Have the "gifts of the spirit" ceased?

Didn't think anyone could answer the question I asked. It must not be in the OT?

Thank you,
Music4Him

 

There is no such thing as "Pentecost Sunday." Pentecost, meaning 50th, was one of the Jewish sabbaths, and celebrated as such. The day that it was held on varied. Regardless, if you celebrate this Jewish feast (for that is what it is), then you put yourself under the law, and in doing so, one would question your salvation. Christ fulfilled the law when he died on the cross. In fact he was made a curse for us.

Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

So keep the Sabbath. But keep the other 612 Jewish laws as well, and continue in all of them day and night. Don't break even one of them in all your lifetime. For if you do, you are cursed. You have put yourself under the law.
As for me:

Galatians 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

Christ has redeemed me from the curse of the law. He did so when I trusted him as my Saviour. I now am under grace not under the law. His spirit resides in me.
DHK

 

Let's change it bit. Let's say the surgery is a Caesarean section. My wife has undergone a C-section, in fact she has undergone three of them. That makes her experienced, fulfilling one of the conditions you set forth as being qualified. Another condition of being qualified is one who has observed. With our last child I observed the entire operation. I watched the doctors cut her open. I saw all the organs--saw them take the baby out--saw them stitch her back up again. I saw every thing. This fulfills two out of three of the qualifications you set forth. She experienced it. I observed it. Two out of three isn't bad. Does that make us qualified to perform C-sections on you or any of the other ladies here?
Does experience or observation of experience count? I hope that the qualifications you have set forth aren't serious.

The only one that is qualified is the doctor.
The only one that is qualified is the Bible, and the person that knows it. Like the doctor who knows his medical practice; so the pastor knows his Bible. The Bible is the standard, the authority that we go by. Your experience, and your observation of experiences don't amount to a hill of beans. They don't matter. What does matter is how they compare to the Scriptures. When compared to the standard of the Word of God, they don't match up. They fail the test.
By the Scripture we know that tongues is not for today; it has ceased. What is passed of as tongues today is a counterfeit. It is not the Biblical gift that was practiced in the first century. It is a modern day phenomena that started in the beginning of the twentieth century.
DHK

 

I'll have to get in more detail later, but have to straighten out one of your comments now DHK. I did not say speaking in tongues was gibberish, I agreed that it is speaking in a foreign language one has not studied.
Your problem that I pointed out was that you compared foreigners speaking in their own language to the people in Isaiah as a reference to speaking in tongues, the spiritual gift. This was not accurate.
Gina

 

Didn't think anyone could answer the question I asked. It must not be in the OT?

Thank you,
Music4Him </font>[/QUOTE]If you back up and read again you might notice that I agreed with you on that. Twice.
Gina

 

DHK: You don't like the teaching given in 1Cor.14:34,35, Gina? Take your argument up with God, not with me. I didn't write it; He did. It says that women are to keep silence in the churches. That's a pretty direct statement. And yes, I am keeping these verses in context, are you? What is the context? The context is tongues. Women are to keep silent in tongues, specifically. They are not allowed to speak in tongues--period. That is the context. If all the women ceased speaking in tongues today, the movement would shut down fairly quickly. But they choose to disobey Scripture instead. BTW, it doesnt' say that tongues are here and exist. Where do you get that from?

Gina: It says they were not to speak in tongues IN CHURCH.
Does not Paul himself say that he was grateful for the gift of tongues he possessed? Did he also not inform ALL, including men, that there was no point in the church using tongues among themselves?
A brief study will show that this was a problem particular to the church Paul was speaking to.
He did not say that tongues were no longer to be used. He did not say they were bad. He did not say they were on their way out the door, and he did not say they were insignificant.
You have NOT shown where that was said in any of these ten pages. You've taken a verse here, a verse there, and used it to "prove" a belief that simply isn't stated in the bible and a conclusion that is usually only drawn by those who have only studied enough of it to support what they already believe.
Have you ever tried to defend the gift of tongues? If not I challenge you to do so, even if you only do it in the privacy of your home. Debate yourself. If you are right in your interpretation it will only strengthen your faith and your argument. At the least it will help you understand why others disagree with you so strongly.
This is not an attempt to teach you, only to challenge you and have a discussion on a message board. :D
Gina

 

That is right Gina. They were not to speak in tongues IN the church. And that is the only place tongues were permitted to speak for anyone. ALL the spiritual gifts were given to the church. The letter to the Corinthians was written to the church at Corinth. The entire context is the local church at Corinth.

1 Corinthians 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
--All the gifts, as listed here, are for the local church.
God never intended gifts such as tongues or prophecy to be used anywhere else but in the church.

Paul said that he was grateful that he spoke in tongues more than them all, because of the great misuse of tongues that they had. It was a rebuke. It doesn't say that Paul never used tongues outside of the local church. He above anyone would have opportunity to use this gift because of the missionary journeys that he went on. Going to different nations, encountering people of different languages, I am sure that the Lord gave him the gift of tongues to communicate the gospel message to those who otherwise would not understand it. He did not say or infer that he used it either privately or outside of the local church.

And, no, he never informed anyone that there was any point in using tongues among themselves. Please cite Scripture from where you get this idea. Tongues were only for the church, and to be spoken only in the church. It was a gift given to the church to edify those in the church, and at the same time a sign to the unbelieving Jews. How could that be? Remember that many of their meetings were first held in the synagogues. That is the first place that Paul usually went to. There were unbelieving Jews that heard his message there.

Since First Corinthians was one of the first epistles to be written you ought to think about this more carefully. The gift at this point was passing away even as Paul was writing this letter, and had no further reason to refer to it in his second epistle or in any other epistle that he wrote afterward. That would indicate that tongues were dying out and then ceased soon after. It also indicates, as does the rest of the book, that church at Corinth was the most carnal church that Paul wrote to. See 1Cor.3:1-3. Apart from the Day of Pentecost, two other mentions in the Book of Acts, and this sole mention of it in just this one epistle of the New Testament, means that: 1. it wasn't a problem in other churches, and 2. it was quickly fading out.

Paul indicates that tongues have ceased. If I tell you that Paul indicates that Christ arose from the dead and present you with the evidence, would you deny that evidence too. Some people deny whatever evidence you give, so it doesn't matter what I tell you if your mind is so closed so as not to believe.
I have explained to you 1Cor.13:8-13, how that when the perfect Word of God came the gift of tongues ceased. Dr. Bob also posted to the same effect. Read his post as well. While your at it go back and read Briguys. Then go back and read Walguys. Tongues have ceased.
Not only have they ceased for the reasons cited in 1Cor.13:8-13, they have ceased for the reasons cited in 1Cor.14:21,22. Tongues was a sign to the unbelieving nation of Israel. That sign was a fulfillment of prophecy given in Isa.28:11,12. It has been fulfilled, in the destruction of Jerusalem for the Jews refused to believe in spite of the sign of tongues that was given to them. Thus judgement came upon them and their city was destroyed, and their nation was scattered. Thus the gift of tongues is no longer needed in that respect either. Tongues, therefore have ceased. There is no more need for them.

Paul says in 1Cor.12:28 that tongues is, of all the gifts, the most insignificant gift. I have already quoted that verse above. The gifts are listed in order of importance. Look at the adverbs: "Firstly, secondly, thirdly, and after that…" There is an order there, and the last in that order is tongues. It was the least important, and Charismatics have ironically put it as the most important. Go figure.

I have gone through it many times, Gina. The more I read through 1Cor.14, the more I am convinced that most Charismatics have never read that chapter, or have ripped it out of their Bibles deliberately so that they don't have to read it. Anyone with an open mind reading that chapter, would have to come to the conclusion that:
1. the tongues being spoken today are not the Biblical tongues of the first century.
2. if the restricitions that Paul put in place for the first century were applied today, there would be no speaking in tongues today.
3. What goes on in churches today, compared to what is described in 1Cor.14, is a farce, and makes a mockery of God.
DHK

 

True, the gift was given to those in the church, but certainly you don't equate that with meaning they were only given in the church gathering, to be used within the church meetings themselves.
The church meetings were for the saved, not the unbelievers. It doesn't make sense that God gave gifts to believers as signs to the unbelievers, only to be used in a place that unbelievers would not frequent and would only be confused to wander in and find the people speaking in an unintelligible manner? .
If it was meant for such and for the Jews as you stated why would Paul stress in the church that they were signs for unbelievers and didn't do the church itself much good as prophets and teachers were already in the church meetings giving revelation and teachings? This is what is strongly implied in these verses:

You are arguing this against Charismatics, who aren't exactly known for attempting to use the gift of tongues according to scripture.
I am not arguing against you in that respect. I disagree that the gift itself is not capable of being given and used in our times were there a need for it and a person of strong enough faith for it to be used through.
Try to think of it without relating it to those that use it falsely.
If you were in a situation in which the gift of tongues was the only way to tell them of Jesus can you truly say you would not get on your knees and beg God for this gift in order to accomplish the telling of the gospel? I simply can't understand someone who would say "no, I don't believe God would do that because we haven't seen any examples of it in recent history", or whatever other reasoning one might have.
History is made up of people doing and believing what others thought was impossible or simply didn't have faith in any longer.
Gina

 

On the contrary not only can women speak in CHURCH they can speak in tongues and prophesy. ;) Continue reading.
V
V
V
V
V

Yes, I listed the ones that said women were not to do these things, IN CHURCH. It did not say they were not to do other things, like talk or sing or praise.
I also wonder if that pertained to the unmarried or widowed. It's hard to go home and ask your husband if you don't have one.
Gina </font>[/QUOTE]Gina my question to you and DHK was where is the OT commandment stating women should keep silent IN CHURCH?

As far as I can tell, Paul is saying that "women can do the same as men" in CHURCH", if anyone will read a little futher down in 1Corinthians chapter 14 namely verses 36-39.
1Cor.36-39 ~ What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
In other words...does God only speak to men?
37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
Where is it written and where is it found in the OT that its a commandment of the Lord that says women should be silent in church?
38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.
39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.
"Brethren" = Church = Christians = males and females, covet (desire) to prophesy, and "forbid not" to speak with tongues.

Now does any one see there is something wrong or contradicting here when Paul first says keep women silent then says covet to prophesy and to forbid not to speak in tongues? Hello, ladies! Remember Paul is answering the letter.

Also the last time I looked we are still living in the last days as was Paul. So wouldn't that mean that the Holy Ghost is still being poured out?

Acts 2:16-21 ~ But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; 17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: 18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: 19 And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: 20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come: 21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

All I'm asking is to just give it some thought.

Music4Him

 

It doesn't say it in the old testament, it does say in the New Testament that women were not to show authority over men while in a church meeting by praying or prophesying.
It says this in these verses:

What, came the word of God to you only?
This is being said because everyone was attempting to teach, prophesy, speak and it was a mess to hold a church service. It's great to have knowledge, but nobody learns if everyone tried to share that at one time.
Let all things be done decently and in order. Proper time, proper place, proper person, and in the proper way. Desire the gifts, use the gifts, (male or female) but do it at the right time and place.
Gina

 

1COR 14:23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?---------------------------
-----------------------------------------

This scripture alone should prove that tongues were not for the unbelieving Jew ONLY!!!

Thanks Gina

Tam

 

Gina quoted:
--------------------------------------------------
1COR 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
--------------------------------------------------

Ok so women are to still be under the law? So all that Paul preached about being under the law didn't pertain to women? Hummmm

I recall DHK saying in his May 30th 2004 post at 2:07 PM.....
--------------------------------------------------
Christ fulfilled the law when he died on the cross. In fact he was made a curse for us.

Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

So keep the Sabbath. But keep the other 612 Jewish laws as well, and continue in all of them day and night. Don't break even one of them in all your lifetime. For if you do, you are cursed. You have put yourself under the law.
As for me:

Galatians 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

Christ has redeemed me from the curse of the law. He did so when I trusted him as my Saviour. I now am under grace not under the law. His spirit resides in me.
DHK
--------------------------------------------------

Ok then I'll stay under grace too and speak and tell people of Jesus and the salvaion He offers.... where ever, when ever, and however He chooses for me to share with lost people (males and females) in church or out in the streets.
Two passages written by Paul (1Cor.14:34-35 & 1Tim.2:11-12)has put a yolk of bondge on women and has put women back under the law. Why women don't bother to search it out and search it through is beyond my comprehension. What does the word say...are we in bondage or made free in Christ? I will agree that women who are not asked to bring the word should be quiet and let the message be brought because no one would intrupt the preacher (male or female). Let all things be done decently and in order. No, I should not usurp authority over a man (any man), but I can speak the word and then it will be that mans choice to hear it or not.... I can't make him listen.

Desire the gifts, use the gifts, (male or female) but do it at the right time and place.

1 Corinthians 12:27-31
27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. 28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? 30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret? 31 But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.

Yep, and I will desire earnestly the best gifts and to use them in a more excellent way....in love.

Music4Him

 

We are ALL still to be obedient to the law. Whenever a law doesn't pertain anymore we are told that this is so and why.
Such as sacrifices. The law of sacrifices was completed.
At one time there were animals considered unclean to eat. This changed also.
There was never a change made in the relationship between men and women since the fall.
Gina

 

Paul doesn't say anything about Israel after he quotes about men speaking other languages. this verse from Isaiah found a shorter-term fulfillment when the Babylonians took Judah into captivity, speaking Acadian or Aramaic, and the people didn't understand even though God 'spoke' to them through their captors.

What is paul's point? Paul sseems to be saying this principle applies to tongues in general. When an unlearned or unbeliever person (note: the passage doesn't specify a Jewish unlearned or unbelieving person comes in and hears all speaks in tongues, he thinks they are mad. So tongues is a sign to them. They hear it and don't hear God, adn they can see that this is a fulfilled sign by reading that passage in Isaiah that shows that when God speaks through other languages, people didn't hear then, and they don't hear now.

If one wants to argue that tongues were a sign of the destruction of the temple, that still doesn't argue that tongues have ceased. The Bible does not teach that tongues were ONLY a sign of the destruction of the temple. They had other purposes, e.g. edifying the church when accompanied with interpretation, edifying the person who prays in tongues.

It's like saying "Buggy whip makers used to use knives to cut buggywhips. Now we don't need buggy whips anymore. So therefore there is no need for knives. Indeed, knives do not exist anymore." This line of reasoning overlooks the fact that knives are used for other thigns besides the manufacture of buggywhips.

 

</font>[/QUOTE]You have answered your own question by quoting those verses. Unbelievers did come into the church (vs. 23,24)). Furthermore, consider how churches were started. Paul went on three missionary journeys and established approximately 100 churches. It was his habit to go to the synagogue first. In the outer court of the synagogue both Jews and Gentiles were allowed to gather. There would be an abundance of Jews of course. He says many times that he went to the Jew first and then to the Greek (or Gentile). For example:

Rom.1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Here is the typical pattern of what happened when Paul went into an area to start a churh:

Acts 14:1 through Acts 14:5
1And it came to pass in Iconium, that they went both together into the synagogue of the Jews, and so spake, that a great multitude both of the Jews and also of the Greeks believed.
2But the unbelieving Jews stirred up the Gentiles, and made their minds evil affected against the brethren.
3Long time therefore abode they speaking boldly in the Lord, which gave testimony unto the word of his grace, and granted signs and wonders to be done by their hands.
4But the multitude of the city was divided: and part held with the Jews, and part with the apostles.
5And when there was an assault made both of the Gentiles, and also of the Jews with their rulers, to use them despitefully, and to stone them,

Signs and wonders authenticated the apostles, particularly the sign of tongues. Tongues was a sign to the unbelieving Jew in the first century that the gospel message that they preached was from God, and that they should believe it. Did they believe it? Look at the result here. Some did. But many did not. In fact they assaulted the apostles and tried to stone them. It was for this type of reaction to the gospel that God later judged them. Their city was destroyed in 70 A.D., and their nation dispersed.
It was also from this type of meeting that a church was established. Eventually they were cast out of the synagogue entirely. But that is where Paul initially went to when he went to a city. He started his churches by going to the synagogue and preaching there. Read the Book of Acts and see if this is true or not. It was his general practice.

You have three basic movements: The first wave--the Pentecostal which started at the beginning of the 20th century. The Charismatic movmement whih started in the 1970's, and then later in the 1990's the Third Wave. All three movements have speaking in tongues in common. Each "wave" has been progressively more outlandish than the one before in their theology and in their demand for signs and wonders. I use the word "Charismatic" as an all-encompassing word to cover all three groups. Basically those that speak in tongues are identifying themselves with the Charismatic movement. If not, then what are you doing? The Biblical gift of tongues ceased 1900 years ago, and there has been no evidence been given to substantiate its existence yet. The Biblical gift of tongues was: 1. a gift, and 2. a supernatural gift, and 3. a supernatural gift of speaking in foreign languages unknown to the speaker but known to the hearer, most often requiring an interpreter unless the speaker was given the gift of interpretation as well. (For in the first century the universal language was Greek, which everyone knew--even the Jews.) There would have to be present another person of another nation that did not know Greek. For example Arabic. The person would speak in Arabic. Someone would translate into Greek for the rest of the congregation. The church would usually have Jews present in it, as they ususally were started in synagogues.

I am not limiting God. I am saying that God does not work that way any longer. If He did we would have evidence of it, but we don't. Consider these examples.
William Carey was but a cobbler. He was the founder of the modern missionary movement, the first missionary to India. God could have given him the gift of tongues to make his work much easier, but he didn't. Instead this simpler cobbler sat down to study the Bible, and with hard work translated the Bible into 26 different languages. That is without any supernatural help--without the gift of tongues. That is how God works today. Missionaries go and work, and learn the language of the country that God has sent them to.
Adoniram Judson was America's first missionary. God sent him to Burma. He suffered as few others have ever suffered. The Burmese language was a language that had never been broken before. Not only did Judson translate the Bible into the Burmese language, he wrote a Burmese dictionary, and a Burmese grammar book. His Bible is the one that we still use today in that nation. Neither did he have the gift of tongues. It was through study and hard work, in spite of suffering in jail for many years, losing his wife and children to death, suffering untold hardship and disease. God sustained him through it all. There were no signs, no wonders, no tongues--just hard work. It was 7 years before he saw his first convert. Yet he didn't quit. There are thousands, perhaps millions that owe a great debt of gratitude to the hard work of Judson, and all that he accomplished without any miraculous intervention--without the gifts of the spirit.
God does not work that way in this day and age. If he did, why didn't he so comfort and give such help to these great men of God?
What goes on today is a sham. It doesn't happen. Tongues have ceased. They don't serve their intended purpose any longer. That purpose has finished. The canon of Scripture is complete, and the unbelieving Jews of the first century have all passed off the scene.
DHK

 

DHK quotes:
Adoniram Judson was America's first missionary. God sent him to Burma. He suffered as few others have ever suffered. The Burmese language was a language that had never been broken before. Not only did Judson translate the Bible into the Burmese language, he wrote a Burmese dictionary, and a Burmese grammar book. His Bible is the one that we still use today in that nation. Neither did he have the gift of tongues. It was through study and hard work, in spite of suffering in jail for many years, losing his wife and children to death, suffering untold hardship and disease. God sustained him through it all. There were no signs, no wonders, no tongues--just hard work. It was 7 years before he saw his first convert. Yet he didn't quit. There are thousands, perhaps millions that owe a great debt of gratitude to the hard work of Judson, and all that he accomplished without any miraculous intervention--without the gifts of the spirit.
God does not work that way in this day and age. If he did, why didn't he so comfort and give such help to these great men of God?

**Think about it! If he had taken God at His Word, he wouldn't have had to work so hard.

Mark 16:17) And these signs shall follow *THEM THAT BELIEVE;* in my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues:

**If the man didn't believe in the gifts, given by God, then God wouldn't enter where there is non-belief.

Tongues have not ceased!

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pentecostal/New-Ch11.htm

Another thing, the baptism of the Holy Ghost, evidenced by speaking in other tongues, is not used in the same way as "divers kinds of tongues." This type of manifestation is accompanied with the "interpretation of tongues."

Which, I might add, is not required for salvation. Please don't confuse the two.

MEE

 

Let me make sure I understand you correctly DHK.

1. Tongues were an insignificant gift to start with.

2. Tongues ceased within a very short time frame of the original apostles.

3. They were only to be used as a sign to unbelievers who were gathered in the church with believers.

4. Women were never granted the gift of tongues as they were not to speak in church.

5. Anybody claiming to have the gift of tongues since bible times is making a false claim.

Do I have that right?

 

Not quite. According to 1Cor.12:28, where the gifts are listed in order of importance, tongues is the least important of the gifts. That doesn't mean it was insignifcant. It means that the other gifts had greater value than tongues.

Correct.

That was their main purpose. They were also used as a means of prophetic communication from God when needed up until the New Testament was "made perfect" or complete. For, "when that which is perfect (the Bible) is come, then that which is in part (the gifts) shall be done away."

That is what the Bible says.

True.
DHK

 

You talk about Adoniram Judson so derisively you ought to be ashamed of yourself, and you need to read his biography. You cult only started around 1915. By that reckoning Everyone from the Apostles to the twentieth century were unsaved because they didn't hold to the same heretical doctrines as you do. It is a shame that you can't even demonstrate how to be saved without the Book of Acts. Your definition of salvation is contingent on the Book of Acts. Without the Book of Acts you would be lost. Here are some quotes to let not only yourself but others about something of the background of your cult:

(from the Fundamentalist Baptist Library;
C:\FundamentalBaptistLibrary2000\WWW\qindex.htm)
DHK

 

DHK wrote,
**I am not limiting God. I am saying that God does not work that way any longer.**

Saying that God doesn't work that way is what people mean when they say you are 'limiting God.' You have belief system that doesn't allow for God to have people speak in tongues in this day and age. God hasn't limited Himself in this way. Nowhere inteh bible has God said that He will nto give out the gift of tongues. There is no scripture that says that the gift will cease at the destruction of the temple. Rather, we have passages that say that GOd gives gifts, including tongues, to the saints. That is what we have to go on in the bible.

**If He did we would have evidence of it, but we don't.**

You don't have evidence of it because you don't speak in tongues. If you spoke in tongues, and were around speaking in tongues enough, you migth ahve evidence of it.

Some people who argue against gifts of the Spirit occuring today complain that those who argue in favor argue from experience. But they also argue from an experience-based argument when they say the gifts don't occur. Here you are arguing based on experience, or your lack thereof.

Some people have had the experience of hearing someone give a message in tongues in church , knowing the interpretation, but someone else gave the interpretation--the very same one they had gotten--before they spoke it out. This happened to a friend of mine in middle school who was a very devout brother (a preacher while still a teenager) and to a roommate of mine in college. I can think of someone else who had the same thing happen a lot while prophecies were given in church as well.

I remember hearing that Ray Trask, if I remember correctly, an AOG missionary, (whose brother later became General Overseer of the AOG denomination,) knew a little of a certain language from the mission field. He came to the US and heard a message in tongeus given in that language. He knew enough of the language to know the message was about the Bread of Life. Sure enough, the interpretation was about the Bread of Life. Another AOG missionary, Charles Greenoway, told of a missioanry he knew in India who preached in tongues for three days in the dialect of the people. (I know of no scriptural precedent for preaching the Gospel in tongues, btw, but I wouldn't say that God could not do such a thing. )


&gt;Consider these examples.
William Carey was but a cobbler. He was the founder of the modern missionary movement, the first missionary to India. God could have given him the gift of tongues to make his work much easier, but he didn't. Instead this simpler cobbler sat down to study the Bible, and with hard work translated the Bible into 26 different languages. That is without any supernatural help--without the gift of tongues. That is how God works today. Missionaries go and work, and learn the language of the country that God has sent them to. &lt;


To use this as an argument for tongues is just human reasoning, and not in line with scripture. The Bible teaches that the Spirit distributes the gifts as he wills. Sometimes He has people work hard.

I could argue that God couldn't or wouldn't make someone disappear and reappear in one place, even during the first century. I can "prove" it with human reasoning by asking this question: "If God could translate people from one place to another, then why did Paul have to ride on all those boats, suffer shipwrecks, and wait all that time on those journeys?" But the reasoning here is flawed. Philip was translated.

So why did God translate Philip one time, but make Paul have to walk and sail all over the place?

Why did God have Paul get beat up so much instead of just miraculously not let the rods touch his back? Trying to use reasoning like this to argue against miracles leads one to unscriptural reasoning.

God can miraculously do a lot of things. He doesn't always do so. A lot of spiritual gifts would be useful from our perspective.

You said that Carey didn't have any supernatural help in translating. I think you need to rethink your philosophy. How could Carey, a cobbler with little education, be able to learn all those languages so well without supernatural help? How could he even believe the Gospel without supernatural help. We as Christians are all dependant on supernatural help from God-- we all need GRACE. If we don't have this supernatural grace, we can't accomplish anything.

Grace operates when people teach the word, as plain and simple as it seems. But it is still grace. We live in a time when God has poured out his grace in abundance. He has poured out HIs grace, and He still gives His "gracelets"-- his substantial manifestations of grace. Of course, I am talking about the spiritual gifts-- the charismata. Charis is translated 'grace.' The concepts of grace and gifts are very closely related. At the beginning of spiritual gifts passages--like Romans 12, I Corinthians 12, Ephesians 4, Paul talks about grace. Romans 12 says that we all have gifts differing according to the grace given to us. Then he mentions prophecy right in there with gifts like teaching. We can't do anything for God without the grace of God. It just doesn't make any sense at all, Biblically, to say that the gifts have been withdrawn. Grace is a core doctrine of the New Testament. It is necessary for salvation.

Back to the subject of William Carey. I haven't read a book on the man, but I did see a movie. Movies are nottorious for being innaccurate. But in the movie, Carey implied that he was not an effective teacher, and he figured out that God used him through the study of languages and translation.

Wouldn't it have been nice if Carey had been given gifts to be a great evangelist, and win throusands to the Lord by himself? Can we prove that there are no evangelists with great gifts of persuading men to believe, because we can argue that Carey was not a great evangelist, when we think he really _needed_ the gift? No--not logically anyway. God doesn't give everyone the same gifts for different reasons.

One reason some don't recieve gifts is the will of God. Others don't receive because they don't ask. Some ask with lack of faith, because they have bought in to an unscriptural doctrine that certain gifts are not available. But Paul taught believers to earnestly desire the gifts.


&gt;&gt;&gt;Adoniram Judson was America's first missionary. God sent him to Burma. He suffered as few others have ever suffered. The Burmese language was a language that had never been broken before. Not only did Judson translate the Bible into the Burmese language, he wrote a Burmese dictionary, &lt;&lt;&lt;


Many of my comments about Carey apply here. But something else I'd like to point out is that you mentioned earlier that tongues are unknown to the speaker. How does the gifts of tongues in Acts 2 or I Corinthians 14 really help a Bible translator? Are you changing your definition of tongues to make a point, or am I just misunderstanding you?

&gt;&gt;It was 7 years before he saw his first convert. Yet he didn't quit. There are thousands, perhaps millions that owe a great debt of gratitude to the hard work of Judson, and all that he accomplished without any miraculous intervention-without the gifts of the spirit. &lt;&lt;

You scolded someone for talking about Judson derisively, but what about you have written, the he labored without any gifts of the Spirit? Can you actually say that Judson had _no_ gifts of the Spirit? How could there be any fruit at all from his ministry unless there was grace from the Spirit operating through him?