Confused about Speaking in Tongues

It sounds like the first Church of God was using the gift of tongues the correct way but this second one may not? Keep praying brother. :thumbs: It may be convition because of mis-use? BTW, Speak to the pastor about it.

 

Background

What is “speaking in tongues?” The Scriptures teach that speaking in tongues is a gift of the Holy Spirit which allows someone to speak in a foreign language that one does not actually know (in Greek, xenolalia). The Scriptures also indicate that the gift of tongues could mean making ecstatic utterances that are intelligible to God and others who have the gift of interpreting tongues (in Greek, glossalalia).


Mark 16:17 – right before Jesus ascended into heaven, He prophesied “they will speak in new tongues.”

There are only four instances in the New Testament where people speak in tongues:

1 - Acts 2:3 – when the Holy Spirit descended upon the twelve apostles on Pentecost Sunday, they began to speak in tongues. Acts 2:6 says that men from fifteen different nations each heard the apostles speaking in their own language.

2 – Acts 10:44-46 – after Peter preached the gospel, the Holy Spirit fell upon all who heard the word, and they (including the Gentiles) began to speak in tongues.

3 – Acts 19:5-6 – after Paul baptized and confirmed about twelve Ephesians, they spoke with tongues.

4 – 1 Cor. 12-14 – Paul teaches that members of the Corinthian church had the gift of speaking in tongues.
In each instance in the book of Acts, tongue speaking is heard as if it is a foreign language. This gift of the Holy Spirit was for the purpose of spreading the gospel to all peoples of the world. Peter supports this view when he equates the Gentile tongue-speaking with the tongue-speaking at Pentecost (which was heard as foreign languages) when he says “the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning” (Acts 11:15).

 

I grew up in a church where they did that. There was one man that spoke in tongues at every service.

His phrase was repititious and never changed.

It was this phonetically: Sock-ah deek-ah.

It was preached at another church I attended as well that "Vain Repetition" was a sin.

So this man was committing a sin by speaking in tongues. Then I paid attention to what others were saying in tongues. It turned out to be same thing, like something memorized and rehearsed.

Than I finally read Acts and the event of Pentecost. These people were not speaking a different language, they were speaking their own, but those nearby that only understood their own particular language now was able to understood what was being spoken in another language.

Than I read where it is a gift. but not all are given the gift just as all are not given the gift of prophecy, gift of teaching, etc.

I came to believe that modern day speaking in tongues is akin to faith healers like Ernest Angsley and Benny Hinn. fakery, fakery, fakery. Putting on a show. Jesus warned against the public display of false praying.

 

The Gift of Tongues in the Corinthian Church

The type of tongues spoken in the Corinthian church is not as clear. The following Scriptures suggest that the tongue-speaking at Corinth was also heard as foreign languages, just like the tongue-speaking in the book of Acts:

Foreign languages

1 Cor. 14:21 – when Paul instructs the Corinthians about speaking in tongues, he quotes from Isaiah 28:11 which is about the “alien tongue” of foreign invaders, which means a foreign language. For Paul to quote Isaiah without any other explanation suggests that the tongue-speaking at Corinth was in the form of foreign languages.

In fact, no where in 1 Cor. 12-14 does Paul make any distinction between the tongue-speaking in Acts and the tongue-speaking at Corinth (and this is important because the Ephesians’ tongue-speaking in Acts 19:5-6 chronologically occurred around the same time as the Corinthian tongue-speaking). If there would have been a significant difference between the two (foreign languages versus ecstatic utterances), Paul would have likely acknowledged this distinction as he gave the Corinthians instructions about speaking in tongues.

1 Cor. 14:5 – when Paul says “unless someone interprets,” the word for interprets (in Greek, diermhneuvh) always refers to the interpretation of a foreign language (see John 1:42; 9:7; Heb. 7:2).

Ecstatic utterances

The following Scriptures, however, suggest that the tongue-speaking at Corinth was in the form of unintelligible ecstatic utterances, and not foreign languages. For example:

1 Cor. 14:2 – Paul says “For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit.” Describing these utterances as “mysteries” may indicate that such speech was unintelligible. This type of tongue was also spoken to God, and not to men, which means that the tongue did not have to be in any particular language (God would understand the utterances in the Spirit). This may be similar to the divine “tongues of angels” (1 Cor. 13:1).

1 Cor. 14:4 – Paul says “He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself.” If the person is speaking a foreign language he cannot understand, then he would not be edifying himself, unless the language would be interpreted for him. But this may be why Paul required someone to interpret the tongues at Corinth (see 1 Cor. 14:13,27-28). This, however, does not absolutely mean the tongues were foreign languages. The gift of interpretation could have been for interpreting unintelligible divine utterances as well.

1 Cor. 14:10-11 – Paul describes the tongues at Corinth as “sound” (in Greek, phonon). While foreign languages are heard as sounds, this seems different from the tongues which were described in the book of Acts as “language” (in Greek, dialektos). However, Luke also describes the tongue-speaking of Acts 2:6 as “sound,” even though it was heard as “language.”

1 Cor. 14:16-17 – Paul says that the tongues at Corinth were spoken to give thanks to God. While speaking the gospel in a foreign language does indeed give thanks to God, this type of speech may be private communication between God and the speaker, which would not require the use of a foreign language.

1 Cor. 14:23 – Paul says that unbelievers who hear the Corinthians speaking in tongues will conclude that they “are mad.” This suggests that the Corinthians were speaking in unintelligible utterances, although outsiders would also be tempted to call those “mad” who were speaking foreign languages they did not know (perhaps implying that they were possessed by demons).

Ecstatic utterances that were heard as foreign languages

It is also possible that the Corinthians were making unintelligible ecstatic utterances that were then understood by gifted hearers as intelligible foreign languages (which would be both inspired and interpreted by the power of the Holy Spirit). For example:

Acts 2:6 – the Pentecost tongue-speaking is described as a “sound,” and yet it was heard as the specific foreign “language” by men of fifteen different nations. This type of tongue-speaking appears to be a translation of sound into language. Moreover, Acts 2:4 suggests that the apostles began to speak at one time, and yet their many voices are described as one “sound” in Acts 2:6. This suggests that the tongue-speaking was in the form of one sound, but was heard as many languages (in fact, you have only twelve apostles speaking, but fifteen different languages being heard).

1 Cor. 14:5 – the fact that the Corinthians’ utterances were actually being translated into language by the Holy Spirit for certain people may be the reason why Paul required the Corinthians to have gifted interpreters when they spoke in tongues. Again, the word “interprets” refers to the interpretation of foreign languages.

1 Cor. 14:10-11 – Paul’s use of “sound” to describe the tongues of the Corinthian church is the same word “sound” (from the Greek, phonee) that Luke uses to describe the tongues in Acts 2:6, which were heard as foreign languages.

 

Paul's Teachings on Speaking in Tongues

Paul teaches that tongue-speaking is a gift of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:4,10-11). Paul therefore does not prohibit tongue-speaking (1 Cor. 14:39) and even encourages it (1 Cor. 14:5) when received according to his parameters.

However, Paul warns us that tongue-speaking is not always a gift of the Spirit, but may originate out of spiritual pride and immaturity. This is why Paul called the Corinthians immature (1 Cor. 3:1-3; 14:20), and said they were seeking the wisdom of men and not God (1 Cor. 2:5,13; 3:18). Many people in the Corinthian church claimed to have the gift of tongues, but were actually mimicking the divine gift in order to gain ascendancy in the church. This caused arrogance, dissensions and jealousies among them (1 Cor. 1:10-13; 3:3; 4:6-7,18; 5:2; 11:17-22). (This is what I discovered to be the case in modern churches).

Tongue-speaking can also have demonic origins. When people are unfaithful and motivated by pride and not love for God, God can allow demons to enter the church to punish the unfaithful. These demons can appear holy and good, and inspire tongue-speaking and other speech, but they are really deceivers who wish to confuse the faithful and lead them away from the truth (cf. Ezek. 14:6-11; 1 Kings 22:22-23). Paul warns that some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons (1 Tim. 4:1). This is why John tells us to “test the spirits to see whether they are of God” (1 John 4:1).

Therefore, tongue-speaking can be a gift of the Holy Spirit, or may be of human or demonic origin. Paul makes several important points regarding the gift of tongues:

1 – The gift of tongues is a lesser gift from God. While speaking in tongues is a gift of the Spirit, Paul teaches that it is a lesser gift on the continuum of divine gifts from God (1 Cor. 12:10,28,30). For example, Paul says that tongues is a much lesser gift than the gift of prophecy (1 Cor. 14:1-5,19,22). In fact, the gift of tongues is not even mentioned among the gifts of the Spirit in the latter books of the New Testament (Rom. 12:4-8; Eph. 4:11-12; Gal. 5:22; 1 Peter 4:7-11; 1 Tim. 4:14; 2 Tim. 1:6).

2 – The gift of tongues will cease. Paul says “as for tongues, they will cease” (1 Cor. 13:8). The Greek word for “cease” (pauomai) means that the gift of tongues will end abruptly, on its own, and will not be replaced by another gift. The gift of tongues is the only gift of the Holy Spirit that is said to “cease” in this way. When Paul says that prophecies and knowledge will “pass away” (1 Cor. 13:8), the phrase “pass away” (in Greek, katargeo) indicates that these gifts will be replaced by a superior power. This appears to take place when we begin our life in eternity (1 Cor. 13:10-12). Not so with tongues.

Paul does not say when the gift of tongues would cease, and whether the gift would return intermittently after its cessation. However, Augustine wrote that the gift of tongues had ceased by the time of his day. Augustine explained that this was because the Church now spoke the language of the nations, and tongue-speaking was only for purposes of evangelization. The fact that the gift of tongues is not recorded in later books of the New Testament suggest that the gift may have even been ceasing during the biblical period.

3 – Tongue-speaking has strict parameters. Finally, Paul prescribed strict parameters for those who would receive the gift of tongues:

(a) The person who speaks in tongues should pray for the power to interpret his own tongue (1 Cor. 14:13), or have someone who has the gift of interpretation present to interpret the tongue (1 Cor. 14:27). If the tongue cannot be interpreted, the person is to remain silent (1 Cor. 14:28). Therefore, tongues should not be unintelligible utterances, but should be understood (1 Cor. 14:6-12).

(b) In a congregation, only two or three people at most should speak in tongues (1 Cor. 14:27), and each must speak in turn. This is the case even though there may be hundreds or even thousands of people in a church. The many Protestant churches that call upon many people, even hundreds during a service, to speak in tongues contravenes Paul’s divine mandate, and raises doubts about its authenticity.

(c) The tongue-speaking must be done for the edification of the Church (1 Cor. 14:5,26). Paul says that a person who speaks in tongues edifies himself (1 Cor. 14:4) which is good, but Paul also says tongues must edify the Church. This is why Paul requires one to interpret the tongue, and why Paul says only two or three at the most should speak in tongues during an assembly. A mass proliferation of tongue-speaking in an assembly would lead to confusion. This would not be of divine origin because Paul says, in connection with tongue-speaking, that God is not the author of confusion (1 Cor. 14:33).

(d) After setting the parameters of tongue-speaking and warning against avoiding confusion, Paul says that “women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak but should be subordinate, even as the law says” (1 Cor. 14:34). This means that women are not allowed to speak in tongues in church. Paul is underscoring that this is a divine command from God when he ends his statement with “even as the law says.” Again, many Protestant churches contravene this divine command by allowing women to speak “in tongues” in their assemblies.

(e) Paul teaches that a proliferation of tongue-speaking in a church may actually be a sign of unbelief and God’s ensuing judgment upon them. When Paul teaches the Corinthians about the proper use of tongues (1 Cor. 14:21), he quotes from Isaiah 28:11-12: “By men of strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners will I speak to this people, and even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord.” Paul’s use of Isaiah is significant because he is referring to the apostate Jews of the 8th century right before they were destroyed by the Assyrians. To punish the Jews, God first allowed the Assyrians to speak in foreign tongues to them to confuse them before they were ultimately destroyed. God’s judgment being revealed in the form of foreign tongues was first prophesied to Israel in the 15th century, B.C. (see Deut. 28:49-50). Remember also how God sent unintelligible tongues to punish His people for their lack of faith at the tower of Babel (Genesis 11).

Therefore, Paul is warning the Corinthians that their abuse of tongue-speaking is a sign of God’s judgment against them. These abuses included many people speaking in tongues, out of turn, without an interpreter, and for pride and not the edification of the church. This is why Paul says that “tongues are a sign…for unbelievers” (1 Cor. 14:22). This is the same “sign” that God gave the unbelieving Jews before they were punished.

This is also why Paul says that unbelievers look at the whole Corinthian church speaking in tongues and conclude that they “are mad” (1 Cor. 14:23). Paul is telling the Corinthians that their abuse of tongues makes them look insane, and this is a sign of their unbelief (that is why tongues are a “sign for unbelievers”; the “unbelievers” were the Corinthians themselves). This is the same reason why Jesus spoke in parables, to further harden the hearts of those who did not believe in Him, as a punishment for their lack of faith (Matt. 13:13-15).

 

You've had quite an experience, Brian! I sincerly hope that someone who is in a similar place will offer some insights.

 

:type:

Well, I think you night pray that you will learn to interpret your own tongue.

1 Cor 14-12 Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.
13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.
14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

When you understand what you are saying through the Spirit, then it will make more sense to you.

For instance, when someone asks me to pray for them, and I don't know what to pry in english, I pray in the Spirit (tongues). Then when I begin to speak, I say what God has given me.

I don't know if that helps or not, but feel free to ask questions if it doesn't.:saint:

Peace,

Tam

 

Brian I can accually say I understand! I re-read your original post and the one you wrote last night. I see so many things that you went through that I had simular experiances with (wearing out the sinners prayer, divorce, backsliding in teens...ect). Well except that I was raised up by a Baptist Evangelist... I grew up in the Baptist church. I too have been wishy washy on the gift until I read the scriptures and now understand it better. I also prayed and asked the Lord if it was not right to stop me... well I still speak in tongues.

Tam says she will use the gift when she don't know what to pray in english (like when the words just fail you) Thats when you pray in the Holy Spirit (and like Tam also stated the words come). I agree when she says for you to pray for understanding. The bible tells you to pray and ask for understanding as well. 1Cor 14:15
A few years ago at bedtime prayer time I prayed for understanding as I would pray in tongues I began to get understanding as to what was being prayed. The main thing I learned is what ever gift you walk in... do it in love.
Example of that would be... if there is someone you really have a problem with (maybe they done you wrong and even though you have forgiven them you haven't fully got over the hurt yet) well this person asks for prayer, but you don't have the words to pray... Now you rely on the Spirit with the gift of tongues... remember you have to do this in love. (1Cor.13:1-3) You should do all things in love, especially operating in the gifts of the Spirit.
I pray the Lord will open understanding to you.~ :flower:

BTW, you are also not the only one who has an "odd feeling" or maybe (its just no confirmation/agreement in the spirit?) when you hear certian people speak in tongues or the giving of the interpretaion. It is usually dismissed and not remembered later or even perhaps its not a word for you. Also one more thing there are time I pray and don't speak in tongues... but it is good to know that if I am ever at loss for words or that when I am in need of a spiritual uplifting I can pray. 1Cor. 14:4

 

Brian

I can relate to some of what you wrote. I've heard tongues that didn't sound like languages, either.

Honestly, I think some people 'speak in tongues' that are just psychological babble. Demons can speak in foreign languages (like Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic in the Gospels) and so they can immitate tongues.

But when I read the Bible, I don't see any hint at all that Christians who speak in tongues should be fearful that they have demonic tongues. In fact, Jesus said if ye being evil know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall the Father in heaven give the Holy Ghost to them that ask Him/give good things to them that ask Him. (Compare Luke and Matthew.)

I skimmed the article you referred to. It seems this guy misses a major point. The tongues in I Corinthians were not understood by the congregation or even the speaker. They had to be interpreted. This is different from the Acts 2 situation. He asks what the point is of giving tongues to a one-language congregation. Its the same as God giving tongues that none of the Corinthians naturally understood to their congregation. Tongues in Corinth was not so that someone can understand the Gospel in his own language. This idea isn't in the passage, and Paul says that if someone speaks in tongues no one understands him, and so the gift of interpretation was needed.

The idea that tongues was just a sign for the Jews doesn't fit with how Paul uses the verse in the passage. Plus, there are still Jews today, and God is not done with Israel. The passage says nothing about the Jews not needing a sign or anything like that, so this whole line of reasoning doesn't fit with the text anyway.

Also, a 'sign' was not the ONLy purpose of tongues. Tongues also edify the speaker. They edify the congregation when accompanied by interpretation. So even if one use of tongues was no longer needed, the church still needs edifying.

This guy has not experienced tongues in his own experience, and he is trying to find excuses to make his own experience feel more Biblical.

I'm just wondering if you have experienced an intepretation of tongues that did seem supernatural. I've heard the same tongue interpreted several different ways in one church before. Or maybe the interpreter was really prophesying and couldn't tell the difference. Anyway, I also had an experience where someone either prophesied or spoke in tongues and said just what I had been thinking. I've known interpreters of tongues who got the interpretation, and then someone else gave it before they spoke, and it was the same. So in some cases, this is clearly something supernatural and not just something to be brushed aside as emotionalism. Though emotionalism can occur, too.

If the Bible teaches that the true church had these true gifts, and saints who trust in God in and live for him use these gifts in an obviously supernatural way, what is our basis, really for suspecting they are using counterfeit gifts?

As for your own tongues, I can't say for sure if they are genuine or not. That is something you should seek God about. What was the attitude of your heart when you were seeking God for the Spirit or for the gift of tongues? Were you seeking God with faith and a pure heart and pure motives? If you were, thinking about those promises of Christ concerning God giving good things.

 

Mojoala wrote

Paul says not such thing. He does not even hint of false tongues in his treatment of tongues in scripture. There is no reference to false tongues in scripture.

You are eisegeting your own ideas into the text. The Bible says nothing people people mimicking tongues. The Corinthians were carnal, but they also came behind in no gift. The fact that they were carnal did not make their gifts fake.

I would agree that demons could immitate tongues, but I also notice that there is no warning whatsoever against this in scripture, and nothing in scripture to encourage Christians who speak in tongues to fear that their tongues are demonic. The Bible does say that if ye being evil know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more will the Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask them (see Luke's version of this.)

I wonder if you are reading a bit too much into Greek verb tenses. Can you show me all the occurences of these tenses, particularly all the uses of the word 'pauomai' and 'katargeo' in ancient Greek that you looked up to come to this conclusion? Can you show me that the commentators that you read had done a thorough wordstudy like this?
I'm on the mailing list of a retired Greek professor, and after reading all his proofs of preachers and even supposed Greek scholars and their unsubstantiated claims about Greek, I am a bit wary of such pronouncments.

Augustine believed a lot of things ceased. But later he changed his tune and reported a wave of healings in the churches, writing about them. The fact that Augustine didn't see tongues at the time he wrote that does not mean that they had ceased. Hippo is not the whole world, and Augustine had not experienced the whole church. Also, Augustine fell pray to the same mistake many people fall prey to today. If their church experience does not match the experience of scripture, they start making excuses for why it _should not_ match the experiences found in scripture, instead of asking why it does not match what is found in scripture and seeking for what is in scripture to happen.

I think it is fair to say that you have gone out on a limb here, and the limb has broken off.
The later books of the New Testament do not mention many things. They do not mention the church of Corinth, if I am not mistaken, yet we know from history that it continued to exist. Ireneaus spoke of brethren in his own day speaking in tongues, doing miracles, healing, etc. So there is evidence from history that tongues existed.
It makes more sense to think that Paul dealt with the issue in this earlier epistle because it was an issue at the time with the Corinthians. Clearly, tongues was not Paul's central doctrine, liek the resurrection was, or he would have mentioned in repeatedly as he does with the resurrection, but it does have its place among the gifts.

Just two points. One, the restriction that the person who speaks in tongues keep silent is specifically for 'in the church.' He is allowed to 'speak to himself and to God' without interpretation, but he is to keep silent in the church. Therefore, tongues in private prayer is allowed by scripture.
Secondly, tongues are unintelligible utterances to those who do not understand the language or have the gift of interpretation. Otherwise, they would not need to be interpreted.

Notice that the verse in question does not say that there may only be two or three speak in tongues IN A CHURCH MEETING. It could be interpreted to mean that after two or three speakers, one must interpret.
The retired Greek and Latin prof. whose list I'm on says that 'two or three' can NOT refer to the speakers, because the Greek talks about if ONE (tis) speaks in tongues. Therefore, he concludes that 'two or three' refers to what is spoken, since 'logoi' can be elipsed in Greek. If that is the case, then perhaps Paul is saying that after two or three words, one must interpret.
Keep in mind that the instructions on prophesying are parallel. And it is clear that Paul does not limit the number of prophecies to two or three in a meeting because he says ye may all prophesy one by one. Rather, Paul says let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. Again, the issue of elipses could come into play here, though grammatically it is possible for Paul to be speaking of two or three prophets rather than two or three utterances. Either way, after two or three prophets, or two or three utterances from the prophets, 'the other' are to judge. See the similiarity to tongues and interpretation.
Tongues:Interpretation:rophecy:Judge (weigh carefully what is said.)

This sounds odd to me, since in this country, 'Protestan' refers to Reformed churches that generally are not too keen on tongues.
Your argument does not make sense here. The Corinthians were using the genuine gift of tongues out of order, and that did not take anything away from the genuiness of their tongues. So if some modern Christians use tongues out of order, they may be (albeit wrongly) following the footsteps of the Corinthians in using genuine gifts in a disorderly manner.

Again, if tongues are spoken in the church, they need to edify the church (or the interpretation does) but Paul's wording allows for tongues outside of the church meeting as well, since there needs to be some way in which one who speaks an uninterpreted tongue is able to 'speak to himself and to God' and still 'keep silent in the church'. See v. 28.

The 'during an assembly' part is not in scritpure.

continued

 

Tongues without intepretation is disorderly. God is not the author of using His gifts in a disorderly manner. That does not mean He is not the author of the gifts.

Here you are going way off the context of the passage.

Look at Paul's own interpretation instead of adding your own on this one. Paul's example is of an UNBELIEVER or an unlearned person thinking the Corinthian Christians are crazy because they all speak in tongues in a church meeting. The unbelieving or uninstructed visitor is the one who does not believe, not the church. The church are the ones who are being the 'men of strange tongues' here.

You seem to have some kind of negative prejudice against the gift of tongues. Tongues comes from grace. Look up 'charismata.'

You are reading your own ideas into the passage. Paul says nothing about them using tongues wrongly out of pride. He points to their childishness, and tells them to be men in their understanding. They were thinking about the issue childishly. There is no hint in the passage that their motivation was pride. Although we know that pride was a problem in the church. Paul warned about pride in connection with knowledge. I suppose the really smart guys could have been the ones speaking in tongues, but maybe that was not the case. Maybe the 'feelers' were speaking in tongues wrongly, and the 'thinkers' were proud of their knowledge. That seems to be the case a lot of times these days.

Consider this interpretation, which fits better with the passage.

Unbelievers see tongues, and think the people that speak in them are mad. They respond to tongues with unbelief. Just like the Bible predicts. This is a 'sign' to them. The Bible predicts something that they experience. The sign is, that even though God speaks to the unbeliever through 'tongues', the unbeliever does not believe. As it is written, "...and yet for all that, ye will not hear me."

Unless someone is prejudiced against tongues and thinks there is something wrong with it, there is not reason to accept your interpretation of the passage.

 

:type:

Brian,

Just wanted to say this. There are people who will give a message and there will be no interpretation. Some will interpret and it's not witnessing to your Spirit.

There are people who try to "play" at it but God will take care of them.

Like Music said, just walk in love, and let God take care of the rest. Don't stop speaking in tongues because others do it wrong! That's like giving up a perfectly good hamburger because someone else is a vegeterian!

God Bless,

Tam

 

1 Corinthians 12:2-3 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.
--These people were calling Jesus accursed not by the Holy Spirit, but by another spirit, the spirit of another language controlled by demons. And they didn't even realize it except for the fact that someone else recognized the language that they were speaking in. They were calling Jesus accursed in a "false tongue," under the influence of demons. How false can it get???????????????????
DHK

 

There is no scriptural evidence pointing to the fact that any spiritual gift has ceased. The Holy Spirit is active as the third person of the Trinity and the Bible teaches that the Spirit is the active and dynamic person of God in the life of a believer in Christ. The Spirit empowers and gifts us for ministry. These gifts have a purpose related to the ministry to which God has called us. The Bible is also pretty clear about tongues in saying that it is not a gift that all believers will have, there are parameters and limits to its use and purpose, and it is not a sign of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. People who have been given this gift are no more or less spiritual than any other Christian who has been given a different gift.

 

If this is true why don't we have evidence of at least the "sign gifts" if not all the gifts confinuing today. The fact is that we don't . We don't have evidence that any of them continue today--only a cheap imitation of really went on in Biblical times.

Gibberish is not tongues. Speaking in tongues was always speaking in an actual foreign language. If speaking in tongues was an actual gift, why do the Charismatics themselves still have to learn a foreign language to go to the mission field. I find that odd, don't you?
It was a sign to the first century Jews. Where are they today?
It was a sign to authenticate the Apostles and their message? Where are they today?
Every restriction that Paul sets forth in 1Cor. 14, is violoated by Charismatics, and yet you still say that this "spiritual gift" is for today?? How so? One of the restrictions is that it is forbidden for women to speak in the church. I bet that goes over well.

What about the gift of healing. This was a gift--not a simple answer to prayer. We all believe that God heals. That is not the case here. This was a supernatural gift of healing, that is not found today because it has ceased. It is demonstrated for us in Acts 5:16. (Don't let Link fool you with a lame argument and say just because you don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist). It is precisely because it has ceased that it is not found today. Acts 5:16:

Acts 5:16 There came also a multitude out of the cities round about unto Jerusalem, bringing sick folks, and them which were vexed with unclean spirits: and they were healed every one.

Notice: all were healed--every one--not just the ones "that had enough faith."
Notice: It was a multitiude. They came not just from Jerusalem ( a large city in itself, but from all the cities round about Jerusalem).
They didn't have hospitals in that day. This would be akin to a "faith-healer" or just a simple pastor, going into a hospital and walking up and down the corridors and healing every one--going into EMU, and healing all of broken bones, lacerations, the fire unit and their severe 3rd degree burns, people dying from cancer, hepatitis, and especially quadrapalegics--people with no arms and legs. Let them visibly restore the arms and legs of people who don't have them because of an accident or some other reason, and let them do it immediately and publicly. This is the gift of healing. But this doesn't happen today. And there is not a single person alive that can demonstrate it. Why? The gift has ceased, and along with it, all the other gifts of the Spirit.
DHK

 

Thank you DHK for coming up for truth so fearlessly - God be with you!

I believe those 'special gifts' were signs of Apostolic Authority and credibility and therefore ceased with the Apostolic Age.

And what I see - every day for all my life thus far - is falsity reigning in the name of the Holy Spirit; man they can lie! And so boastingly it's loathsome! No thanks, that is not Christianity.

 

That's reading into it a bit. This may or may not have a thing to do with the gift of tongues. It could have been refering to prophecy, spoken in their own language. And to say "And they didn't even realize it except for the fact that someone else recognized the language that they were speaking in" is a stretch as well.