Featured Clear up confusion about tongues!

As DHK correctly stated all such "sign" and revelatory gifts have ceased with the last living christians upon whom the apostles laid their hands and imparted such gifts as that was their ability and "signs of an apostle" (2 Cor. 12:12).

I Corinthians 13:8-13 predicts the cessation of tongues and revelatory gifts. Tongues ceases BEFORE revelatory gifts cease as Israel would reject this "sign" as predicted by Isaiah 28:12 and God would turn to the Gentiles.

8 ¶ Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

In verse 8 there is a grammatical distinction in voice between "fail" and "cease." The Greek word translated "cease" is a middle voice and means it will cease of itself. However, "fail" is passive in voice and means something shall cause it to fail. That something which will cause "prophesy" to "fail" is the subject of verses 9-12.

The implication is that tongues will cease of itself prior to whatever comes and stops prophecy. That is precisely what happened to the gift of tongues. It gradually died out even before the end of the first century.

Prophecy and knowledge are INCOMPLETE when Paul wrote - "WE know in part and WE prophesy in part" and "that which is perfect" (complete) had not come when Paul wrote. "that" is neuter and so it does not refer to the coming of Christ. So what comes to make the "in part" cease is that which is COMPLETE. Hence, by the very contrast the COMPLETE has to do with REVELATION as the "in part" is partial REVELATORY gifts. It must therefore be the COMPLETION of what partial revelatory gifts provide - God's Revealed Word.

In the remaining context, it refers to something that presentlly when Paul wrote was IMMATURE and INCOMPLETE and only possessed "in part" but the "part" would be set aside when MATURITY came. The Maturity had to do with REVELATION and refers to the completed Biblical canon or New Testament which Paul and other apostles were in the process of completing. Thus until it was complete revelatory gifts were essential for the congregations as the Old Testament provided nothing for chuch policy, doctrine and ordinances.

Paul illustrates the arrival of the MATURE revelation that does away with the "in part" immature revelatory gifts with two illustrations. The first illustration has to do with the cessation of tongues simply ceasing of itself while the second illustration with what provided a more mature clearer perception.

11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

Tongues would cease of themselves naturally as a child would naturally stop talking like a child when they mature and begin talking like an adult. Tongues were infantile in that they were never intended to continue as their purpose was specific and limited (I Cor. 14:20-21). Their use in the church was restricted and limited (1 Cor. 14:26-27).

12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.


The second illustration dealt with what would stop prophesy and knowledge. Remember, now they were "in part." What would stop them is when FULLER revelation arrived that would make them no longer necessary. Their "in part" condition was compared to a brass mirror that allowed the looker to see themselves but with limitations. Such was the case of revelatory gifts as not all Christians possessed such gifts and thus most Christians were dependent upon those gifted men (Acts 13:1) for divine leadership.

Note the contrast of time terms "NOW" versus "THEN". The "NOW" was inclusive of the apostolic time as he includes himself "we" in this "NOW" period. It was the prophetic job of the apostles to finish the Bibical canon as predicted also by Isaiah (Isa. 8:16-18). Jesus told them that the coming of the Holy Spirit would "lead them into ALL TRUTH" (Jn. 16:13) and that the Holy Spirit would "REMIND THEM" of the words Jesus spoke to them and that future Christians would be converted "by their words" (Jn. 17:20). They realized they were producing scriptures (2 Pet. 3:15-17; etc.) and the apostle John realized he was concluding the prophecy of Isaiah 8:16 as he introduced his final scriptures by the final living apostle as "the testimony" of Christ and sealed it (Rev. 22:17-18) as predicted by Isaiah 8:16 and then predicted that the next revelation from God would be the coming of Christ from heaven (Rev. 22:19-20) just as Isaiah also predicted (Isa. 8:18).

However, that time had not come when Paul wrote the Corinthians and they were still "NOW" in the apostolic age where this incomplete revelation was still necessary. However, "then" it would not be necessary as the New Testament Scriptures would provide a "mirror" where one could see himself more plainly (James 1:23-25). With the arrival of the New Testament Scriptures the "in part" revelatory gifts and their accompany confirming signs and wonders (Heb. 2:3-4) would cease to exist.

13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

Paul's stated purpose for chapter 13 was to shew them a "better way" right "now" to guide them in their use of spiritual gifts - the way of love (1 Cor. 12:31).

In lack of completed revelation from God, mature spirituality, and proper use of spirtiual gifts is not determined by the power and performance of spiritual gifts, but MATURE use of God's gifts is determined by abiding principles which are apparent to all his readers - faith, hope and charity. Hence, in lieu of a completed revelation from God spelling out the proper and improper use of spiritual gifts they had abiding principles that could be used "NOW" to discern right and wrong use of such gifts. The greatest of these principles is love and it is love that Paul goes on to use as the principle to guide them in the proper use of such temporary gifts in Chapter 14. The principle of love demands the use of all gifts are for edification of others and self. The principle of love demands order and descency and obedience to the scriptures they do have.

 

It is not my opinion but it is the necessary inference made by Paul. Look at verse 19 and what does that tell you about where Paul will not use the gift of tongues? If he will not use it in the church then the only other place is OUTSIDE the church because he plainly states that tongues are not for believers (v. 22) and what do you think a church is composed of?

Now look at verses 20-21 and follow his quotation to Isaiah 28:11-12 and look at the context and you will see it is directly speaking about the Jews. It is speaking about those who will "will not beleive me" even though the sign of tongues was given to them to beleive that the promised "rest" had come.

Paul quotes Isaiah so that the Corinthians could have a MATURE frame of reference for God's purpose for tongues (see verse 20 - grow up). The MATURE frame of reference for God's purpose for tongues is that it was designed by God as a "sign" to the Jews and yet God predicts in advance that "for all that they will not believe me saith the Lord." So a MATURE understanding for God's purpose of tongues is that it is a sign to a specific kind of people - ISRAEL! That is one reason why Paul will not speak in tongues in the church (v. 19) becuase God did not design it for use in the churches.

Therefore, Paul uses it OTSIDE the church for exactly what God designed it for - a MISSIONARY SIGN to Israel that their promised "rest" had arrived.

Moreover, another reason he will not speak in tongues in the church in regard to his own person is that tongues are NOT FOR BELEIVERS and the church is a body of baptized BELEIVERS (v. 22).

A Third reason Paul will not speak in tongues in the church is that tongues in addition is not for believers (church members) but for UNBELIEVING JEWS, is that if the "unlearned" come into the church and hear tongues they will not be edified but think you are mad! They are called "unlearned" unbelievers for a reason. Paul just stated that tongues are for unbelievers of a certain type "for all that they will NOT BELIEVE me saith the Lord." Tongues are for a sign to UNBELIEVING Jews that they might believe. However, tongues is not for the "unlearned" unbeliever or the Gentile who has NO LEARNING IN THE BOOK OF ISAIAH or any other scriptures so they could discern it was a sign.

Now, let me ask you a personal question. If God revealed to you that tongues was designed by God for a specific purpose in regard to a certain specific people how would you use that gift? Paul wouldn't use it in the church (v. 19). Paul wouldn't use it for "believers" (v. 21). Paul wouldn't use it for the "unlearned" unbelievers (v. 22). What kind of people are left for Paul to use it more than they all?

 

You completely misunderstand or intentionally distort what Paul is saying in verse 14. He is not promoting praying in tongues at all. He is repudiating the use of tongues when it does not serve edificaiton to the speaker and/or hearer. What is it when it does not serve to edifiy either? Nothing but confusion!

Think! Paul is going to provide the BIBLICAL design for the gift of tongues in verses 20-22. Do you think he is going to personally use tongues for any other reason than what He knew God designed tongues for? He did not design tongues for "beleivers." He did not design tongues for the church and so in the church he is not going to speak in tongues (v. 19).

His argument in verses 12-17 is don't use tongues if neither the speaker and/or hearer can't understand what is being said. Without understanding it can no more edify the speaker than it can the hearer. He explicitly said that it is "unfruitful" for the speaker who does not understand what he is saying not self-edifying. That means it is an exercise of futility because it yeilds nothing fruitful for the speaker.

That is absolutely false and explicitly repudiated by Paul in verses 18-22. He would NEVER speak in tongues in the church because tongues are not for "beleivers" (v. 22) and that is what a congregation is composed of. His use was restricted within what he understood the Scriptures designed it to be used for - Israel - vv. 20-21.

He restricted the use of tongues in the assembly to no more than three persons and only if they provided an interpetation and only ONE at a time- (vv. 26-27) and only under self-control no women speaking in tongues in the assembly (vv. 30-36)

 

That is not what Paul said. The KJV translated it as an imperative when the context demands it should be translated as indicative. He is rebuking them for seeking gifts that God did not give them.

1. God chooses the gift not the believer - 12:11
2. God designes the gift and use of members - 12:18
3. God does not give tongues to all beleivers - 12:29-30
4. You are coveting after better gifts (as they perceived them) but not according to God's revealed will or the way of love - 12:31-13:13.

God does not give tongues to all believers (1 Cor. 12:29-30) and so not all believers are able to speak in tongues.

Tongues are not a sign of being "filled" with the Spirit as John the Baptist and all other O.T. prophets and saints could be "filled" with the Spirit and yet they did not speak in tongues nor could they as they were a yet future gift not yet given (Isa. 28:11-12).

 

There is no other way to say this. This is either a gross misunderstanding of Scripture. Or, it is an outright Charismatic lie and propaganda. In which category are you putting yourself?

The Bible speaks of "the gift of tongues/languages. There is only one gift or kind of gift, not two.

 

I made no quotes of DHK. I simply affirmed his position.

Who founded the church at Corinth? An apostle! Why did Paul want to come to the church at Rome (Rom. 1:11). Find any sign gifts mentioned among those at Rome (Rom. 12)? You can't!

You are missing the analogy. The mirror represents "in part" revelation. When they looked into that mirrow "NOW" they could not see the COMPLETE REVELATION but only an INCOMPLETE revelation of God's will. Remember the mirror analogy represents the REVEALED WILL OF GOD as that is what revelatory gifts function "NOW" as.

However, when COMPLETED REVELATION has come they will be able to SEE the completed revelation of God and thus that will replace incomplete revelatory gifts. That is the design of the analogy just as looking into a mirror we see our own blurred image of ourselves but with an unblurred mirror we can see ourselves as others can see us.

This text does not say we will see Jesus "face to face".

 

I gave no opinions here:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1924662&postcount=54

Tell me what is an opinion. I presented to you facts. You called them opinions but are unable to refute the facts that I presented to you. That is the real case here.

 

What? Wow! Things are getting weird around here.

 

You can find no one performing sign gifts in Acts 2-6 but the apostles - no one!

You can find no one performing signs and gifts in Acts 6-28 but those upon which the aposltes laid their hands with one exception (Acts 10). That exception is because Jews would NEVER accept Gentiles unless God confirmed them first. God had to confirm his vision to Peter THREE times before he would even go. He wouldn't go unless he brought other JEWISH witnesses and when he came the first thing he told them is that he was violating Jewish law to even enter their house. If God had not first confirmed them they would not have recevied them or baptized them.

Second, your refusal to accept the fact that God does not give tongues to all believers (1 Cor. 12:29-30) contradicts your acceptance of the first two principles that God gives gifts according to his will not yours and gifts and designs each to serve in the body as he pleases not according to as you please. Hence, to seek tongues is disobedience according to all three principles not mere just two. Those on Pentecost did not receive tongues by seeking them.

Have you ever heard of a little thing called "context"??? The mention of "faith" is in a context of sign gifts here not in a context of fruits of the Spirit or the gospel faith. False doctrine is ALWAYS rooted in abuse of context.

I imagine you are referring to 1 Cor. 12:28 where Paul lists servant, service and sign gifts together. In Romans 12 he only lists service gifts while in Ephesians 4:11 he only lists servant gifts.

Again, only by confusing things that differ can you justify your reasoning.

He does not list "teaching" but rather "teachers" and not all Christians are "teachers" even though all may teach just as not all Christans are preachers but all at times may preach. Again you are confusing things that differ.

In everything you list, you are confusing contexts, confusing things that differ in order to justify your nonsense. Your next statement below is a rebuke of your reasonings above:

This admission rebukes the kind of reasoning you did above and shows the fallacy of failing to distinguish between things that differ.

Your basis for this distinction is just as fallacious as your reasonings above.

1. Paul explicitly states tongues were not designed for the church or for believers - 1 Cor. 14:22

2. Their use in the church is greately restricted - vv. 26-33

3. Their only other Biblical use is a sign to the Jews - vv. 20-22

4. Their use without interpretation is "unfruitful" and worthless - vv. 13-17

There are various kinds of prayer listed in Scriptures (1) Supplications; (2) Intercessory (3) praise; etc.

But to suggest tongues are necessary to pray "in the Spirit" is admission of complete ignorance to the meaning of "in the Spirit." It is also to deny that Jesus and/or the greatest man born of woman who was "FILLED" with the Spirit from birth could sing, preach, teach, walk, pray "in the Spirit."