Is Speaking In Tongues Biblical Today?

[Major1]

You said..........
Are you agreeing then that the gift of the Holy Spirit of interpretation of tongues is no longer in action and is now only through the flesh? If so, then leave your post the way it is. If not, you need to add an addendum. Personally, I believe all the gifts of the Holy Spirit are active.

LOL!

It seems to me that He is telling you in a very nice way that the interpretations of tongues are just as faked as are the tongues.

The Sign Gifts have ended!

If they were in operation then we would see people raised from the dead not just tongue talkers.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I had another thought that might explain why the supernatural gifts largely disappeared from the Church by the Fourth Century AD.

The warnings given by Jesus to the Seven churches in Revelation involves that if they don't get their act right, He would remove their candlestick from its place. I wonder if Jesus did actually remove the supernatural gift facility from the Church because it did not listen to His warning and continued accepting false doctrine and sinful practices in their fellowships?

It seems reasonable to me to believe that the "candlestick" Jesus is referring to is the direct fellowship with the Holy Spirit and His gifts with the Church. If the Church has backslidden, then this is the candlestick that Jesus has removed from its place.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

You said..........
Are you agreeing then that the gift of the Holy Spirit of interpretation of tongues is no longer in action and is now only through the flesh? If so, then leave your post the way it is. If not, you need to add an addendum. Personally, I believe all the gifts of the Holy Spirit are active.

LOL!

It seems to me that He is telling you in a very nice way that the interpretations of tongues are just as faked as are the tongues.

The Sign Gifts have ended!

If they were in operation then we would see people raised from the dead not just tongue talkers.

If my Pentecostal candlestick has been removed from the forum, then can I debate this issue any further? I won't be able to wax eloquent in my defense any further, and then I won't get on your wick in the future! We won't be able to "flame" each other!!! Hahahahaha!

 

[Hidden In Him]

I had another thought that might explain why the supernatural gifts largely disappeared from the Church by the Fourth Century AD.

The warnings given by Jesus to the Seven churches in Revelation involves that if they don't get their act right, He would remove their candlestick from its place. I wonder if Jesus did actually remove the supernatural gift facility from the Church because it did not listen to His warning and continued accepting false doctrine and sinful practices in their fellowships?

It seems reasonable to me to believe that the "candlestick" Jesus is referring to is the direct fellowship with the Holy Spirit and His gifts with the Church. If the Church has backslidden, then this is the candlestick that Jesus has removed from its place.

I believe that's fairly close, Oscarr. I've written a study on this were I point out from quotes of the early fathers that by 250 A.D. the gifts were in significant decline, at nearly the exact time when some were bemoaning that fact that the church had largely departed from corporate prayer.

Conclusion: A cessation of corporate prayer leads to a cessation in the spiritual gifts.

Like how I incorporated use of the word "cessation" twice there? In practice, maybe we're ALL cessationists. What a shame, LoL.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Excellent question and I have been asked that many times.

Was this the Lord’s choice? Some propose that Paul, not Matthias, was God’s choice for the 12th apostle. They argue that Jesus had told the apostles to wait for the coming of the Holy Spirit in Acts 1:8 which they did not do and that casting lots is not how the disciples should have made the decision.

They also point out that Matthias is never again mentioned in the New Testament, while Paul obviously became very prominent in the early Christian church. So, are they correct that Paul, not Matthias, was God’s choice to be Judas’ replacement as the 12th apostle.

I do not know. History seems to say that it was Paul as he went on to be the most prolific writer of the Bible and Matthias disappeared.

Then we also have the curious greeting in Romans 16 -

7 Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

Were these two men also apostles?

 

[1stcenturylady]

Thanks. Paul also healed the sick, as we know in Acts, so I think the signs of an apostle were his, as well. The big problem for many is what to do about Matthias. Obviously, from Acts 1, Matthias was selected by the Holy Spirit to fill the place of Judas, thus restoring the number to twelve Apostles. Then along comes Paul, clearly claiming to be an Apostle (or apostle?). Some would discard Matthias and put Paul among the twelve. Others would leave Matthias with the twelve and say that Paul was an apostle (Apostle) but just not one of the original set of twelve. This is where I lean and it looks like you lean that way, as well.

Barnabas was also called an apostle.

 

[bbbbbbb]

The title of Apostle was given to the initial twelve. There is some doubt whether Matthias was the Holy Spirit's choice or whether they chose him because they needed to replace Judas. This was before the Day of Pentecost, so this brings a reasonable doubt as to whether they were actually led by the Spirit to choose Matthias. Paul is the obvious Holy Spirit choice because he was chosen to be an Apostle through the prophetic word at Antioch.

There is no such "gift" as apostle. It is one of the five-fold ministries to build up and strengthen the Church. Unfortunately, because the structural Church is no longer a unified "one", but a divided mishmash of denominations all in disunity with each other, the criteria for an apostle ministry in our modern church cannot be met, and therefore there are no truly Biblical apostles existent these days. There has to be a lot of work by the Holy Spirit to bring our Church into the unity required to enable anything approaching an apostleship ministry.

I know that there are some who claim to have an apostle's ministry, but because they are not accepted by the WHOLE church, they can call themselves an apostle, but only for the churches that recognise and accept them. But they cannot claim the role of a Biblical apostle appointed by the Holy Spirit.

I don't know which translation you use, but my Bible says this -
Ephesians 4:8 Therefore it says,

“When He ascended on high,
He led captive a host of captives,
And He gave gifts to men.”

9 (Now this expression, “He ascended,” what does it mean except that He also had descended into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He who descended is Himself also He who ascended far above all the heavens, so that He might fill all things.) 11 And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ;

This sure sounds like gifts to me.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Barnabas was also called an apostle.

Yes. See also my post directly above yours. Thank you.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Y

I don't know which translation you use, but my Bible says this -
Ephesians 4:8 Therefore it says,

“When He ascended on high,
He led captive a host of captives,
And He gave gifts to men.”

9 (Now this expression, “He ascended,” what does it mean except that He also had descended into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He who descended is Himself also He who ascended far above all the heavens, so that He might fill all things.) 11 And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ;

This sure sounds like gifts to me.

Yep. I have to concede that the ministry of apostle is a gift to the Church. But it is not a gift given to the man.

As a point of interest: Name me one person who claims an apostleship ministry today who is fully accepted by EVERY church of every denomination in the world day. Unless he meets that criteria, he cannot be a New Testament Acts apostle.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Y

Yep. I have to concede that the ministry of apostle is a gift to the Church. But it is not a gift given to the man.

As a point of interest: Name me one person who claims an apostleship ministry today who is fully accepted by EVERY church of every denomination in the world day. Unless he meets that criteria, he cannot be a New Testament Acts apostle.

I quite agree with you with the possible exception of an alternative definition of apostle. Interestingly, among the gifts to the church there seems, to most Christians at least, to be one missing. That is, the missionary or church-planter. We have teachers and pastors and evangelists, which are all to be highly valued, but nobody who plants the church.

That is, unless one looks at the root meaning of apostle, which is a person sent out, with a purpose in view. Thus, in Hebrews 3:1 Jesus Christ is described as the Apostle and High Priest of our profession. Obviously, Jesus Christ was no ordinary Apostle, being over the Twelve. In what sense, then, was He an Apostle? In the sense, I believe, that He was sent from the Father to become the perfect sacrifice and high priest through His death and resurrection.

So, we now have two variant understandings of what an apostle is. How is it then, that apostles are listed among the gifts of prophets, pastors, teachers, and deacons in Ephesians 4 if, in fact, all except apostles and perhaps prophets (depending on one's view of prophecy) have long-since died off?

The fact, as you correctly point out, that nobody can rightly claim a place among the Twelve Apostles since they died is quite true. That then means that either some spiritual gifts have ceased, but not all, or that our understanding is flawed.

I find no difficulty in viewing apostles as being missionaries or church planters - a very necessary ministry. What do you think?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I quite agree with you with the possible exception of an alternative definition of apostle. Interestingly, among the gifts to the church there seems, to most Christians at least, to be one missing. That is, the missionary or church-planter. We have teachers and pastors and evangelists, which are all to be highly valued, but nobody who plants the church.

That is, unless one looks at the root meaning of apostle, which is a person sent out, with a purpose in view. Thus, in Hebrews 3:1 Jesus Christ is described as the Apostle and High Priest of our profession. Obviously, Jesus Christ was no ordinary Apostle, being over the Twelve. In what sense, then, was He an Apostle? In the sense, I believe, that He was sent from the Father to become the perfect sacrifice and high priest through His death and resurrection.

So, we now have two variant understandings of what an apostle is. How is it then, that apostles are listed among the gifts of prophets, pastors, teachers, and deacons in Ephesians 4 if, in fact, all except apostles and perhaps prophets (depending on one's view of prophecy) have long-since died off?

The fact, as you correctly point out, that nobody can rightly claim a place among the Twelve Apostles since they died is quite true. That then means that either some spiritual gifts have ceased, but not all, or that our understanding is flawed.

I find no difficulty in viewing apostles as being missionaries or church planters - a very necessary ministry. What do you think?

What I see in Acts, are the 12 Apostles that were appointed directly by Jesus. Matthias wasn't one of those. He was appointed by the eleven. But Paul had a personal encounter with the risen Jesus and so his Apostleship was divinely appointed and confirmed at Antioch.

But there were other apostles mentioned in Acts, Barnabas the most well known one. These fitted the criteria because they were sent out by The Holy Spirit. They did not have the same status as the 12 Apostles, who were appointed as the pioneers who were to set the standard for the Church. The apostles who were given to the church, besides the 12, were able to perform their role because the Church was one unified Church at that time, and as long as the Church was like that, there is every reason why we should accept that the apostleship role continued for the rest of the First Century.

However, when the regional Bishops started to take overall control of the Church (and incidentally they were not appointed by The Holy Spirit to take over that controlling role) the Holy Ghost apostles were hindered in their role because their acceptance dependent on the acceptance of every single church, and if the regional Bishop didn't accept an apostle, the role failed. As the Church evolved into the central authority taken over by the Bishop of Rome, the role of apostle ceased because the criteria could no longer be met. By that time, The Holy Spirit was no longer the guiding factor in the Church and therefore no more Holy Ghost apostles emerged.

It was the role of the Apostles first to be church planters while they were still alive and in ministry, and then it was the other apostles' role if other churches needed to be planted. But in the time of Gregory The Wonderworker, when he went and exercised power over the demon in the statue of a god in the pagan temple and all the pagans in the region came to Christ, he planted the church there and became its first Bishop.

These days, church planters are merely those who plant churches of their own denominations. All they do is to set up another structural church to progress the influence of their denomination.

 

[Biblicist]

Well, actually:

Romans 1:11: I long to see you so that I may impart to you some spiritual gift (χάρισμα πνευματικὸν) to make you strong

Quite often when I make the statement that Paul never uses a Greek word for our English term 'spiritual gift' I will make reference to Rom 1:11 as being about as close as he gets. The problem here is that he has used two words and this word combination cannot be used for the 9 Manifestations of the Holy Spirit (1Cor 12:7-11) as Paul cannot impart these Operations of the Spirit to anyone as the Holy Spirit is the agent and not Paul.

 

[Biblicist]

Are you agreeing then that the gift of the Holy Spirit of interpretation of tongues is no longer in action and is now only through the flesh? If so, then leave your post the way it is. If not, you need to add an addendum. Personally, I believe all the gifts of the Holy Spirit are active.

Let's be very clear on this point, the two Manifestations of the Holy Spirit, being those of tongues and interpretation are certainly active in today's church.

For that matter, I am of the opinion that any congregation that does not allow (and encourage) people to provide a word of praise to the Father in tongues and that the same person or another provides an interpretation of what the Spirit was saying is doing themselves a great disservice.

My point was that the Holy Spirit does not speak to the congregation in tongues but always to the Father, so any interpretation that appears to be directed to the congregation or an individual is of the flesh.

 

[Biblicist]

False prophecy is harmless? You must be joking. God hates false prophecy, whether it is delivered "with the best of intensions" or not.

Did I mention 'prophecy'? In fact I very carefully chose the term 'words of encouragement' which are not words of prophecy.

 

[Biblicist]

Every time the word 'apostle' is used in the New Testament it is referring to an apostle of Christ. Can you show me one example in scripture where a common church planter is called an apostle?

The first question that we should ask is where in the Scriptures do we find the role of the missionary and particularly with those missionaries that are directly involved within church planting - and of course we do not.

As for those who were appointed to be Apostles-of-Christ, being the Twelve plus Paul, their appointment, which was unique and never to be repeated, was just that, an appointment that Christ himself gave to each of them; there is no Manifestation of the Spirit (aka, spiritual gifting) of an apostle, be it an Apostle-of-Christ or a local individual who has been sent out (commissioned) by their local congregation to establish a new church plant somewhere.

A good example of a local apostle is with Barnabas who was used to support the church planting endeavours of the early Church. Now Barnabas certainly did not carry the authority and prestige that Paul and the Twelve had due to their having been commissioned by Christ, but he (and others) were sent out with a degree of limited authority which was put in place not by Christ but by an Apostle such as Paul. The same goes for many missionaries (apostles) who have been commissioned by either their local congregation or missions organisation where they have been given a limited commission to undertake a specific task, where their commissioning and authority is limited to one specific region/task.

Most importantly, what people fail to realise is that the Greek words that are associated with who we refer to as missionaries have a complicated relationship when moved from the Greek to English, which are;

• ἀποστέλλω, apostello [to send out]
• πέμπω, pempo) [to send]
• ἐξαποστέλλω, exapostello [to send out]
• ἀπόστολος, apostolos [apostle]
• ψευδαπόστολος, pseudapostolos [false apostle]
• ἀποστολή, apostole [apostleship].

These words were in regular use in Paul's day, so there is nothing spiritual about these words and all that I can suggest is that those who want to take the subject of the differences between an Apostle-of-Christ and an ordinary everyday apostle will need to go to a good dictionary such as the TDNT.

No he doesn't. Paul's first epistle is addressed to the Corinthians only. 1 Cor 1:2 "To the church of God which is at Corinth,". It is not addressed to anyone else. If it was addressed to all churches worldwide it would mean all churches everywhere were guilty of abuse of the Lord's table, sexual immorality, creating divisive factions, taking fellow believers to court, opposing Paul's authority, etc. etc.

Having read this very strange paragraph, it now allows me to rightfully ask you, "Have you ever been in a church?"

Are you trying to tell us that the churches/congregations down through the ages have been both pure in thought and practice - maybe you need to get out a bit more!

That is not an answer to my question. I asked you to show me a single commentary that claims 1 Cor 1:7-8 is saying all spiritual gifts would continue throughout the church age until the Lord's return? You responded by quoting commentaries on a completely different verse!

All those quotations are on commentaries of 1 Cor 1:2 and even then none of them agree with your interpretation of that verse. Not one of them says Paul's letter is addressed to the worldwide church. I wonder, do you actually read your commentaries before your post them? This is not the first time that the material you've posted actually disproves your argument.

Hodge agrees with me. It is not the worldwide church.

Edwards doesn't say the letter is addressed to the worldwide church. He says Paul "connects" the Corinthians with the worldwide church.

Goudge agrees with me. It is not the worldwide church.

Robertson & Plummer agrees with me. It is not the worldwide church.

MacRory agrees with me. It is not the worldwide church.

Moffat. You have completely misrepresented him. Moffat is not referring to the addressee, but to those whom Paul "associates with" the Corinthians - read the previous sentence which you omitted.

Grosheid agrees with me, not you. Can't you read?

"2 Church is used by Paul of the local congregation as in Gal. 1:2: the churches of Galatia, but also in the sense of the universal church.4 Here the first usage is clearly intended"
"The addition with all that call upon etc. cannot be an enlargement of the address, as our epistle, unlike the general epistles, is clearly sent to one congregation. "​

Morris agrees with me. It is not the worldwide church.

Walter does not seem to be referring to the addressee. I cannot find any trace of a commentary on 1 Corinthians by someone called 'Walter' to check. Please provide further details of that book.

Conzelmann doesn't say the addressee is the worldwide church. He is giving word study on the word Εκκλησία.

Baird is not referring to the addressee here.

Kistemaker agrees with me. It is not the worldwide church.

Soards does not say the letter is addressed to the worldwide church.

Garland makes it absolutely clear the letter is addressed only to the Corinthians, not all Christians:

"The phrase συν πάσιν (syn pasin) is not to be taken with τη εκκλησία του θεού (te ekklesia tou theou), as if Paul were addressing all Christians along with the Corinthians"​

Fitzmyer also makes it clear it is only addressed to the Corinthians:

"Is it meant to express a secondary set of addressees? Hardly, because Paul does not use kai, “and” (to all those), but rather syn, “(together) with” or “in company with,” so that he merely is associating his addressees with other Christians and reminding them of their solidarity with the others. ​

Ciampa & Rosner do not say the addressee is extended to the worldwide church. Read it carefully. It says the Corinthians were called to be saints together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

This was a very disappointing reply on your part.

As you asked a question that I did not know the answer to, other with only reading a few commentaries over the years on 1 Cor 1:2, 7, I was therefore more than just a little interested with finding out what they had to say.

I even opened with Hodge (1856) who I said in my summary did not agree with me, but I pointed out that Hodge himself disagreed with his peers, which is something that you failed to pick up, or maybe you simply chose to ignore it. Then you rambled on without taking note of my brief summaries where most did not agree with me but some certainly did.

As you post was, as I said, very disappointing and certainly immature on your part I will leave any further comment aside.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Let's be very clear on this point, the two Manifestations of the Holy Spirit, being those of tongues and interpretation are certainly active in today's church.

For that matter, I am of the opinion that any congregation that does not allow (and encourage) people to provide a word of praise to the Father in tongues and that the same person or another provides an interpretation of what the Spirit was saying is doing themselves a great disservice.

My point was that the Holy Spirit does not speak to the congregation in tongues but always to the Father, so any interpretation that appears to be directed to the congregation or an individual is of the flesh.

Okay, that is much clearer. Now I see what you are saying, thanks.

I will have to disagree though. Yes, the sign of tongues is our prayer and praise language of Mark 16. However, the gift of diverse kinds of tongues of 1 Corinthians 12 we find is another type of tongues that REQUIRES interpretation. Verses 5-6 shows what those interpretations can be.

5 I wish you all spoke with tongues, but even more that you prophesied; for he who prophesies is greater than he who speaks with tongues, UNLESS indeed he interprets, that the church may receive edification.

6 But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you UNLESS I speak to you either by revelation, by knowledge, by prophesying, or by teaching?

The context of both these conjoining verses is about tongues and interpretation. This is a parallelism - one of the Hebrew styles of writing. The second verse in the parallel illuminates the first.

You may disagree, and that's okay, because granted it is difficult to see unless you are acquainted with Semitic writing styles, and their purpose.

I see 1 Corinthians 14:2 and 22 as the sign of tongues. Because it does not require interpretation, if unbelievers or the uninformed come in and all are praising God in tongues, they will think you are crazy. It is a NEGATIVE sign to an unbeliever, confirming them in their unbelief. It is the interpretation that will convict them. I also believe that Paul is using the word "prophecy" sometimes instead of the word "interpretation" but is the same. The whole chapter is about the difference and comparison of tongues alone, and tongues with interpretation. The first is our prayer language and edifies only ourselves; the other edifies the congregation.

This is not to say that our prayer language cannot be interpreted. It can by the same gift of interpretation of tongues, but it is just not required. However, even with someone gifted with interpretation of tongues present, the interpretation is not always revealed to them in regards to our prayer language - only the gift of diverse kinds of tongues.

The gift of diverse kinds of tongues is limited to 2 or 3, with 1 interpreting. The sign of tongues as praise can be like a choir, as long as it is first explained to the uninformed. Especially today, as tongues is generally heard about. So as a choir the whole congregation can lift of holy praise in song. Singing in the Spirit. This happened on the Day of Pentecost where 120 were praising God together, however as we have debated, some of the devout Jews heard the interpretation and were amazed.

The confusion and misjudging comes when one believes there is only one type of tongues. But there are two. Mark 16:17 is prayer and praise language, unlimited, and does not always need interpretation. 1 Corinthian 12 is God's messages to US which must always be supernaturally interpreted and are limited to 2-3.

 

[Biblicist]

What I see in Acts, are the 12 Apostles that were appointed directly by Jesus. Matthias wasn't one of those. He was appointed by the eleven. But Paul had a personal encounter with the risen Jesus and so his Apostleship was divinely appointed and confirmed at Antioch.

With the appointment of Matthias as the replacement for Judas, Matthias was not appointed by the Eleven but by Jesus which can be seen in the following passage:

(Act 1:24-26 NASB) And they prayed and said, "You, Lord, who know the hearts of all men, show which one of these two You have chosen to occupy this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place." And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles.
​

Luke leaves us with no doubt that once Peter had announced the need to replace Judas that the appointment of Matthias as an Apostle-of-Christ was given through the authority of Jesus himself. From what can be understood by the 'casting of lots', this was a time treasured method by the Jews where they would cast a lot (probably similar to a dice?) and how it fell would be under the control of Christ himself. It is interesting that Jesus did not choose to have someone prophesy over Matthias, which probably could be questioned whereas casting of lots would leave no doubt in the mind of the 120 who were present that Christ's will had been revealed to them.

 

[Biblicist]

Okay, that is much clearer. Now I see what you are saying, thanks.

I will have to disagree though. . .

That's okay, we can easily agree to disagree but at least we understand the others position.

. . . Yes, the sign of tongues is our prayer and praise language of Mark 16. However, the gift of diverse kinds of tongues of 1 Cor. 12 is the other type of tongues that REQUIRES interpretation. Verses 5-6 shows what those interpretations can be.

5 I wish you all spoke with tongues, but even more that you prophesied; for he who prophesies is greater than he who speaks with tongues, UNLESS indeed he interprets, that the church may receive edification.

6 But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you UNLESS I speak to you either by revelation, by knowledge, by prophesying, or by teaching?

The context of both these conjoining verses is about tongues and interpretation. This is a parallelism - one of the Hebrew styles of writing. The second verse in the parallel illuminates the first.

Have you had the opportunity to notice that I never use the term 'sign of tongues'; in fact I do not go to the new forum under this same name as the term irks me beyond belief. I find that the term gives the impression that tongues were intended to be a sign and incorrectly a sign to the Jews, which comes from the faulty reasoning of cessationism - but that's just me I suppose.

The word edification in verse 6 is where we Pentecostals went astray with tongues in that we (including myself for many years) presumed that the Greek word oikodome was referring to how tongues could be used to teach, instruct, give comfort or a prophecy to the congregation, but this is not what the verse is saying nor does it provide even the slightest hint that it means this.

All that Paul is saying is that when someone speaks a word of praise to the Father (tongues) in the congregational setting that each tongue must be interpreted so that the others can be edified by knowing approximately what the Spirit was saying to the Father.

 

[Biblicist]

I don't know which translation you use, but my Bible says this -
Ephesians 4:8 Therefore it says,

“When He ascended on high,
He led captive a host of captives,
And He gave gifts to men.”

9 (Now this expression, “He ascended,” what does it mean except that He also had descended into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He who descended is Himself also He who ascended far above all the heavens, so that He might fill all things.) 11 And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ;

This sure sounds like gifts to me.

This comes back to what we each mean with our understanding of what is a "spiritual gift", which as I have said certainly becomes complicated as Paul never uses this term. With Eph 4:8 there is a problem with comparing say the 9 Manifestations of the Spirit (1Cor 12:7-11) with these five roles as Paul uses the Greek word δόματα domata in Ephesians which refers more to a physical present and not to that of a spiritual-grace.

The commentators often rightfully point out (which I think you may have earlier on as well) that Paul is not so much referring to each of the five roles but more to the people who undertake these roles, where the presents are those people who Jesus has left upon this earth until he returns.

 

[1stcenturylady]

That's okay, we can easily agree to disagree but at least we understand the others position.


Have you had the opportunity to notice that I never use the term 'sign of tongues'; in fact I do not go to the new forum under this same name as the term irks me beyond belief. I find that the term gives the impression that tongues were intended to be a sign and incorrectly a sign to the Jews, which comes from the faulty reasoning of cessationism - but that's just me I suppose.

The word edification in verse 6 is where we Pentecostals went astray with tongues in that we (including myself for many years) presumed that the Greek word oikodome was referring to how tongues could be used to teach, instruct, give comfort or a prophecy to the congregation, but this is not what the verse is saying nor does it provide even the slightest hint that it means this.

All that Paul is saying is that when someone speaks a word of praise to the Father (tongues) in the congregational setting that each tongue must be interpreted so that the others can be edified by knowing approximately what the Spirit was saying to the Father.

I just finished that post, so there are additions you didn't see that already addresses some of your comments.

 

[Biblicist]

I just finished that post, so there are additions you didn't see.

Yes, I have been there and done that a few times myself! So I will reply to that material in the next post.