Is Speaking In Tongues Biblical Today?

[Major1]

The commentaries on First Corinthians by Compton; Houghton; Woods; Dean; Butler; Applebury; Lipscomb; Coffman were a bit of a surprise as I had not come across their material within the various colleges here in Melbourne. I did not find them within my EndNote database which currently incorporates over 30,000 NT entries, so they are a good find, thankyou.

One of the troubles I have had is trying to discover how well known the various commentators were within their own time periods, where some were certainly well known even today, but some seem to have very little exposure with their material.

Berquist seems to adhere to the maturity view, though I need to obtain a better copy of his work to be sure that I am reading him correctly.

I had already included McGarvey (1916) and he was the one that I referred to as preceding Warfield (1918).

Shedd; Smeaton and a few others are within my database but by name and title only.

I have Rickaby’s commentary (1898) but he is certainly an enigma in that he seems to want to play his position two ways and as such I am still trying to figure out how to classify him.

Thanks again!

I really appreciate your work and endeavors to obtain the commentaries of others and to let us all know how hard you are doing it.

I just want you to know that a lot of people here have read a lot of material as well and some of us actually accept what we read in the Bible and allow the Holy Spirit to enlighten us.

Please understand that I completely understand why so many people use commentaries.
I have done the same thing and still do today. The reach involved allow us to grow and learn more. I guess what I am saying is that when we become more concerned with the works of commentators we can miss out on the excitement and opportunity to visit with the Master of all commentators, the author of the Bible itself.

 

[Major1]

It was a reply to 1stcenturylady.

I am sorry and I did not mean to interject myself. I just did not know if it was directed to someone or to all of us.

 

[Major1]

Major, I'm just curious about your stand on prophecy. Certainly there is no more new revelation, but that wasn't the only function of prophets throughout the Bible. They were also preachers of the revealed word of God, and in 1 Cor. 12-14 it appears to me that it was also for encouragement and exhortation of the church. It doesn't have to be new revelation, so I'd just like to know if you think that the gift of prophecy is (in some way) still in operation?

I say this because I'm reminded of John Huss when he was about to be burned at the stake in the 14th Century, he said to the presiding bishop: "You may burn this goose, but after me will come a swan that you will not be able to silence." 150 years later, Martin Luther was regarded as the "swan" who fulfilled that prophecy, and is still regarded so today in Germany.

And just wondering if you think that was a prophecy, or just a "lucky guess." (don't get me being hostile here, I'm not).
TD

Thank you for asking me such a thoughtful question and also the way in which you asked it.

If more of the members here would do what you just did there would be a lot less contention and conflict.

First of all please understand that I am not an authority in any way. I am just an old country boy from the Promised land who God has blessed with a long life of blessing the Lord.

IMO, the Greek word translated “prophesying” or “prophecy” is properly understood in the New. Test. to mean -- “speak forth” or declare the divine will, to interpret the purposes of God, or to make known in any way the truth of God which is designed to influence people.

Or in other words.....TEACH!

Many people misunderstand the gift of prophecy to be the ability to predict the future anWhile knowing something about the future may sometimes have been an aspect of the gift of prophecy, it was primarily a gift of proclamation (“forth-telling”), not prediction (“fore-telling”).

Now was the appearance of Luther a fulfillment of prophecy or a lucky guess?

I do not know. My thinking is that it could also be a statement which the Holy Spirit moved John Huss to say, him knowing that what he was saying could not be withheld from society and it had to come out at sometime.

 

[Major1]

you mean "continuationism"?
TD

Yes. Thank you.

 

[Major1]

I spent 20 years in Pentecostal and Charismatic churches, so I don't need an education about what they teach there. Would you please answer my questions clearly?

1. When you say "mimic" do you mean consciously or unconsciously? Is the person who mimics tongues doing it purposely and consciously?

2. Can a person unconsciously (without trying) mimic tongues (without knowing they are)?
TD

Who is this addressed to my brother?

 

[tdidymas]

Who is this addressed to my brother?

I always "reply". You have 1stcenturylady on ignore, so you can't see her post, and probably the quote part of my post. If you can't see who I replied to, it's probably her.
TD

 

[Major1]

If the gifts died with the apostles, why did Paul tell the believers in Corinth to desire the gifts? Was he playing a cruel joke on them?

Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 14:23: ..........
“Therefore if the whole church comes together in one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those who are uninformed or unbelievers, will they not say that you are out of your mind?”

The real problem is and always has been that it has bcome acceptable in light of wickedness and abuses of what takes place today in what we call "Spiritual Gifts".

In churches just as in business and work places and in fact all of society, the
fakers and counterfeiters have been confused with the genuine spiritual gifts at work. In other words, the few have messed up things for the others.

From my upbringing in the Pentecostal denomination, it was always a "spiritual contest" of who was the best in speaking in tongues.
If Sally did it then Bob had to do it because he was just as spiritual as she was and it was NEVER EVER done Biblically where the tongues were interpreted and no more than two spoke at one time.

In all my travels and services and encounters I have only seen "tongues" spoken ONCE which matched Bible directions.

In Uganda Africa, we had been working to build a covered school. We stopped in mid day because of the heat. A local man there was asked to pray and so he did. He prayed in what I assumed was his native African tongue, but after about 10 seconds another man stood up and began to interpret what was being prayed as we did not understand him.

This second man was speaking in English to us and when the prayer ended I asked how he had understood the words said and was the man speaking in tongues???
He said, easy. The man was NOT speaking in tongues or African tongue but was instead speaking in Portuguese and he was in fact from the country of Portugal.

If you recall, in Acts 8:20 Peter reacted to Simon the sorcerer who was a fake believer who wanted the gifts manifested in him as it did with others and offered money to Peter to purchase this power.

Peter said to him...........
"Your money perish with you, because you thought that the gift of God could be purchased with money!"

 

[Major1]

I always "reply". You have 1stcenturylady on ignore, so you can't see her post, and probably the quote part of my post. If you can't see who I replied to, it's probably her.
TD

I am very sorry! Thank you.

 

[tdidymas]

I didn't agree with #2 so have no comment, that is why I said #1.

I wasn't asking you to agree with #2, it merely required a "yes", "no", or "don't know". So then, I take it by your response here that your answer is "no" to question #2, unless your answer is really "don't know." So, do you firmly not believe, or do you simply not know - can a person unknowingly mimic tongues?
()No, they cannot
()I don't know
TD

 

[pescador]

Now lets be clear here my dear friend. What you described is EXACTLY what I have said many times here so there is no need to feel sorry for me. I have seen and been present when God has done exactly the same thing you have described.

Please understand that GOD HEALS and He does it the way He said it had to be done, NOT THE WAY WE WANT HIM TO DO IT.

James 5:13 says..........
"Is any among you afflicted? let him pray. Is any merry? let him sing psalms. Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the LORD: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the LORD shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him."

Isn't that what you just described that happened to you?
Did the pastor hit you on the head?
Did he blow the Holy Spirit onto you?
Did he ask you for a love offering?

Now that is God's method. The way men do it today by meeting in a football arena, advertising for months about an event, taking up an offering and then knocking people down or blowing on them is IMO nonsense.

Since what you described is what I said I am wondering why you are arguing with me on such an obvious subject, but IF you choose to accept that kind of example to place your faith in then please go right ahead and do so.

So your limiting God? Where does it say that God can heal only in a certain place, at a certain time, through certain people? It's not possible, even for God, to heal at an advertised event in front of a large crowd of people after an offering has been given? Tell us then, exactly when, where, and how God is so limited.

 

[Major1]

So your limiting God? Where does it say that God can heal only in a certain place, at a certain time, through certain people? It's not possible, even for God, to heal at an advertised event in front of a large crowd of people after an offering has been given? Tell us then, exactly when, where, and how God is so limited.

NO one is limiting God.

As for WHO can heal I recommend that you read Mark 16:14-17 and you will see that Jesus gave that ability to His apostles.

There are NO apostles today so that is not the case.

I am talking about GOD healing and YOU are talking about a MAN healing. YOU my friend are "Rationalizing" what YOU want to see take place.

Do you in your wildest dreams believe that a MAN who could heal would be in an auditorium with 5ooo people instead of the local hospital???????

Is that what you believe because that is exactly what you are supporting.

 

[Major1]

I wasn't asking you to agree with #2, it merely required a "yes", "no", or "don't know". So then, I take it by your response here that your answer is "no" to question #2, unless your answer is really "don't know." So, do you firmly not believe, or do you simply not know - can a person unknowingly mimic tongues?
()No, they cannot
()I don't know
TD

NO.

 

[1stcenturylady]

To say that you have caught my attention would be an understatement!

Of the 50 or so commentaries that I have from 1801-1900, the earlierst definitive reference that I have found to the Canon theory was by Jamieson (1872). . . . okay . . . . I'm waiting for a reply . . . . . I'm still waiting!!!

I also have the hard copy of Jamieson, Fausset and Brown. Thank you for the date. It's so old it doesn't have copyright info.

 

[tdidymas]

NO.

Again, I'm asking 1stcenturylady. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
TD

 

[pescador]

NO one is limiting God.

As for WHO can heal I recommend that you read Mark 16:14-17 and you will see that Jesus gave that ability to His apostles.

There are NO apostles today so that is not the case.

I am talking about GOD healing and YOU are talking about a MAN healing. YOU my friend are "Rationalizing" what YOU want to see take place.

Do you in your wildest dreams believe that a MAN who could heal would be in an auditorium with 5ooo people instead of the local hospital???????

Is that what you believe because that is exactly what you are supporting.

You're actually using the disputed "long ending" of Mark to prove a point? Seriously?

Even if you are you have misread it. Here is what it says... "The one who believes and is baptized will be saved, but the one who does not believe will be condemned. These signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new languages; they will pick up snakes with their hands, and whatever poison they drink will not harm them; they will place their hands on the sick and they will be well.” This is definitely not limited to the apostles; it applies to all believers! So you are contradicting your own premise.

If you really think that a man is doing supernatural healing, not God, you are in serious trouble. No person can perform supernatural healing, s/he must be an instrument of God.

1) Try letting go of your unbelief and 2) don't use the long ending of Mark among serious believers or you will be laughed at.

 

[1stcenturylady]

I wasn't asking you to agree with #2, it merely required a "yes", "no", or "don't know". So then, I take it by your response here that your answer is "no" to question #2, unless your answer is really "don't know." So, do you firmly not believe, or do you simply not know - can a person unknowingly mimic tongues?
()No, they cannot
()I don't know
TD

No

 

[Major1]

You're actually using the disputed "long ending" of Mark to prove a point? Seriously?

Even if you are you have misread it. Here is what it says... "The one who believes and is baptized will be saved, but the one who does not believe will be condemned. These signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new languages; they will pick up snakes with their hands, and whatever poison they drink will not harm them; they will place their hands on the sick and they will be well.” This is definitely not limited to the apostles; it applies to all believers! So you are contradicting your own premise.

If you really think that a man is doing supernatural healing, not God, you are in serious trouble. No person can perform supernatural healing, s/he must be an instrument of God.

1) Try letting go of your unbelief and 2) don't use the long ending of Mark among serious believers or you will be laughed at.

Then use Matthew 28:16-17............
"Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had appointed for them. When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some doubted.
And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. "

The point I was making is that Jesus spoke to the ELEVEN and gave THEM "sign gifts".

The reason I used Mark was that it is the only option available to you as a Pentecostal to try and validate tongues, and miracles and so on.
But of course if you believe that then you will also have to raise the dead and drink poison and kiss rattlesnakes. Is that why you reject Mark 16:9 and following as they are a package gift?

And YOU are incorrect my friend. THEM tat believe is in fact the ELEVEN who He is talking to.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible
And these signs - These miracles. These evidences that they are sent from God.

"Them that believe - The apostles".


Coffman's Commentaries on the Bible
"These signs shall accompany ... "
The word "accompany" here is significant, meaning to "go along with one on a journey," the journey in view here being the travels of the apostles in the carrying out of the great commission just spoken. There was nothing in the use of this word to be construed as an endowment of permanent settlers not going anywhere, and provided merely for their benefit and comfort.

"Them that believe ...
"The antecedent of "them" is "the eleven themselves" (Mark 16:14); and the only way this can be avoided is to change the singular pronouns in Mark 16:15-16 into plural pronouns contrary to the Greek text. There is nothing difficult in this interpretation, since it is simply basic English.******


John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible

And these signs shall follow them that believe,....
Not all of them, but some; and not always, only for a time; and which were necessary for the confirmation of the Gospel, and the establishment of Christianity in the world.


People's New Testament
These signs shall follow them that believe. It is generally held that this is a promise limited to the apostolic age and to a few of the disciples of that age.


Thomas Coke Commentary on the Holy Bible
Mark 16:17. These signs shall follow, &c.— It is very evident, that the word believe, in this place, must signify something different from that faith which in the preceding verse is required as indispensably necessary to salvation, namely, that faith of miracles whereof we spoke on Matthew 17:20. Besides his promise of his perpetual presence and succours, Matthew 28:20 our Lord here assures his disciples, that through the faith of him they should work most astonishing miracles, which he here particularizes; a circumstance, which not only contributed greatly, but was highly necessary, to the propagation of the gospel, while at the same time the performance of it is an irrefragable proof of the truth of Christianity. That the signs here specified were rendered illustrious in the days of the apostles, appears sufficiently from the book of the Acts, and the several epistles.

You are of course free to ignore all of those Bible scholars and beilve as you wish.

And please do not worry about me being laughed at. Deep down I think you just said that to be "cute" but non the less, please know that I have been laughed at by experts so you doing it is no problem for me.

 

[Major1]

Again, I'm asking 1stcenturylady. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
TD

Please forgive me.............again!

 

[tdidymas]

No

Ok, so then, a person I know of spoke in 'tongues' as you do, as sincerely as you do, without any intention of mimicking anyone, and then later became convinced that it was not of God, and now attends a different denomination. Do you firmly believe that person has blasphemed the Holy Spirit, and is now bound for hell?
TD

 

[1stcenturylady]

Ok, so then, a person I know of spoke in 'tongues' as you do, as sincerely as you do, without any intention of mimicking anyone, and then later became convinced that it was not of God, and now attends a different denomination. Do you firmly believe that person has blasphemed the Holy Spirit, and is now bound for hell?
TD

Was she ever filled with the Spirit? And I don't mean "by faith," I mean felt the baptism from the top of her head to the bottom of her feet, and her desire to sin vanished overnight?