. ***

Your interpretation is the one that does not make sense, and it ignores the points Paul is making in the passage. Show me where Paul makes a line of argument that relates the purpose of tongues specifically to Israel before or after the Isaiah quote. He uses the Isaiah quote as a part of his argument that tongues are to be interpreted and that un-interpreted tongues do not build up the assembly.

***1 Corinthians 14:21-22 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

There were three major reasons for tongues:
1. The most prominent was that it was a sign to the unbelieving Jew, as put so plainly here.***

Paul puts it plainly that tongues are a sign 'to them that believe not.' Read the rest of the passage. He shows that if an unbeliever goes in to a church meeting where all speak with tongues, he will respond with unbelief. The passage 'and yet for all that they will not hear Me' is fulfilled.

Paul is using this as an argument not to speak in tongues without interpretation in the church, and to argue that understandable speech in church is superior to uninterpreted tongues.

**2. It was to give revelation to those who did not have the needed revelation that they didn't have until the New Testament was complete. That function also ceased at the end of the first century when the Book of Revelation was complete, thus making the canon of Scripture complete.**

This idea is found nowhere in the scriptures. In fact, this line of argument is completely alien to the scriptures. Nowhere does Paul say that scripture would replace gifts of the Spirit in this passage, and no other author of scripture argues for this idea either.

In fact, the idea of scripture being the 'only rule' of faith an practice, which shows up in so many statements of faith, is not found in scripture. There are some Christians who profess that scripture is the only revelation available to believers. This type of thinking is at odds with what the Bible actually teaches. Jesus did not say that He would leave and leave behind a book which would lead you into all truth. He said that He would send the Spirit. The Spirit leads into all truth. One of the ways the truth has been revealed is through New Testament scripture. But the Bible is clear that there is other revelation from God. Romans 1 shows us that there is revelation of God's nature in creation. God's wrath is revealed from heaven as well. The Lord Jesus is the ultimate revelation from God to man. Read Hebrews 1. In the past, God spoke through the prophets (some of whose writings were written down), but in these last days, he has spoken by His Son. The Bible shows us that there is revelation from the gifts of the Spirit. Paul prayed for the Philipians to have the Spirit of revelation.

The idea that the Bible replaced the gifts is not supported by scripture. It actually contradicts the scripture that teaches. If we want to 'honor' the Bible, the way to do that is not by contradicting it. Sure you can 'honor' the Bible by arguing that it is unique because it is the only revelation from God available to man. But to do so would be to contradict scripture, which teaches the revelation of God's nature through creation, and revelation from the Spirit through gifts of the Spirit.

***3. It was one of the signs (signs and wonders) that were the mark of an apostle.
These are the main reasons for the gift of tongues, and all of these reasons were completed at the end of the first century such that tongues has no profit or use today. The gift has ceased. ***

Show me scripture that specifies that tongues ere the mark of an apostle. The twelve apostles spoke in tongues, but it is also likely that the 120 did as well. Gentiles in Cornelius' house spoke in tongues, and apparently from I Corinthians 12 and 14, many Corinthians spoke in tongues as well. There is nothing in scripture that limits tongues to apostles or that argues is a sign of apostleship. You can argue that signs, wonders, and miracles are, but there is no reason to argue that tongues is. At least 13 of the apostles spoke in tongues, which we know from Acts 2 and I Corinthians 14.

I wrote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. If tongues are for a sign, it does not stand to reason that tongues are ONLY for a sign.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You replied:

**I didn't say it was. Read my notes above. **

If tongues are not only for a sign, then arguing that the function of tongues as a sign has ceased is not an argument that tongues have ceased.

Let me illustrate my point with a dialogue between a charismatic father and his cessationist son.

Son, "Paw, I reckon we can throw this hammer away now, seein' as we won't be using it anymore"

Paw, "What do you say that?"

Son, "'Cause we done finished hammerin' all the nails in the subfloorin'. We have no need for this here hammer Paw. If fact, this hammer does not exist anymore. It has ceased."

Paw, "Don't you go throwin' that hammer away son. Just because we have finished the flooring board doesn't mean we don't need it any more. We still have to build the rest of the house."

Tongues are not ONLY for a sign. Even if you argue that they are not needed as a sign anymore, then that is not an argument that tongues have ceased.
*** Yes, as I stated that was one of the purposes of tongues for first century Christians before the Bible was completed.***

Then, do you admit that arguing that tongues were for a sign is not an argument that tongues have ceased? If so, why would you say that I Corinthians 14 argues for the cessation of tongues? Why do you refer to your interpretation of this passage as an argument for the cessation of tongues if it does not argue for the cessation of tongues?

DHK wrote,
**"Even if one were to interpret the OT quote about tongues being a sign to the Jews" What are you talking about??? That is pretty much exactly what it says. How can you interpret it any other way! Verse 21 says that it is a sign to the nation of Israel.
Verse 22 says that it is a sign to the unbeliever.
Therefore it is a sign to the unbelieving Jew.
Take things in their context and this is the only logical conclusion that one can come to. **

Go back and read my previous post for another way to interpret this. The interpretation I presented also deals with the fact that Paul uses the verse to argue that if an unbeliever hears all speaking in tongues in church, he still does not believe. The verse from Isaiah serves as a sign, a fulfilled prophecy that shows how unbelievers do not hear when they hear speaking in tongues.

****Peter specifically was addressing in his sermon in Acts 2, those ones that had crucified Christ, that is, the first century Jews. If the first century Jews are all gone and dead, there is no purpose for the gift of tongues. Are there first century Jews in your church? I would surely like to meet them, or not! Tongues have ceased. They have no more viable function today. ****

Your argument makes no sense at all. You just quoted a passage from Isaiah, written about 'this people' many centuries before the 1st century AD. If you argue that 'this people' refers to Jews/Israelites in the time of Isaiah, and in the first century, then it stands to reason that 'this people' were the same people group during the time in between. And it stands to reason that the Jews are 'this people.' There are still Jews today! There are still unbelieving Jews today! If tongues are for a sign to Jews, why would tongues have ceased? Jews still exist!

[Just to clarify, I am not arguing that 'this people' in the Isaiah 28 passage is not Israel or the Jews. What I am arguing is that this is not the point Paul is making. Paul makes a point about tongues being for a sign to unbelievers, based on this verse about unbelieving Hebrews who will not hear God, even when He speaks through people of other tongues and other lips. Paul uses this as part of his argument for the fact that tongues do not profit others if they are not interpreted. This is a part of his larger argument about edifying others in church meetings. There is no evidence in the passage that he intended to use the verse to argue eschatology about Israel or to say anything about the cessation of tongues.]

I wrote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Tongues are for a sign' does not equal 'tongues have ceased'.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DHK responded
**What happens if the sign isn't there any more? Then what kind of sign is it? A sign that isn't a sign?
When a bridge is out a sign is put well in front of the bridge warning motorists "Bridge Out". When the bridge is completed the sign is taken down for it is no longer needed. The sign was only temporary.**

Earlier you wrote, of tongues being for a sign:
** "as I stated that was one of the purposes of tongues"**

First, it is clear that there are other purposes for tongues in scripture. One is to edify the church, if the tongues are accompanied by interpretation. The church still needs edifying, and so there is a need for tongues.

Second, you're analogy is flawed. There is a big difference between a board with writing on it, and the types of signs we read about in the Bible.

Third, you have not presented any evidence that tongues is no longer needed as a sign. Your theory about the Bible replacing tongues is not taught in scripture and runs contrary to the philosophy scripture teaches about the role of revelation and the role of the Holy Spirit. You have not presented any evidence from scripture that tongues are no longer necessary as a sign, whether to Jews or anyone else. Your arguments alone are not evidence.

** The sign was only needed as long as the bridge was being made, as long as it was not finished. But when that which was completed was come then that which was temporary (the sign) was taken away. Tongues were a temporary sign until the Word of God was complete. The sign is gone. The Word of God is complete. The sign is gone.**

These are arguments, but they are not supported by scripture. Human opinion is no basis for rejecting the direct commands of scripture.

I wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Paul says that tongues are for a sign to unbelievers, not that they are a sign to Jews exclusively.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The first word of verse 22 is "wherefore." The Greek word is "hoste," meaning "so too," or also, therefore, as well," ***

This supports my interpretation, particularly 'so too.'

And, as an aside, definitions and glosses like this are not 'plug and play.' We can't just pick the one that fits best into our interpretation of the text and assume that our translation and interpretation of the text is correct. Definitions like this show words that touch the thought map of the range of meaning of the Greek word in certain contexts.

*** Either way, if I give you the benefit of the doubt, and say that it is a sign either to the Jew or to the unbeliever, that is not the way it operates in most churches today, is it? Neither Jews nor unbelievers are present. It is used when the believers are present. That is making a mockery of the Word of God. ***

That is not Paul's point at all. Paul quotes a verse about unbelieving Israel not hearing God when he spoke to them through people speaking in tongues, and shows that unbelievers who hear believers speaking in tongues say, 'ye are mad'. Do you think Paul wants believers in this passage to all speak in tongues to unbelievers can think they are mad? It is clear from the passage that Paul is instructing the Corinthians to use speaking in tongues to edifying believers- by interpreting their tongues. Otherwise, they should refrain from speaking in tongues in church. Paul quotes Isaiah to support this argument.

You seem to be so fixated on this idea that Paul is quoting Isaiah to argue for all these cessationist ideas you have about the Jews, that you are missing the forest for the trees. Paul is arguing for the Corinthians to use gifts to edify the assembly, and particularly to use tongues with interpretation to edify the assembly. That is the reason for the Isaiah quote-to build up the argument in the passage.

How do you interpret the rest of the passage? How do you believe Paul's argument that unbelievers who hear all speak in tongues will say 'ye are mad' ties in with his quote from Isaiah and the point he is making about it? How does the Isaiah prophecy and the argument about an unbeliever saying 'ye are mad' fit into Paul's arguments about tongues, prophecy and mutual edification in the passage?

Clearly, the rest of the passage is not about judgment on Israel, the cessation of tongues, or these other ideas you try to interpret out of the Isaiah 28 quote.

On dual fulfillment, you acknowledge that this is possible, for example with the virgin prophecy. Surely you are aware that the Jews were marched naked and barefoot to their captors homeland, while the soldiers shouted at them. Did the soldiers shout in Hebrew? Wouldn't they have shouted in their own tongues?

I did not say there was not further fulfillment of the prophecy in question. Clearly the point or principle Paul draws out from it is true, 'and yet for all that, they will not hear me.' This seems to describe the reaction some had to tongues in Acts 2, when they scoffed and thought the saints were drunk.

**Ain't that the truth! Enter into a Charismatic church today where "all" speak in tongues (or many) and said unbeliever will indeed think that you are mad.**

I have seen churches that act like that, and I have seen the 'ye are mad' look of surprise on visitors' faces who didn't know what was going on. But not all churches that believe in tongues do this, and some believe that tongues should only be spoken out in the assembly if they are interpreted.

I wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are those that argue that if tongues are for a sign, speaking in tongues is supposed to make unbelievers (or unbelieving Jews if they take that stance) believe. This does not line up with Paul's example in that passage. Paul says that tongues are a sign for them that believe not, and then gives an example of unbelievers responding with unbelief when they hear tongues.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DHK wrote,
**You have it wrong here. Tongues are a sign for the unbelieving Jew (or again just for the unbeliever if you like). But that doesn't mean they will be saved by it. There is no guarantee of that. In fact Christ said the exact opposite. **

I have it wrong? I said that 'there are those that argue'-meaning people other than myself.

There are examples of people who believed when they saw signs (e.g. Samaritans who saw Philip) and those who did not believe.

**The people of Capernaum, the city in which Jesus did the most miracles was the place in which the least number of people believed on him. "And he could do no more miracles there because of their unbelief."***

I think you are confusing Nazareth and Capernaum. Nazareth was where Jesus' miracles were limited. The people of Nazareth wondered why Jesus did not do miracles there like they heard he did in Capernaum. Capernaum would have a worse judgment that Sodom and Gomorrah, who would have repented if they had seen the signs Christ had done in Capernaum.

***Tongues are a sign for the unbelieving Jew in two ways:
1. For the unbelieving Jew in that this was a message from God given to the Apostles, and that it needs to be obeyed. The Apostles were God's messengers that need to be heeded and their message needed to be obeyed.***

In the specific case in Acts 2, you have a case for this. But the Bible does not teach that tongues is a sign of apostolic authority per se. The debated end of Mark lists tongues among 'these signs shall follow them that believe' and not the apostles per se. There were apparently plenty of Corinthian Christians speaking in tongues. We should not consider their actions to all be authoritative or inspired. In fact, some of them were probably using tongues improperly, without interpretation.

**2. It was also a message to unbelieving Jews in the sense that they may have believed Christ for salvation, but still did not believe that salvation had gone to the Gentiles, such as the Jews that went with Peter to the house of Cornelius. They had to be convinced that salvation was now for the Gentiles as well. Tongues gave them that sign. It was a sign to the Jews.
Is tongues a sign to you that salvation has now gone out to the Gentile nations, or do you already know that? I hope you know the answer to that question, and don't need a supernatural sign to tell you. **

Tongues may have served as a sign of sorts for these Jews in this particular case. But the role for tongues is much broader than what you describe. Paul shows us that in church, tongues accompanied by interpretation edifies the congregation. The Corinthians did not need convincing that Gentiles could be saved, and some of them spoke in tongues.

***Certainly there are unbelieving Gentiles that believe not. And Jesus said that he would give them a sign, but it wasn't tongues. He gave them the sign of Jonas-as Jonas was three days and three nights in the belly of the fish, so would Jesus be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.**

Jesus said this to Jews who asked him for a sign as we can see in the book of Matthew. Why would Gentiles demand a sign? Pagans would have been unfamiliar with the passage about 'that Prophet.' This fact also argues against the idea that tongues was a special sign to the Jewish nation that served a temporary purpose. The resurrection is the special sign given to that generation. I have read that the Greek word for 'generation' can also refer to a people-group.

**This is the only sign that would be given to the Gentiles. It is called the gospel. "The Jews require a sign; the Greeks, wisdom." Again the two verses (21 and 22) are connected together by the conjunction "wherefore." Thus the meaning becomes evident: "unbelieving Jews." **

Your argument holds no water, especially since Jesus' words that you quote about the sign of the prophet Jonah was directed at Jews.

**Yes, a sign could be a predictive prophecy. Tongues was a sign. It was the fulfillment of a predictive prophecy given in Isaiah 28:11,12. **

If you accept this, then look at the passage. The passage predicts "and yet for all that, they will not hear me"-which was fulfilled when unbelievers heard tongues and said 'ye are mad.' If this is the point of the passage, then we can dismiss with all the speculation about judgment on Jews, and especially the idea of tongues ceasing which is not even hinted at in the passage.

Link

tamborine lady

06-29-2005, 10:10 PM

graemlins/type.gif

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by tamborine lady:

John 16-13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come.

Alas, some people "can't HANDLE the truth"!!

Peace,

Tam
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ironically Tam,
Those in the Charismatic movement who emphasize tongues emphasize the Holy Spirit and His ministry far more than Christ. It is the Spirit that is exalted in these circles, contrary to what this verse teaches.
DHK

_________________________________________________
You are changing the subject again! we are talking about leading into all truth, which is what Jesus said the Holy Spirit would do. Perhaps some others would benifit from listening to the Holy Spirit more and less to the doctrine they have spoon fed themselves over the years!!

Peace,

Tam

DHK

06-29-2005, 11:00 PM

Originally posted by tamborine lady:

You are changing the subject again! we are talking about leading into all truth, which is what Jesus said the Holy Spirit would do. Perhaps some others would benifit from listening to the Holy Spirit more and less to the doctrine they have spoon fed themselves over the years!!

Peace,

Tam John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

I am not changing the topic at all. Jesus specifically said that the Holy Spirit would not speak of HIMSELF. The Holy Spirit's ministry would be to exalt Christ; yes, to guide the believer, but ultimately to glorify Christ.
In Charismatic circles it is the Holy Spirit that is glorified, and not Christ, contrary to this Scripture.
DHK

tamborine lady

06-30-2005, 08:35 AM

graemlins/type.gif

That is not true in all cases. Maybe in some, but the majority concentrate on Jesus, as He is the one who sent the Holy Ghost!!

Selah,

Tam

Link

06-30-2005, 10:07 AM

DHK,

The passage says "shall not speak of Himself" It does not say "Shall not speak about Himself". The message comes from the Father.

cindig2

07-01-2005, 01:46 PM

DHK,
What you have to understand is that you are speaking to people that have had an "experience" to them it is absolute truth, not the scriptures.

cindig2

07-01-2005, 02:51 PM

A really good message to listen to is David Jeremiah. Go to oneplace.com, click on ministries, then click on Turning Point. It is today's message by Dr. Jeremiah.

Sonjeo

07-06-2005, 09:13 PM

There were three major reasons for tongues:
1. The most prominent was that it was a sign to the unbelieving Jew, as put so plainly here.
2. It was to give revelation to those who did not have the needed revelation that they didn’t have until the New Testament was complete. That function also ceased at the end of the first century when the Book of Revelation was complete, thus making the canon of Scripture complete.
3. It was one of the signs (signs and wonders) that were the mark of an apostle.
These are the main reasons for the gift of tongues, and all of these reasons were completed at the end of the first century such that tongues has no profit or use today. The gift has ceased.
-------------

1st Cor. Chapter 13 is about the overzealousness for the gifts of the Holy Spirit compared to the eternal, foundational love of God. To start the 8th verse it says "love never fails"and that is the context, context is everything. Paul is comparing the temporal nature of the gifts of the Holy Spirit to that of the love of God that never fails, that lasts for eternity in heaven. Paul is saying Love is with us now and will be in eternity but that the gifts are temporary and will no longer operate or be apparent when we are in heaven, perfect in the perfect wholeness of the Holy Spirit and all things. Verse 8 is not about the gifts ending in 98 A.D., completion of the written word or any other exotic extrapolation this side of perfection in heaven. In fact to distill that out of Ch.13 reminds me of the way some cults twist scriptures to get them to mean what they want to believe because the truth asks more of them than they are willing to commit to. It is not there. The chapter is simple. Paul wants us to remember the more excellent way of God's love and understand and be careful of overemphasizing the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and remind us of that which is greater and lasts for eternity. That is the context. Love that never fails. Love was with them then and would be with them in eternity. The gifts of the Spirit are with them then but will not be with them in eternity. The context is clear. The gifts of the Holy Spirit are here to help all christians as long as they have to deal with a fallen world, or that is as long as they need help before all things are perfected. Do you really think God would pull out the help of the Helper while we are in a world like we have today. There are christians living in conditions now that would rival the dangerous conditions of the disciples day and need every bit of power and help from the Holy Spirit that they needed and I cannot say some today may need more when you consider some of the conditions going on around the world. We here in America are generally very protected indeed, with our freedom of speech and religion we are not pressured and threatened with persecution and death like some others around the world are exposed to. We are not so dependent on needing serious help from God, (we do, of course, but conditions of life here cast an illusion we don't), which allows erroneous trust in the flesh and things around us to keep us from the very deepest walk with God that we should have and it allows us to forget the necessity of the help of the Holy Spirit, and it is not an excuse, but we must rememeber those in missions, in China, in Islamic countries whose lives are on the line daily for Christ that are living like the disciples did. The gifts of the Holy Spirit are offered in full operation because God knows many of His people need help like never before.