For those who speak in tongues...

Great job DHK. You hit each point well.

I have included some scriptures, that we have tossed around before on this issue to show what the Bible is saying in regards to the doctrine we are discussing.

Eph. 2
19] Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
[20] And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
[21] In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:

Heb. 2
3] How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;
[4] God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?

1 cor. 12
11] I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing.
[12] Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds

Acts 8:
13] Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.

Mark 16:
[20] And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen


Paul taught a foundational aspect of the early church. The writer of Hebrews and Mark concur on the fact that the Apostles confirmed their message with signs and wonders. Now Simon believed but he cold not do what the Apostles did. There was a very specific group of people that could perform signs and wonders to authenticate the Gospel. Tongues was not a huge gift but had to be given to enough people that Isreal could be properly warned. All the sign gifts were performed at the will of the gifted person. There are more verses to show this concept but I think I used enough for it to make sense. The idea of a foundation is that it is different from the rest of the building. It is obviously the strongest part of the building. So were the Apostles and the Prophets the strongest part of the church, with Jesus being the chief cornerstone, the stone in the foundation that must be the strongest. We, in 2005 are the building itself and we can look back at the "foundation" to see how the building was built. We can learn from the foundation but we can't tear the building down and insert ourselves as the foundation. (I'll let you ponder that analogy for a while). So, this doctrine of the sign gifts ceasing (which may include all gifts) is in the Bible and so started from the pen of Paul (or his writer, I suppose).

In Christ,
Brian

 

This tag team preaching by the good old boys club has gone on for 21 pages. Isn't it time it closed?

Tam

 

No, Tam. We really don't have an official page limit in this forum. I thought I would wait til this thread got around 30 or more pages or until you could post a complete theology in full harmony with the Word of God on: "Why the 'tongues-movement is for today,' or, whichever comes first.
DHK

 

Brian,

You mean in addition to the other reasons, such as edifying the body when interpreted and as a personal prayer language?

OK. Tongues are a miraculous manifestation. Unbelievers of any sort...including unbelieving Jews...are of course going to be effected by any miraculous manifestation.

They are a sign to unbelieving Israel(Jews), as I just explained...as well as a sign to anyone else who witnesses tongues, whether they be Jew or Gentile.

God bless,

Mike

 

You ar right Tam,
IMO this subject has been beat to death.
One option is to go 30 pages or until everyone agrees with a particular person that I will not name.
Another option is to quit posting and let the thread die out.
This is getting really old.
People can argue about swimming but the best way to know about swimming is to jump in the water.

People can argue about tongues and pick words apart or they can go to Jesus the Baptizer that John The Baptist spoke about and ask to experience all that Jesus will give.
If a person has ask Jesus to let them experience all that He will have them experience then I won't argue either way.

 

Atestring, Are you saying that when I fell on my knees (which I did) and repented of my Sin and placed my trust in Christ, He held back something from me? Jesus did not give me His all when I was filled with the Holy Spirit and changed forever? I don't see Jesus as "holding something back" from His children. I believe he layed down His life for me all those years ago and gives Himself fully to all who come to Him. Think about that once. You are saying that Jesus holds back his fullness until we ask for it or until we seek it.

Hi Mike, Thanks for providing an argument instead of just talking negative about me or DHK. What I was getting at is that if someone speaks in Tongues in your assembly, how do you know there are unbelivers present? How do you know there is an interpreter present? and with a private prayer language How is that a sign to unbelieving Gentiles or Jews? and finally, what is miraculous about someone standing up and speaking an "unknown language" in an assembly and then another claiming he is interpreting that language? That could be faked all day long. On the other hand, if I speak only French and you only English and you start speaking to me in French, that would be miraculous and would be a great "sign" or "wonder" even. But that does not happen. Oh, some will say it does but with millions of video recorders in this world it never seems to get on tape. Please don't think I am being unkind with this post I am just trying to be as real about this as I can.

In Christ,
Brian

P.S. We are taking my 12 year old daughter to our nearby Children's Hospital today because she has been diagnosed with Scoliosis and has a 30 degree curve in her spine. Please pray for healing and wisdom for the doctors. Thanks so much!!

 

Briguuy,
Only you know your own experience in Christ.
It is not my place to judge.
I will however ask you a few questions to consider.
1. If peter had died on the night efore the day of Pentecost, would he have gone to heaven or Hell. In other words was he saved or not saved?

2. Did Paul get saved on the road to Damascus?
Was he saved at that point ?
If not when did he get saved. If so ,what 2 things did Annanias pray for him after he addressed him as Brother? Why Did Annanias at his arrival address him as Brother?

3. In Ephesus in Acts 19 What was meant by the question that Paul ask, " HAve you recieved the Holy Ghost since you believed?" Did they get all there was when they were saved?

4. What is meant by the statement in EPhesians 1:12-13 In whom also having believed you were sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise.
This context was to the Ephesians that were ask Have you recieved the Holy Ghost since you believed. Why was this stated as the Holy Spirit of Promise. Would that have anything to do with the Promise of the Father that was referred to in Luke 24:49 and referred to in Acts 1:4 Acts 2:39.

It is not a matter of God withholding anything from anyone us but we have to recieve. God will not force anything on us.
I thank God that I did not get all I am ever going to get from God because i want to grow from Faith to Faith and from Glory to Glory.

I have not arrived but I am pressing toward the mark.

I have met people that have told me that they got everything that they are ever going to get from God when they got saved and most of them continue to redidicate their life,And I wonder why if a person "got it all" why would they have to redidicate their life.

 

Briquy ,
I am praying for your daughter. Please give an update.

 

The APOSTLE Paul, in summing up his teaching to the Corinthians on spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 12, 1 Cor. 13, 1 Cor. 14), says this:

1 Cor. 14:39 Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. 40 But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.

I don't think this will be possible, but it would be nice if Christians could agree with at least this.

There is no additional revelation through an APOSTLE that this summary has changed.

If any believe that the gifts ceased at the end of the first century, you should give your source that shows that the Holy Spirit changed what the APOSTLE Paul spoke in summary of his teaching on the gifts.

If you cannot, and you have shown that you cannot, then you will hopefully understand this:

That those of us who understand that the gifts did not cease at the end of the first century will take what you say as an opinion.

When your teaching differs with the APOSTLE Paul, you really need a HOLY source for your teaching. It might be out there, somewhere.

The APOSTLE Paul is not the source for the teaching that the gifts ceased at the end of the first century.

There might be a first century source for the teaching that the gifts ceased at the end of the first century. I have never seen it. I would like to see it. But the APOSTLE Paul is not the source for the teaching that the gifts ceased at the end of the first century.

His words are on record, summing up his teaching.

1 Cor. 14:39 Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. 40 But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.

As long as any teaching agrees with this, we should be fine.

 

1 corithians 13:8-11

When the truth arrives the day of tounges and prophecies will be over.

The Bible is the truth.
There is nothing new to reveal.
The Bible covers from beginning to the end.
If the Bible is not truth what is?
Is mans wisdom?

Mans wisdom is truth thats blasphemy.
God is truth the Word is truth.
The Bible is the final authority.

Rev. Jerry D. Lowery

 

Kindly put: That is nonsense.
Are you saying that you can sum up the theology of speaking in tongues in one verse, and that is all there is to it. Now I admit, the Charismatics are heavy on experience and shallow on doctrine--but just one verse--that is all they have for their doctrine and theological framework?

I ask you, what I am asking of all Charismatics from now on, you give me your theology on tongues and why it is for today. The onus is not on us to prove why it isn't. Whenever someone makes a statement of belief--"I believe in speaking in tongues....", then they better have a well rounded theology that harmonizes everything they believe on the subject with the Bible. Get all the Scripture that you have and put it all together and demonstrate in one cohesive theology or doctrine why speaking in tongues is for today. Don't try and keep backing one of us in a corner trying to defend the position why it isn't. That is not the way it should work in any debate. And yet I have yet to encounter a single pentecostal/Charismatic who can do that. They are unable to put together a cohesive doctrine on why tongues are for today. Why? They don't have a theology. They base what they believe on experience not the Word of God. Doctrine is not one of their strong points so they avoid it. They can't do what I have just challenged you to do. Neither can you.

Remember Oneness and Mee. I challenged them to show me the plan of salvation outside of the Book of Acts. They couldn't do that. They needed the Book of Acts in order show someone how to be saved. They could not use just John or Romans or the combination of them. They had to come back to Acts everytime. They were in a cult.

When a person can't show from the Bible why they believe what they believe, then they are in serious trouble.
DHK

 

Amen !!!!!

Rev. Jerry D. Lowery

 

Briguy wrote
***Unfortunately we all read these verses with a thought already in mind and so it makes it even harder to understand. Look at verse 2. It says that the person there speaking in tongues is speaking to God. That would seem like the best thing of all, right? Speaking to God is better then speaking to men, right? Well look at verses 3 and 5. Prophecy is greater then uninterpreted tongues, even though, by your way of understanding verse 2, uninterpreted tongues is directly speaking to God. So, by your way of looking at these verses it is better to speak regular words to a man then speak mysterious words to God, or to speak to God in a private language. It can't possibly be better to speak to men then to God if verse 2 is a good thing. But alas, verse 2 is not a good thing and so it makes sense with verse 3 and 5.***


I believe you are looking at this completely the wrong way. The issue here is not whether speaking to God or speaking to man is better. Paul tells us the reason the one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues (except he interpret)--the reason is that he edifies the church.

So the issue here is that edifying the church is greater than just edifying yourself. That is what makes one of these two gifted men greater.

This about it. Jesus said that the greatest among you would be the servant of all. The one who prophesies in an intelligible tongue 'serves' everyone with his gift. The one who speaks in tongues does not serve others, unless their is an interpretation. He edifies himself, but not others.

You are focusing on the wrong thing here, so your conculusion that the tongues must be bad is not right. The issue of praying in tongues verses praying with the understanding shows up again in this chapter. In the following verses, we see that the person praying in tongues is actually praying well, but he isn't edifying anyone else.

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.
16. Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?
17. For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.
18. I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:
19. Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.


***Using your breath (spirit) to speak mysteries to God when you don't understand what you are saying and neither does anyone else, is a bad thing and that is why Paul is saying to prophecy.***

Briguy,

I am pretty sure 'spirit' is not 'breathe' in Greek. Spirit is wind. Soul is breath. Besides, praying with the understanding and prophesying are done with the 'breath' as well, so even if you were right about the meaning of Greek words, there is no reason to think that praying with the s/Spirit has to do with tongues and not praying with the understanding.

Do you have any evidence that praying with the Spirit means to pray under your breath? If not, to read such an idea into the text is a rather dangerous method of intepretation. It's a kind of wild guess work method to interpreting scripture. It reminds me of that Arnold Murray guy and some of the off-the-wall arguments he supposedly gets from the Strong's.

Briguy wrote
**We are only to speak to God with our understanding. It is of no use to say words we don't understand and call that prayer. **

Please take a look at verse 17. Clearly the tongues here are edifying to the speaker, but not others. This verse alone is enough to blow DHK's arguments out of the water on the issue. Yes tongues can be edifying to the speaker, and not edify the assembly. But they are not to be spoken in the assembly.

And if we look at the text of the chapter, it would seem that the speaker in tongues does not understand what he-himself-- is saying unless he has the gift of interpretation. He utters mysteries with his spirit, and if he speaks in tongues he is to pray that he may interpret.

So I can't see any reason for you to continue to hold on to your views on this matter. Where do they come from? You seem to bring a lot of ideas with you to the text that do not come from the text.

So what if the KJV translators translated 'unknown.' That was just human opinion-- a translators decision. it does not change what the original Greek text means. it makes sense that 'tongues' means the same thing throughout the whole chapter.

What if you were talking to a painter who wanted to paint the wall 'red.' You agree with him, but then he paints it blue. He said in his personal language, 'red' meant' blue' in your language at that moment. he offers to paint another wall 'red' and you agree. He paints it yellow. He says that 'red' meant 'yellow' in your language at the moment he said it.

This is what you seem to be doing with the passage, redefining 'tongues'. The only excuse you have to do so is that some translators, over 1500 years after the book was written, decided to put the word 'unknown' in at certain places in a translation in a certain Germanic languages translation. The original text was written in Greek, and the translation choices of the KJV translators have no bearing on the meaning of the text. If you make 'tongues' mean something good in one verse and bad in the next, with no logical basis for changing the meaning, then what is to keep you from making scripture say anything you want.

 

Briguy wrote
***Unfortunately we all read these verses with a thought already in mind and so it makes it even harder to understand. Look at verse 2. It says that the person there speaking in tongues is speaking to God. That would seem like the best thing of all, right? Speaking to God is better then speaking to men, right? Well look at verses 3 and 5. Prophecy is greater then uninterpreted tongues, even though, by your way of understanding verse 2, uninterpreted tongues is directly speaking to God. So, by your way of looking at these verses it is better to speak regular words to a man then speak mysterious words to God, or to speak to God in a private language. It can't possibly be better to speak to men then to God if verse 2 is a good thing. But alas, verse 2 is not a good thing and so it makes sense with verse 3 and 5.***


I believe you are looking at this completely the wrong way. The issue here is not whether speaking to God or speaking to man is better. Paul tells us the reason the one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues (except he interpret)--the reason is that he edifies the church.

So the issue here is that edifying the church is greater than just edifying yourself. That is what makes one of these two gifted men greater.

This about it. Jesus said that the greatest among you would be the servant of all. The one who prophesies in an intelligible tongue 'serves' everyone with his gift. The one who speaks in tongues does not serve others, unless their is an interpretation. He edifies himself, but not others.

You are focusing on the wrong thing here, so your conculusion that the tongues must be bad is not right. The issue of praying in tongues verses praying with the understanding shows up again in this chapter. In the following verses, we see that the person praying in tongues is actually praying well, but he isn't edifying anyone else.

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.
16. Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?
17. For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.
18. I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:
19. Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.


***Using your breath (spirit) to speak mysteries to God when you don't understand what you are saying and neither does anyone else, is a bad thing and that is why Paul is saying to prophecy.***

Briguy,

I am pretty sure 'spirit' is not 'breathe' in Greek. Spirit is wind. Soul is breath. Besides, praying with the understanding and prophesying are done with the 'breath' as well, so even if you were right about the meaning of Greek words, there is no reason to think that praying with the s/Spirit has to do with tongues and not praying with the understanding.

Do you have any evidence that praying with the Spirit means to pray under your breath? If not, to read such an idea into the text is a rather dangerous method of intepretation. It's a kind of wild guess work method to interpreting scripture. It reminds me of that Arnold Murray guy and some of the off-the-wall arguments he supposedly gets from the Strong's.

Briguy wrote
**We are only to speak to God with our understanding. It is of no use to say words we don't understand and call that prayer. **

Please take a look at verse 17. Clearly the tongues here are edifying to the speaker, but not others. This verse alone is enough to blow DHK's arguments out of the water on the issue. Yes tongues can be edifying to the speaker, and not edify the assembly. But they are not to be spoken in the assembly.

And if we look at the text of the chapter, it would seem that the speaker in tongues does not understand what he-himself-- is saying unless he has the gift of interpretation. He utters mysteries with his spirit, and if he speaks in tongues he is to pray that he may interpret.

So I can't see any reason for you to continue to hold on to your views on this matter. Where do they come from? You seem to bring a lot of ideas with you to the text that do not come from the text.

So what if the KJV translators translated 'unknown.' That was just human opinion-- a translators decision. it does not change what the original Greek text means. it makes sense that 'tongues' means the same thing throughout the whole chapter.

What if you were talking to a painter who wanted to paint the wall 'red.' You agree with him, but then he paints it blue. He said in his personal language, 'red' meant' blue' in your language at that moment. he offers to paint another wall 'red' and you agree. He paints it yellow. He says that 'red' meant 'yellow' in your language at the moment he said it.

This is what you seem to be doing with the passage, redefining 'tongues'. The only excuse you have to do so is that some translators, over 1500 years after the book was written, decided to put the word 'unknown' in at certain places in a translation in a certain Germanic languages translation. The original text was written in Greek, and the translation choices of the KJV translators have no bearing on the meaning of the text. If you make 'tongues' mean something good in one verse and bad in the next, with no logical basis for changing the meaning, then what is to keep you from making scripture say anything you want.

 

DHK wrote,
****I ask you, what I am asking of all Charismatics from now on, you give me your theology on tongues and why it is for today. The onus is not on us to prove why it isn't. Whenever someone makes a statement of belief--"I believe in speaking in tongues....", then they better have a well rounded theology that harmonizes everything they believe on the subject with the Bible. Get all the Scripture that you have and put it all together and demonstrate in one cohesive theology or doctrine why speaking in tongues is for today. Don't try and keep backing one of us in a corner trying to defend the position why it isn't. That is not the way it should work in any debate. And yet I have yet to encounter a single pentecostal/Charismatic who can do that.***

I have two points to make.

1. I believe I have been very cohesive in all my arguments from you, using scripture to demonstrate my views.

2. The burden of proof is on you because your conclusion leads one to disobey direct commands of scripture.

The 'default' understanding of scripture is that God gives these gifts to His church. Why do I say this? Because the Bible tells us that the Spirit gives out these gifts:

I Corinthians 12
4. Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
5. And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.
6. And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.
7. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
8. For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;
9. To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;
10. To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:
11. But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

The Bible also gives us these commands.

I Corinthians 14

1. Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.

39. Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.

I Thessalonians 5
19. Quench not the Spirit.
20. Despise not prophesyings.
21. Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.


If you cannot show from scripture that these teachings and commands of scripture are no longer valid, then you are telling people to disregard the teaching of scripture, and are even leading them to disobey its commands, without any scriptural warrant for doing so.

So the 'charismatic' interpretation is the 'default' interpretation unless proven otherwise. You can't shift the burden of proof on this one, not reasonably, anyway.

And even if a Charismatic does not have a complete understanding of the theology of tongues, that does not make his gift false. Even if he used it wrongly, blurting out in church with a bunch of other people doing the same thing, that would not make his gift false. The Corinthians had true gifts and they were apparently using their gifts wrongly for Paul to write to them as he did.

You write,
***When a person can't show from the Bible why they believe what they believe, then they are in serious trouble.***

It concerns me that a lot of people don't know their Bible's and can't explain what they believe. But you would have to admit some Baptists are that way, too. I heard that the guy who releases the Christian statistics did a poll and found Pentecostals to be the most Biblically literate Christians based on his findings. But I have met plenty of Pentecostals who can't tell you from the Bible why they believe what they believe, and I've met plenty of other evangelicals that are the same way. Some are new believers. Some just don't study their Bible's enough. Others aren't articulate, and I realize that not everyone has the gift of teaching and not everyone has the same talents.


I posted the following earlier. You answered my post, but you did not really answer the point I was trying to make. So let me quote it and clarify the point you have not answered yet.

********************************
I don't recall your giving me an answer to this question. How do you explain this?

The Bible lists multiple purposes for tongues, such as edifying the speaker-- and the congregation if used with interpretation, and also as a sign. If you argue that the function of tongues as a sign has ceased, how can you argue that the gift has ceased if there are other purposes for the gift? The church still needs edifying.********


You responded by repeating your beliefs about tongues not being edifying if not intepreted and asserted that tongues had ceased. But let me focus on the point I was making.


Suppose the purposes of tongues in scripture are X, Y, and Z.

You argue that X has ceased.

Based on X ceasing, you argue that tongues has ceased.

My question is if Y and Z still continue on, what is your basis for saying that tongues has ceased.

Let us say X is tongues functioning as a sign. Y is tongues edifying the assembly when interpreted.

Z is tongues edifying the speaker. You argue that there is no Z. Z is as plain as day right there in the scripture, but just for the sake of argument, let us forget about Z and focus on X and Y.

If scripture teaches us that X and Y are the purposes for tongues, if you argue that X ceases, then why would you argue that tongues has ceased if you do not have any reason to believe that Y has ceased?

Please abstain from circular reasoning, that the edifying function of tongues ceased becasue tongues ceased, etc.


The other line of reasoning you have for cessationism comes from your interpretation of this passage. I have another set of questions I would like you to answer on this one.

I Corinthians 13

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.
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.
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.


You say that 'that which is perfect' in this verse is scripture or the completion of the canon, or revelation or something along those lines.

I say that it is most likely that Paul is talking about his state at the resurrection of the dead, described later in chapter 15.

Your interpretation has a major whole in it. One of the reasons the scripture is considered authorative is because it was given through apostles. Jesus promised the 12 to lead them into all truth, and He also sent Paul. So part of our understanding of scriptural authority has to do with the apostles being representative of Christ's authority to us.

If the apostle Paul is like a child, and we are like adults, spiritually, how is he representing Christ's authority to us. Look at verse 10. Paul's state before the coming of the perfect is like a child. Paul's state after the coming of the perfect is like an adult. I think we would all agree that Paul was dead when the canon was completed.

So how do you interpret this part about childhood? Who is the child here?(1st and 2nd question.)

If the child is Paul, and the adult is we who have the scriptures, how is Paul an authority to us? Why should we be spiritually more mature than Paul because we have his writings? If we consider the scriptures inspired because of the Holy Spirit endowed spiritual authority he had to convey the truth, how could we be superior to him by having his writings?

Another question-- do you consider yourself spiritually more mature than Paul?

All this defies the basic question here-- why does Paul talk about himself being like a child? Paul was not around to experience the NT being completed because he was dead. So how could the completion of the canon be what he is talking about. He will be alive at the resurrection, and it makes a lot of sense that he is talking about his state at the resurrection here.

The idea that he is talking about the resurrection at the Lord's return also makes sense in light of context, because this is a theme he later expands on in the book. Paul often brings up themes in I Corinthians and expands on them much later in the book.

 

Briguy wrote

**Paul taught a foundational aspect of the early church.**

**It is obviously the strongest part of the building. So were the Apostles and the Prophets the strongest part of the church, with Jesus being the chief cornerstone, the stone in the foundation that must be the strongest. We, in 2005 are the building itself and we can look back at the "foundation" to see how the building was built. We can learn from the foundation but we can't tear the building down and insert ourselves as the foundation. (I'll let you ponder that analogy for a while). So, this doctrine of the sign gifts ceasing (which may include all gifts) is in the Bible and so started from the pen of Paul (or his writer, I suppose). ***

This is pretty flimsy reasoning for arguing against gifts of the Spirit. The Ephesians 2 passage mentions apostles and prophets. But it does not list all of the debated gifts of the Spirit. There are some good reasons for arguing that not everyone who prophesies is a full-fledged prophet, ranging from the elders prophesying before Moses and Saul's prophesying, to Paul's instructions to the Corinthian church that allowed all to prophesy, and also gave instructions to prophets. So even if you argue that prophets and apostles were no more, that does not argue that the gifts have ceased.

Furthermore, if the church were already completely built on the foundation of apostles and prophets, that does not prove that there would not be any other non-foundational apostles or prophets in the church that would come along. If Ephesians 4 says that apostles and prophets are given until we all come unto the full measure of the stature of Christ, then we have reason to still expect them in the body.

Anyone who holds to a futurist interpretation of Revelation must acknowledge that the Two Witnesses will use the gift of prophecy in the future. There is no good reason to think that prophecy would die out in this age and be resurrected at the end of the age. If the foundation argument argues against charismatic prophecies now, it also argues against the Two Witnesses prophesying at the end of the age, and perhaps the other prophets mentioned in Revelation.

** The writer of Hebrews and Mark concur on the fact that the Apostles confirmed their message with signs and wonders.**

The writer of Hebrews say them that heard Him (the Lord). Be that as it may, this passage tells us that God confirmed their message with signs and wonders. But it does not say that He would not do so in other circumstances. It does not say that He stopped giving signs and wonders. Using Hebrews 2 to argue for cessationism does not make sense. It is circular reasoning and eisegesis. The only reason to see cessationism those verses is if you already believe in it in the first place.

In fact, other scripture seems to indicate that God confirmed the word with signs and wonders in other times and places besides what the author of Hebrews described. When the Gospel was first preached among the Hebrews, it was confirmed with signs and wonders. But Acts also shows that signs and wonders accompanied the preaching of the word among various Gentile groups like the Lyaconians who wanted to sacrifice to Barnabas and Saul.

** Now Simon believed but he cold not do what the Apostles did. There was a very specific group of people that could perform signs and wonders to authenticate the Gospel.**

Let's consider Simon. He wanted to buy a gift of God, and was rebuked. Peter percieved that there was wickedness in his heart. How does this argue that there was only a specific group of people that could perform signs and wonders? Simply because God did not give these gifts to a man with wickedness in his heart?

We can see from scripture that signs and wonders were not restricted to the 12. They were the ones who did them at the start--hmmm, if we overlook the fact that the 70 had done some pre-Pentecost.....and some men who were casting out demons in Jesus name, if they weren't of the 70....but back to the point.

The Bible also shows us that Philip and Stephen, men who were not of the 12, but were chosen to alleviate the work of the 12, did signs and wonders.

Furthermore, God raised up a man to be an apostle, without the 12's permission, and let him and his coworker Barnabas do signs and wonders. We also see in I Corinthians that God gave the gift of working of miracles and healing to regular ol' believers in the church as the Spirit willed.

So the Bible teaches us that the Spirit decides who gets these gifts. We don't have the authority to restrict these gifts to the 12, or even a select few, because the Spirit gives them out.

And also notice that Peter talked about the Spirit being poured out on all flesh and old men dreaming dreams, young men seeing visions, etc. Paul said 'ye may all prophesy' and wrote positively about a hypothetical church meeting in which all prohpesied.


** Tongues was not a huge gift but had to be given to enough people that Isreal could be properly warned.**

Paul quotes a verse about God talking to Israel through men of other lips and other tongues, and says 'and yet for all that, they will not hear Me.' Paul shows us that unbelievers don't hear God in believers speaking in tongues. From that you get that tongues is a sign specifically to Israel? Paul says it is a sign to them that believe not.


** All the sign gifts were performed at the will of the gifted person. There are more verses to show this concept but I think I used enough for it to make sense.***

There are some counter-examples that show us that they weren't always just at-will Superman-like powers. The 12 had done miracles before, but they prayed to God to do signs and wonders in Acts 4. Why did they pray like this if they could automatically do miracles at will? Why did Peter spend time praying before raising up Dorcas if he could just always raise the dead at will?

Why does Luke point out that, in Ephesus, God did special miracles by the hand of Paul? Why did Paul leave Tromphius sick at Miletus if he could just do miracles all the time without concern for the will of the Lord?

 

Link,

You posted...

Its so very clear. I have hammered it home several times during this thread using those very same passages of scripture.

When people trust in what some religious body tells them some passages mean to the point where they miss something so clear, its a very sad thing.

Fortunetly, in this case this is not happening with foundational things as happens with Roman Catholics and their blind adherance to hierarchial falseness regarding justification.

Praise God these issues here are differences between brothers and sisters who are born of the Spirit.

Mike

 

Brian,

No problem.

I dont. It doesnt matter. There are other reasons for tongues besides unbelievers being impacted by the miraculous.

(Not that the miraculous has to be there mind you. The conviction of the Holy Spirit is a miracle in itself, and is more than enough to draw someone to Christ of course)

When they give the interpretation.

Because the one with the gift is speaking a language they have never learned. That is a miracle. Miracles impact people. Anyone...Jew, Gentile, anyone.

Speaking fluently a language that you have never learned isnt a miracle???

You've got to be kidding.

And if someone gives an interpretation that is a word of encouragement from from God...thats not a miracle???

You've got to be kidding again.

It could be.

People fake the "born again experience" all the time, do they not? People who "jump through all the hoops"...(going forward, praying a prayer, being water baptised, etc)...for any number of reasons, but never born of the Spirit. We all know that but do we therefore do away with "being born again" because people fake it sometimes?

Of course it would. And I have heard of that happeneing in some meetings.

It most certainly does. The last testimony I heard of that happening was about a year ago.

Thats fine. No problem at all.

God bless,

Mike

 

What about apparitions? Are they scriptural? Can Satan work miracles?

"And now abideth these three: Faith, Hope, and Love. The greatest of these is Love."

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Briguy

Also, on your point about tongues having to be better than prophesying if the tongues are genuine, because tongues are talking to God.

Prayer is man talking to God. Prophesy is God talking to man. Which is greater? Prophesy has another element, too. It is God talking to man, and God talking through man. In the case of the church, God builds up the people by doing so.

So I don't see how praying in tongues would have to be greater than prophesying if both gifts are genuine. And I certainly don't see any reason to read the idea of non-genuine tongues into the passage.

Also, notice that I Corinthians 12 does not make a connection between cursing Christ and speaking in tongues. The passage does not say that people in the Corinthian church were cursing Christ. Paul could have just been making a point without referring to an event going on in their church-- giving two extreme possibilities to make a point.

It is also interesting to note that in 12:1, Paul writes about spiritual gifts, but he uses the word 'pneumatika.' Perhaps this was a general word for spiritual manifestations that would have included by pagan and Christian 'gifts.' A few verss later, when he talks about gifts of the Spirit, he starts talking about the charismata, from a word related to the word for 'grace.'

So when Paul is talking about spiritual gifts in connection with idols, he is not calling them charismata.