Cessationism: Tongues, Prophecy, and the Gift of Miracles Have Ceased.

[1stcenturylady]

Show me the Scripture for a private prayer language in an unknown tongue. I say it doesn’t exist clearly in Scripture. Inferences are made on select verses when it could also be read from the perspective of real foreign languages. In fact, this would be the preferred interpretation seeing that a private prayer language is not described clearly in God’s Word. Thus, a private prayer language becomes something extra biblical.

1 Corinthians 14:2 says that tongues is this:

“For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.” (1 Corinthians 14:2).

Yes, there was also an answer from God in tongues.

“In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.” (1 Corinthians 14:21).

But it was interpreted; Otherwise they were to keep silent (1 Corinthians 14:28).

It looks like you are mixing the two types of tongues again. If you never understand that there are two, you will never be able to distinguish the correct interpretation.

I do have a question that has me wondering... Why are you so determined to point out that tongues are actual languages. I'm not disagreeing, but does it have to do with believing people can naturally understand the language? Is that why you discount angelic tongues too? If the language could be understood naturally, which you've already confirmed the Acts 2 account was supernaturally, what difference does it make what language it is if God is the one that it is to?

Next question, are you saying speaking in tongues is NOT for prayer, but, perhaps for preaching to foreigners? I'm not sure why you are questioning "prayer language." Or am I wrong and you know the one from Mark 16:17 is for prayer???

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Another problem with cessationism is that lot of the bible gets obsolete, here he says: i wish all of you spoke in tongues. Other people just think the church of the first century have the same rules as today.

Someone can say the same thing involving the animal sacrifices. For Jesus endorsed animal sacrifices in Matthew 5:24. That does not mean animal sacrifices are in effect today for New Covenant believers.

The miraculous gifts served a purpose. This purpose was to confirm the word (Mark 16:20) (Also see Hebrews 2:3-4). The Ephesians were told that they were built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets (Ephesians 2:20). This means that they were not the foundation or that they were the apostles or prophets.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Someone can say the same thing involving the animal sacrifices. For Jesus endorsed animal sacrifices in Matthew 5:24. That does not mean animal sacrifices are in effect today for New Covenant believers.

Your repeating this after I already explained that animal sacrifices were from the first COVENANT that was fulfilled, making animal sacrifice now obsolete. Maybe I'm writing in vain if you don't read my responses. As I recall, you never responded to it. What you don't understand is the gifts are part of the NEW COVENANT which has not ended, so neither have the gifts of the Spirit that are included in our COVENANT. So he's right; you are trying to make part of the New Covenant obsolte.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

It looks like you are mixing the two types of tongues again. If you never understand that there are two, you will never be able to distinguish the correct interpretation.

I do have a question that has me wondering... Why are you so determined to point out that tongues are actual languages. I'm not disagreeing, but does it have to do with believing people can naturally understand the language? Is that why you discount angelic tongues too? If the language could be understood naturally, which you've already confirmed the Acts 2 account was supernaturally, what difference does it make what language it is if God is the one that it is to?

Next question, are you saying speaking in tongues is NOT for prayer, but, perhaps for preaching to foreigners? I'm not sure why you are questioning "prayer language." Or am I wrong and you know the one from Mark 16:17 is for prayer???

This “new tongues” in Mark 16:17 were new foreign languages (of which we get to see at Pentecost).

 

[1stcenturylady]

This “new tongues” in Mark 16:17 was a new foreign language (of which we get to see at Pentecost).

Are you going to answer my questions, or is that all I'm going to get? For what purpose? Prayer or preaching? I want to make sure I understand your beliefs.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Are you going to answer my questions, or is that all I'm going to get? For what purpose? Prayer or preaching? I want to make sure I understand your beliefs.

Been busy. So I can only give quick replies to certain parts of a post I had time to reply to.

 

[NBB]

Here another scripture that teaches about receiving the filling of the Holy spirit, i found it in another thread:

Acts 8:12-17 New International Version (NIV)
12 But when they believed Philip as he proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized,both men and women. 13 Simon himself believed and was baptized. And he followed Philip everywhere, astonished by the great signs and miracles he saw.

14 When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to Samaria. 15 When they arrived, they prayed for the new believers there that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16 because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.17 Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

As you can clearly see, you can be a new believer and be baptized, and yet not have received the Holy spirit, and something needs to be done probably to receive it, here is refering to being filled or baptism of the Holy spirit.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Are you going to answer my questions, or is that all I'm going to get? For what purpose? Prayer or preaching? I want to make sure I understand your beliefs.

Post #708 describes what I believe how the one and only form of tongues work (with the exception of Pentecost).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Here another scripture that teaches about receiving the filling of the Holy spirit, i found it in another thread:

Acts 8:12-17 New International Version (NIV)
12 But when they believed Philip as he proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized,both men and women. 13 Simon himself believed and was baptized. And he followed Philip everywhere, astonished by the great signs and miracles he saw.

14 When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to Samaria. 15 When they arrived, they prayed for the new believers there that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16 because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.17 Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

As you can clearly see, you can be a new believer and be baptized, and yet not have received the Holy spirit, and something needs to be done probably to receive it, here is refering to being filled or baptism of the Holy spirit.

This was one out of two exceptions to the rule within the Bible because Simon the sorcerer’s heart was not right with God. He needed to be exposed.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Been busy. So I can only give quick replies to certain parts of a post I had time to reply to.

But your response wasn't in answer to either of my questions, and, in fact, makes me even more confused as to what you believe. I just want to be sure I understand. I'm just going to get off here for tonight. Hope you find the time to answer in full. Good night.

 

[Saint Steven]

This was one out of two exceptions to the rule within the Bible because Simon the sorcerer’s heart was not right with God. He needed to be exposed.

Two exceptions to the rule?
Maybe "the rule" should be questioned instead of the exceptions.

 

[NBB]

This was one out of two exceptions to the rule within the Bible because Simon the sorcerer’s heart was not right with God. He needed to be exposed.

Hey the bible is clear here, they were believers, they had been baptized and they received the Holy spirit by apostles putting hands on them, this is very clear, that Simon was bad is another thing altogether. It says they received the Holy spirit here, they RECEIVED IT.

 

[NBB]

@Jason0047
8 When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money 19 and said, “Give me also this ability so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.”

Simon has nothing to do with that they received the Holy spirit, he offered money to receive like this which is a wicked thing to do, but God didn't change his way of doing things because of him. Very poor argument of yours! we can receive like these people too, maybe not by laying of hands of someone, but prayer works too.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Your repeating this after I already explained that animal sacrifices were from the first COVENANT that was fulfilled, making animal sacrifice now obsolete. Maybe I'm writing in vain if you don't read my responses. As I recall, you never responded to it. What you don't understand is the gifts are part of the NEW COVENANT which has not ended, so neither have the gifts of the Spirit that are included in our COVENANT. So he's right; you are trying to make part of the New Covenant obsolte.

First, this was not written to you, but it was written for another.

Second, my point was that not all of Christ’s teachings on the Sermon on the Mount is obsolete.

We have to rightly divide.

As another example: There are cultural commands. For the Scripture says to: Greet one another [the brethren] with an holy kiss [on the cheek]* (Romans 16:16) (1 Corinthians 16:20) (2 Corinthians 12:12) (1 Thessalonians 5:26 says, “Greet all the brethren with an holy kiss.”). Surely we don’t do this in all churches. It is not a command for all believers today (Which was not the case in the early church).

 

[JAL]

But faith is not about a feeling. "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1). I would not want to trade in my Bible for an experience.

And if God honored that statement, you'd lose your salvation. How so? Salvation is not the acceptance of a doctrine. It isn't bible scholarship. In fact John the Baptist didn't know any doctrine when he was filled with the Holy Spirit from the mother's womb. Admittedly, if he had been saved as an adult, the Inward Witness would have ADDED some doctrinal knowledge to his salvation, as He did for every OT and NT saved-adult.

What is salvation, then? What is the new birth? The Jehovah Witnesses pray to 'God'. Mormons pray to 'God'. Muslims pray to 'God'. Abraham prayed to 'God'. Noah prayed to 'God'.

WHICH of these people prayed to the true God? Answer: Only those who KNEW Him personally, that is, those to whom Yahweh has APPEARED. Once again, I remind you that Paul's paradigm of saving faith in both Romans and Galatians is Abraham's vision of God at Gen 15. And Paul also adduced HIMSELF as an example (Gal 1:12), because HE TOO WAS SAVED BY A VISION OF GOD. Let's see why.

The mind can worship only that which the mind's eye sees. Unfortunately it is impossible for the human mind, on its own, to properly conceive an ineffably holy God. Therefore he can only worship the WRONG GOD (a conceptual idol), that is, UNTIL the Inward Witness imparts an accurate vision of God - as Calvin and other scholars have rightly concluded. If you are saved,then you see Christ, albeit less clearly than the prophets. Salvation is thus rightly defined as "meeting the Lord", and maturation is the gradual intensifying ('loudening') of the vision until, like Moses, we see Him face to face (Num 12:8).

I suggest you withdraw your statement:

But faith is not about a feeling...I would not want to trade in my Bible for an experience.

firstly because faith IS indeed a feeling (at minimum a feeling of certainty but also the sensory experience of a vision) and because it flatly contradicts both the new birth AND sanctification. By disparaging experience, it leads the sheep astray, sending them in a direction DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED to sanctification.

Perhaps in my next post I'll elaborate on sensory experience, and what it means to know the Father.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

@Jason0047
8 When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money 19 and said, “Give me also this ability so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.”

Simon has nothing to do with that they received the Holy spirit, he offered money to receive like this which is a wicked thing to do, but God didn't change his way of doing things because of him. Very poor argument of yours! we can receive like these people too, maybe not by laying of hands of someone, but prayer works too.

It’s not a poor argument. It’s the context.

“Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity. Then answered Simon, and said, Pray ye to the Lord for me, that none of these things which ye have spoken come upon me.” (Acts of the Apostles 8:19-24).

God knows the future and the hearts of men. Simon’s heart was not right with God.

Also, Philip noticed something different.
Philip sent for Peter and John because the Holy Ghost did not fall upon these Samaritans like in the usual manner.

“Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)” (Acts of the Apostles 8:14-16).

In other words, why would the Bible stress this fact if it was the normative function of things?
‭‭

 

[NBB]

It’s not a poor argument. It’s the context.

“Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity. Then answered Simon, and said, Pray ye to the Lord for me, that none of these things which ye have spoken come upon me.” (Acts of the Apostles 8:19-24).

God knows the future and the hearts of men. Simon’s heart was not right with God.

Also, Philip noticed something different.
Philip sent for Peter and John because the Holy Ghost did not fall upon these Samaritans like in the usual manner.

“Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)” (Acts of the Apostles 8:14-16).
‭‭

I disagree with that view, in other parts of the bible, people prayed or waited or someone laid hands on them to receive the holy spirit like in here, some may had been filled when converting but the majority won't. This is receiving the Holy spirit like in pentecost, they were already believers and baptized there too, you can't say they converted in pentecost that is totally wrong.

You agree that they received the Holy spirit because apostles prayed for them? Nowhere is said that the new birth is when someone prays for you, this is something personal with God, but receiving the Holy spirit yes totally it can be.

You need to skew a lot of things to make fit to saying that receiving the holy spiirt (filling etc) like the bible says happens at new birth.

 

[Saint Steven]

Also, Philip noticed something different.
Philip sent for Peter and John because the Holy Ghost did not fall upon these Samaritans like in the usual manner.

What was "the usual manner"?

- In Acts two the Spirit fell on the 120 in the upper room and then those who were baptized (the 3000) received the Spirit when they were baptized.
- The Samaritans were baptized but did not receive the Spirit. (so the Apostle laid hands on them)
- In Acts chapter four another 5000 believers are added to the church. Hopefully they didn't have to lay hands on them.
- The Spirit fell on the gentiles in the house of Cornelius.
- Ananias (not an Apostle) laid hands on Saul and he received the Spirit.
- The believers in Ephesus received the Spirit when Paul laid hands on them.

So, what was "the usual manner"?

 

[JAL]

But faith is not about a feeling. "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1). I would not want to trade in my Bible for an experience.

Jesus summarized the unbeliever's plight:

"You have never heard the Father's voice, nor seen His shape, nor does His word dwell in you" (John 5:37).

Gordon Fee considered 2 Cor 3:18 an exegetically undeniable vision of the Lord.

Catch-phrases such as 'spiritual experience' and 'spiritual relationship with the Father' convey nothing and are thus meaningless. To qualify as an EXPERIENCE, an event must be a CONSCIOUS experience (after all I won't taste of it if I'm dead to it), and so we really need to ask, What is consciousness?

Answer: Loudness. Consciousness is sensory experience. Consider these two theories running through my mind:
(1) Light is a stream of particles.
(2) Light is waves of energy.
First, I must HEAR those words. To prove thought is a hearing, sing the words, in your mind, to your favorite tune. And then, in order to COMPREHEND them, I must VISUALIZE their meanings. I must have VISIONS more or less vivid/distinct (loud).

Since all conscious thought is sensory experience, ANY influence of the Holy Spirit upon my mind counts as visions and voices from God. Thus, for example, the best way to comprehend an angel is too see a God-given vision of an angel. Until then, the angel is somewhat of a vague concept - sort of like trying to make out objects in a fairly dark room. A clear vision of angel is like turning on a lightbulb in the room, now suddenly the room is ILLUMINATED enough for us to see the angel clearly.

Paul recognized that illumination causes the mind's eye to see visions:

"I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened, in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you." (Eph 1:18).

After all, how do I REALLY know what I'm hoping for? In order to REALLY know the hope of a heavenly city, I need to SEE IT CLEARLY IN VISIONS, whereby the prophet Abraham 'looked forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God' (Heb 11:10). These prophets "did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance [in visions]" (11:13) even as Moses "saw him who is invisible" (11:27).

You'll note those last 3 verses were from Hebrews 11, the same chapter where you cited verse 1:

But faith is not about a feeling. "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1). I would not want to trade in my Bible for an experience.

Here's the PROPER understanding of that verse:
"Faith is the 100% feeling of certainty about things hoped for, based on our having seen the unseen realm in visions." (The Greek word for substance can also mean certainty).

In fact I DEMONSTRATED in an earlier post that verse 17 (Abraham's attempt to slaughter his son) HAD to be based on 100% certainty.

Too much ground to cover! Maybe I can wrap it up in the next post.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

To all:

To those who say salvation is not in a doctrine:

The Bible says:

“Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.” (2 John 1:9).
‭‭