Featured Does 1 Corinthians 13:8-12 teach the sign gifts have ceased?

They also did not drink either wine or strong drink, Deuteronomy 29

In my opinion, this is as a picture of the believer who contends in the faith, living by the direct promises of God, and in hope of that promised land.

 

That would make for a really stupid God...
Thankfully, His thoughts are as far above our thoughts as the sky is above the land...

 

I think many miss the truth that Acts was a historical book, recording down to us what happened in that transition period from the Old to the new Covenant now, but was meant to be showing how how it was to be for all time forward!

 

If miracles and tongues haven't ceased then all Baptists have been wrong for ages and that would be a problem. That would also mean that the Charismatics are right and so would their theology. That would also be a problem.

 

The gifts God gave to Apostles to heal and do miracles ceased, but God still free to do them still, as long as in His Sovereign will!

 

As you said above:

 

My point is that the gifts from God to humans to do that ceased, no longer active as were in Acts, but he still can and does do them even today, as He so pleases!

 

Yeshua1/DaChaser1/JesusFan, you said the book of Acts "was meant to be showing how how it was to be for all time forward!"

 

I was to have said NOT showing what was not the norm going forward!

 

Oh, that makes sense!

 

Not so.

Tongues in the Scriptures are languages spoken on earth. The Scriptures are clear on that.

Charismatic garble is no better then Hindu, Buddhist, RCC, garble.

That Baptist teach of cessation is refuted even by the head of the international mission board is showing truth eventually will be known.

What remains is if the local assemblies will chase after charisma garble, or strictly teach the truth of Scriptures in this matter.

Btw, at least Jimmy Swagert has this one item correct, however, he also thinks that whatever is charismatically spoken is a language somewhere on earth. So, ultimately he misses the mark.

 

For the past few weeks in my Sunday school on I Corinthians, the teacher was claiming that the tongues in chapters 12 through 14 had to do with some kind of heavenly language that no one on earth understands including the one speaking it. I have never bought into that interpretation as it doesn't seem to make sense to me. I always assumed that "unknown tongue" referred to a foreign language that no one in the audience understood. I figured that 14:4's mention of "edifying himself" is in a rather sarcastic manner to show that it is not fulfilling its purpose to edify others, which is what all the gifts are for.
I see no context that indicates that every gift is for edifying each other except for one--tongues--which is only for oneself. If there was some kind of self-edifying gift, why would God not give it to everyone? If it has something to do with a "higher level of worship" why would God only want certain people to be able to give Him that kind of worship if He desires all of His children to worship Him?
Does "tongues" or "tongue" make the most sense in I Corinthians 12-14 if it is always referring to a foreign language spoken on earth?

 

Are you suggesting there are two gifts of languages in Scripture?


God bless.

 

I was just trying to figure out how in the world Yeshua1/DaChaser1/JesusFan's posts could make sense. Turns out he'd left out a vital word: "not." (post #29)

 

For all of the focus on Apostles in this thread, most of the verses on Tongues and the Charismata (like 1 Corinthians 12-14) have very little to do with the actual Apostles manifesting the gifts.

Just an observation.
You all seem so certain about a people whose defining characteristic is an enthusiastic spirit to praise God and a willingness to love anyone.

They were never anything but kind to this Reformed Baptist (or any of the other SBC expatriates that worshiped with them).

 

There is no "personal prayer Heaven tongue" language, as everytime used in Acts, was in public, as a witness to Jesus as Lord, or to teach/edify the local church assembly.

 

find a new teacher or find a new church

 

I appreciate the suggestion, but I want to clarify that neither my church nor the teacher are charismatic at all. In fact, I and many of the people in the Sunday school seemed to be against that idea and were constantly throwing questions at him challenging his interpretation on that. I had him as a teacher for several classes so far and this issue was the only thing on which I have disagreed with him. The fact that he is very conservative and deep in his studies surprised me that he came up with that kind of explanation.

He had never claimed that he had this "gift of tongues" nor did he claim that he had ever seen someone else practice it. He just claimed that he had studied for 14 hours on the subject and arrived at the conclusion that that was what Paul was talking about and acted embarrassed about even talking about it because he knew it would ruffle some feathers.

One question I asked him that got him thinking was something like "If you claim that the context here for edifying others always has to do with understanding what is being said, how does one edify himself if you're claiming that the speaker of the tongue doesn't even know what he is saying?" He looked a little shocked and said something like, "That is a really good question and I actually thought about that a couple times. I'm not exactly sure how that works. Maybe it has something to do with the 'emotional experience' gained during the event. I really don't know." My next question would have been "If the speaker somehow gets an 'emotional experience' from these 'tongues' why can't others who listen to him speak get the same 'emotional experience'? Is there any reason for the words themselves?" but he moved on to the next verse.

I think he just needs to think this through a little more. Maybe time will tell. Heh.

 

Acts 2 describes the gift of languages and in view were known languages.

Unless someone wants to say there are two gifts, which wouldn't make sense, then we stick with how Scripture defines it.

You say your teacher is not charismatic, but, that is a charismatic teaching, and it is in error. Paul's primary point is that when someone speaks...it must be understood by the hearer. Scripture gives us the implicit and explicit instruction that the point of the Word of God is to convey the will of God to men. God has always meant for men to understand His Word and Will. It would make little sense to demand obedience then make that which we are to be obedient to something not understood.

Probably the best thing you could do is study the issue from Scripture and have a discussion with him in private. He should not be teaching anything false, and when he does, he should be held accountable.


God bless.

 

Most of modern Charismatic theology derives not from the scriptures themselves, but from those who are claiming divine revelations from God!