Is Speaking In Tongues Biblical Today?

Francis Drake · Mar 16, 2018

bbbbbbb said:
Thanks. I misunderstood what you had written. The bottom line seems to be that you cannot say with any certainty whether or not you were praising God or cursing Him in these tongues.

You really don't know what you are saying do you?
Are you so completely unaware of the state of your own heart @bbbbbbb that you can't immediately discern such things?

It sounds like you live your Christian life completely unaware of your heart relationship with God?

I have a deep love relationship with Christ, and I know by the presence of His spirit within me whether I offend him or bless him.
I live with continuous grace and peace in my heart from God.

Matt15v18But the things going forth out of the mouth come forth out of the heart, and these defile the man. 19For out of the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, sexual immorality, thefts, false testimonies, slanders.

You accuse me of not knowing whether I am praising God or cursing him. But as you see from what Jesus says, all words spring from what's within our hearts, and if my heart is clean and right with God, then curses cannot come out of my mouth.

You have falsely judged my worship relationship to Jesus, so taking note of what Jesus said above, what does that say about the state of your own heart.

1stcenturylady · Mar 16, 2018

swordsman1 said:
Read the next 2 verses. Paul is not saying that he or anyone else speaks in the language of angels. He is imagining an exaggerated scenario to make a point. He is saying even if someone could speak in tongues to the ultimate degree conceivable (speaking the language of angels), but not have love, it would be worthless. We can tell this because he does the same with 3 other gifts in the next 2 verses - having the gift of prophesy to the ultimate degree of knowing ALL mysteries and ALL knowledge (ie. omniscience); having the gift of faith to the ultimate degree of moving mountains; and having the gift of giving to the ultimate degree of giving up ALL you possess to the poor and even giving up your own life. Paul is saying that even if someone had those gifts to such a superlative degree, without love, it would be to no avail.

The tongues spoken at Cornelius's household was exactly the same as those spoken at Pentecost. Peter says so in Acts 10:47. Peter said that Cornelius had received the Holy Spirit "just as we did". If the gentiles received the Spirit in a different manner then Peter was lying. It was only on the basis of the Gentile tongues being the same as theirs that the gentiles were accepted into the church; they would never have been accepted as equals otherwise.

No one is saying that Cornelius received a different Holy Spirit than was received on the Day of Pentecost.

And why do you believe speaking the tongues of angels has to be an exagerration? Are angels mute. Are they mythical creatures. Just how much do you NOT believe? It seems staggering.

You have it in your head so thoroughly that tongues must be able to be understood naturally, even though scripture denies your claim, you are blind to anything else - like the truth of scripture.

God understands all languages that have ever been. He can create new languages as He did at the Tower of Babel. And He can understand the tongues of angels. This gift is ONLY to be understood by HIM, and not man. If it is understood, guess what is in operation? The SUPERNATURAL gift of interpretation of tongues. Period!

swordsman1 · Mar 16, 2018

1stcenturylady said:
No one is saying that Cornelius received a different Holy Spirit than was received on the Day of Pentecost.

I never said that.

1stcenturylady said:
And why do you believe speaking the tongues of angels has to be an exagerration?

Because the 4 other parallel hypothetical examples in 1 Cor 13:1-3 are also exaggerations. Do you think the normal operation of the gift of prophecy is to know ALL mysteries and ALL knowledge (ie be omniscient)? Do you think the normal operation of the gift of faith is to literally remove mountains? Do you think the normal operation of the gift of giving is to give away ALL your possessions (that would include your clothes) or give up your own life?

1stcenturylady said:
Are angels mute. Are they mythical creatures. Just how much do you NOT believe? It seems staggering.

I never said they were.

1stcenturylady said:
You have it in your head so thoroughly that tongues must be able to be understood naturally, even though scripture denies your claim, you are blind to anything else - like the truth of scripture.

I've never said that either. It would only be understood naturally if there was someone present who understood the language.

I see you are keen to attribute erroneous ideas to me and then knocking me over them. That is known as the straw man fallacy:

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

bbbbbbb · Mar 16, 2018

Francis Drake said:
You really don't know what you are saying do you?
Are you so completely unaware of the state of your own heart @bbbbbbb that you can't immediately discern such things?

It sounds like you live your Christian life completely unaware of your heart relationship with God?

I have a deep love relationship with Christ, and I know by the presence of His spirit within me whether I offend him or bless him.
I live with continuous grace and peace in my heart from God.

Matt15v18But the things going forth out of the mouth come forth out of the heart, and these defile the man. 19For out of the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, sexual immorality, thefts, false testimonies, slanders.

You accuse me of not knowing whether I am praising God or cursing him. But as you see from what Jesus says, all words spring from what's within our hearts, and if my heart is clean and right with God, then curses cannot come out of my mouth.

You have falsely judged my worship relationship to Jesus, so taking note of what Jesus said above, what does that say about the state of your own heart.

This reminds me of an interesting experience I had once. I had a Chinese friend and we were chatting one day. He informed me that the common Italian word, "Ciao" is actually a really profane and vulgar word in Chinese. Thus, some friends who were in the habit of greeting him in Italian, whose hearts were as pure as the driven snow, were guilty of deeply offending him.

The fact does remain that you don't have the slightest idea as to what came out of your mouth other than the fact that you uttered unintelligible language.

1stcenturylady · Mar 16, 2018

swordsman1 said:
I've never said that either. It would only be understood naturally if there was someone present who understood the language.

So does the person present who understands that language, understand it naturally, or supernaturally?

pescador · Mar 16, 2018

Major1 said:
No sir, we actually do not accept or believe that speaking in tongues today is Biblical so we would be in fact excluded from your comment.

It was, and the apostles had that gift along with all the others that Jesus had. But they all died.

There is absolutely no provable truth in your statement. Where does it say that the gifts of the Spirit died with the apostles? What else in the Bible has died, according to you?

pescador · Mar 16, 2018

bbbbbbb said:
This reminds me of an interesting experience I had once. I had a Chinese friend and we were chatting one day. He informed me that the common Italian word, "Ciao" is actually a really profane and vulgar word in Chinese. Thus, some friends who were in the habit of greeting him in Italian, whose hearts were as pure as the driven snow, were guilty of deeply offending him.

The fact does remain that you don't have the slightest idea as to what came out of your mouth other than the fact that you uttered unintelligible language.

You're a mind reader??

bbbbbbb · Mar 16, 2018

pescador said:
You're a mind reader??

I don't need to be when he tells us himself. The best that he has come up with thus far is that he was in a spiritual frame of mind.

tdidymas · Mar 16, 2018

Francis Drake said:
That's one bizarre statement! You might live to regret it.

That's one of the most illogical claims I have seen on the forum.

The simplest of people would understand that knowledge does not vanish, but accumulates with today's knowledge being added to yesterday's.

Paul said "knowledge will cease" as a prophetic future event.
But using your theology, the cessation of knowledge must always have been a daily past and present experience for Adam and Eve as well as Paul, making Paul's pronouncement utterly void of sense.

Tell me @Major1, at what date did knowledge first start to vanish away. Mmmm.............I guess you can't answer that because that knowledge has vanished!

That of course includes yourself.

Again that includes yourself.

"Knowledge" has ceased. The mistake is taking the word out of its context and making it mean something that Paul did not intend. The term is talking about the spiritual gift of "words of knowledge" which is the context of the epistle. It doesn't mean knowledge in general. Just as in the same sentence, prophecy and tongues are spiritual gifts, which is obviously understood. Since he doesn't say "the gift of tongues" he is not talking about tongues in general. No one (including yourself) thinks that tongues here means all languages. We ought not to think that when he says "knowledge" that he suddenly stopped talking about the spiritual supernatural miraculous gift he was talking about before, and now is talking about knowledge in general. No, in this case, in his conversation with the Corinthians, he simply says "knowledge" as an abbreviated form of the phrase "words of knowledge", just as he says "tongues" as an abbreviated form of the phrase "the gift of tongues."

Anyway, it's all debated whether gifts have ceased or not. I heard a historian say that one of the church councils in the 7th century argued that the spiritual gifts had ceased, therefore Muhammad could not be a prophet of God. Certainly in the history of almost 2000 years there is little to nothing written about the spiritual gifts. They essentially ceased, as they became few and far between, unlike the common thing they were in the 1st Century (or apparently common, the way Paul wrote about them in 1 Cor.). The point is that the modern tongues movement started around the turn of the 20th Century. From a historic POV, the gifts had apparently ceased (including words of knowledge) at least from the 2nd Century to the 20th. So then, we can say that "knowledge has ceased" and still be intellectually honest, with the understanding that "knowledge" in this context means "the supernatural gift of words of knowledge."
TD

pescador · Mar 16, 2018

bbbbbbb said:
This reminds me of an interesting experience I had once. I had a Chinese friend and we were chatting one day. He informed me that the common Italian word, "Ciao" is actually a really profane and vulgar word in Chinese. Thus, some friends who were in the habit of greeting him in Italian, whose hearts were as pure as the driven snow, were guilty of deeply offending him.

The fact does remain that you don't have the slightest idea as to what came out of your mouth other than the fact that you uttered unintelligible language.

This is absurd! If someone speaking Italian (not Chinese) says "ciao" the meaning is a) clear and b) well-intended. If your Chinese friend said that "ciao" sounds identical to a vulgar word in Chinese, so what?? If he was offended because he misinterpreted the word, it's his problem, not the well-intentioned speaker's. He refused to acknowledge what he heard, plain and simple.

And to extend this to speaking in tongues is doubly absurd. In both cases, it's the hearer's problem, not the speaker's.

Forget the emotionalism explanation and the wrong interpretation of Scripture. What is your real problem with someone else speaking in tongues? Are you protecting God, denying the gift of the Spirit, or what? If someone else is praising God, praying, rejoicing, etc. in a language you don't understand, why do you object?? It's the same wrong interpretation as that of your Chinese friend. If either or both of you harbor judgment in your heart(s), ask God to give you 'ears that hear'.

1stcenturylady · Mar 17, 2018

pescador said:
There is absolutely no provable truth in your statement. Where does it say that the gifts of the Spirit died with the apostles? What else in the Bible has died, according to you?

Did the Holy Spirit die?

Biblicist · Mar 17, 2018

swordsman1 said:
But no prophet has ever "understood ALL mysteries and ALL knowledge" (which IS omniscience). That is not the normal operation of prophecy. Paul was giving an exaggerated hypothetical example of prophecy - notice the IF in that verse, not when.

I’m surprised that this thread is still going and even more surprised that as a number of individuals have explained the Scriptures to you that you are still confused over so many things; my question is, how can this still be the case --------------

Could it be that you have a Bible version that no-one else has, if so, where does it say “No prophet has “understood All mysteries and ALL Knowledge”?

And why are you equating mysteries and knowledge with prophecy? Both prophecies and knowledge are distinct Manifestations of the Holy Spirit, where mysteries cover many things.

Then, you go and twist verse 2 where you oddly claim that Paul does not prophesy, that’s simply an absurd thing to say, where I have no doubt that even you realise that what you are saying is nonsense.

Yes moving mountains is a metaphor, a hyperbole in fact. Nobody has ever literally moved a mountain. Paul was giving another exaggerated hypothetical example.

Now, how in the world can a metaphor be a hyperbole, they can only be one or the other. The expression “moving mountains” is of course a well-used metaphor that has been used down through the centuries where it refers to moving major obstacles or hurdles that have come in our way, these many obstacles can hardly be referred to as being examples of hyperbole; it has never been used to imply that someone can move a mountain.

But giving away ALL that you own or giving up your own life is not the normal operation of the gift of giving. The normal operation of the gift of giving would be someone of means unhesitatingly giving generously to those in need. Paul was giving another exaggerated hypothetical example.

Again, you are adding too much to the Greek word ψωμίζω psomizo, which means “to feed with morsels”, this provides us with no indication that Paul or anyone has given away ‘all that they have’, but it means to give away portion by portion over a period of time; this is something that even the commentators of the 1800’s understood.

And the same applies to the tongues of angels. That too is not the normal operation of tongues. It should be obvious to anyone that Paul is giving 5 parallel exaggerated hypothetical examples to make the point that having the most superlative of gifts is worthless without love.

When we consider that Paul has gone to some length to explain throughout 1 Cor 14 that it is not possible for a human to understand what the Holy Spirit is saying to the Father, where tongues are always given by the Spirit as inarticulate utterances, then obviously Paul is not speaking hypothetically.

Right there in Acts 10:47 - the gentiles "received the Holy Spirit just as we did". And also in Acts 11:15 "the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning." Peter said the Holy Spirit came upon the gentile just as He came upon the disciples. The only evidence the Holy Spirit had come upon the gentiles was their speaking tongues. There was no other manifestation of the Spirit among the gentiles that led the disciples to believe they received the Spirit. So their tongues must have been exactly the same. If the gentiles spoke in non-human tongues as you suppose, then Peter was lying - the Holy Spirit did not come upon the gentiles just as He did with the disciples, He came upon them in a different manner. The fact the gentiles received the same phenomenon as the disciples was the evidence that led them to accept the gentiles as equals. If it was something different then at best they could have regarded the gentiles as a 2nd class of Christian.

The ‘just as we did’ has nothing to do with the method in which they received the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, but with the fact that had received the Holy Spirit in the first place. As for speaking in tongues, they certainly spoke in tongues just as the 120 did on the Day of Pentecost, but if they had of spoken in known human languages then Peter would have mentioned this, though a group of foreigners from who knows how many regions of the Roman Empire speaking in their native languages would have meant nothing to the Hebrews who were present.

In any case there is not the slightest hint in scripture the gentiles spoke in a non-human language. If they did then Luke, as an accurate historian, would have recorded that important fact. So you are making an unwarranted presupposition - an exegetical fallacy.

With this very strange remark, you have not only insulted the intelligence of those who can read, but you are degrading yourself by trying to claim something that even a second or third-grader is able to comprehend.

Where in scripture does it say tongues were non-human languages? You haven't given us any unequivocal example. And where in any Christian literature prior to the turn of the 20th century is the idea suggested?

I could easily take maybe a dozen completely unchurched individuals off the street, who nothing absolutely nothing about the Scriptures, where I would have no doubt, after having read 1 Cor 12, 13 &14 that they would all be able to inform you that when we pray in the Spirit, that the Holy Spirit will always, and without exception, pray to the Father on our behalf in unintelligible utterances.

swordsman1 · Mar 17, 2018

Biblicist said:
Could it be that you have a Bible version that no-one else has, if so, where does it say “No prophet has “understood All mysteries and ALL Knowledge”?

You are another one trying to put words into my mouth. I never said that was written in scripture. That was my own statement. If you think I'm wrong please tell me which prophet became omniscient.

Biblicist said:
And why are you equating mysteries and knowledge with prophecy?

I didn't, Paul did - if you hadn't noticed they form part of the same conditional IF statement. If they were separate examples Paul would have used a separate "if" as he does with the other hypothetical examples.

Biblicist said:
Both prophecies and knowledge are distinct Manifestations of the Holy Spirit, where mysteries cover many things.

If you think prophecy and "understanding ALL mysteries and ALL knowledge" are referring to separate gifts, then perhaps you could tell us where the gifts of "understanding ALL mysteries" and "understanding ALL knowledge" are listed in scripture. Remember the context of this passage is spiritual gifts.

If you don't think prophecy can be called a mystery perhaps you could explain this verse:

Rom 15:51 "Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. "

And where a prophecy contains information (such as the above prophecy) then obviously it is divinely revealed knowledge.

Biblicist said:
Then, you go and twist verse 2 where you oddly claim that Paul does not prophesy, that’s simply an absurd thing to say, where I have no doubt that even you realise that what you are saying is nonsense.

You are lying. I said no such thing.

Biblicist said:
Now, how in the world can a metaphor be a hyperbole, they can only be one or the other.

You might want to try googling "hyperbolic metaphor".

Biblicist said:
The expression “moving mountains” is of course a well-used metaphor that has been used down through the centuries where it refers to moving major obstacles or hurdles that have come in our way, these many obstacles can hardly be referred to as being examples of hyperbole; it has never been used to imply that someone can move a mountain.

Saying "I have faith to move mountains!" would indeed be understood to mean overcome difficult obstacles. But you would only use it for rhetorical effect in an exclamation. You wouldn't use such a rhetorical device in a conditional sentence presenting a hypothetical scenario. Saying "If I had faith so that I can remove mountains...." would not be understood to mean "if I could overcome difficult obstacles....". It would be understood mean "if I could literally move mountains in a hypothetical scenario...." ie if I could achieve the impossible.

We can see that Paul uses it in this literal sense by his use of the word ὥστε, "so that" or "to such an extent". The word is used to underscore the ultimate consequential result of something. Paul says "if I have all faith, so as [ὥστε] to remove mountains," (or as the NKVJ better puts it "so that I could remove mountains") meaning if I have faith to such an extent as to remove mountains.

The following usages of the word will help you to understand this better:

Matthew 8:24 And behold, there arose a great storm on the sea, so that [ὥστε] the boat was being covered with the waves;

Mark 1:45 But he went out and began to proclaim it freely and to spread the news around, to such an extent [ὥστε] that Jesus could no longer publicly enter a city

Mark 3:20 And He came home, and the crowd gathered again, to such an extent [ὥστε] that they could not even eat a meal.

Mark 4:32 yet when it is sown, it grows up and becomes larger than all the garden plants and forms large branches so that [ὥστε] the birds of the air can nest under its shade.

Acts 5:15 to such an extent [ὥστε] that they even carried the sick out into the streets and laid them on cots and pallets,

Luke 5:7 And they came and filled both of the boats, so that [ὥστε] they began to sink.

Luke 12:1 a crowd of many thousands had gathered, so that [ὥστε] they were trampling on one another,

Acts 16:26 suddenly there came a great earthquake, so that [ὥστε] the foundations of the prison house were shaken;

Acts 19:12 God did extraordinary miracles through Paul, so that [ὥστε] even handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched him were taken to the sick, and their illnesses were cured and the evil spirits left them.

Acts 19:16 He gave them such a beating that [ὥστε] they ran out of the house naked and bleeding.

2 Corinthians 1:8 we were burdened excessively, beyond our strength, so that [ὥστε] we despaired even of life;

So clearly Paul is not using the phrase "remove mountains" as a rhetorical device to mean overcoming obstacles.

Biblicist said:
Again, you are adding too much to the Greek word ψωμίζω psomizo, which means “to feed with morsels”, this provides us with no indication that Paul or anyone has given away ‘all that they have’, but it means to give away portion by portion over a period of time; this is something that even the commentators of the 1800’s understood.

Dear oh dear. Didn't you notice the word "all" in v3? "And if I give ALL my possessions to feed the poor". Is giving away ALL your possessions to the poor, even if they are given away piecemeal, the normal operation of the gift of giving? And is giving up your own life (giving up my body to be burned) the normal operation of the gift of giving? Don't you think Paul might have been exaggerating slightly?

Biblicist said:
When we consider that Paul has gone to some length to explain throughout 1 Cor 14 that it is not possible for a human to understand what the Holy Spirit is saying to the Father, where tongues are always given by the Spirit as inarticulate utterances, then obviously Paul is not speaking hypothetically.

Rubbish. Where in 1 Cor 14 does it say tongues "is not possible for a human to understand"?

Biblicist said:
The ‘just as we did’ has nothing to do with the method in which they received the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, but with the fact that had received the Holy Spirit in the first place.

And pray tell us, how do you think the disciples knew they had received the Holy Spirit? Hint: look at the previous verse, Acts 10:46. It begins "For.." (ie it provides the explanation of why the disciples knew the gentiles had received the Spirit).

Biblicist said:
As for speaking in tongues, they certainly spoke in tongues just as the 120 did on the Day of Pentecost, but if they had of spoken in known human languages then Peter would have mentioned this

Why would he make a point of re-describing it if it was the same thing. He would only give a new description if it was something different. He doesn't. In the absence of any redefinition it must be presumed to be the same thing.

Biblicist said:
With this very strange remark, you have not only insulted the intelligence of those who can read, but you are degrading yourself by trying to claim something that even a second or third-grader is able to comprehend.

A strange remark?? Really. If that is so, then perhaps you could tell us yourself where it says the gentiles spoke in a non-human language.

I didn't think it would be long before you started dishing out the derogatory remarks again.

Biblicist said:
I could easily take maybe a dozen completely unchurched individuals off the street, who nothing absolutely nothing about the Scriptures, where I would have no doubt, after having read 1 Cor 12, 13 &14 that they would all be able to inform you that when we pray in the Spirit, that the Holy Spirit will always, and without exception, pray to the Father on our behalf in unintelligible utterances.

Since when has asking "a dozen completely unchurched individuals off the street" been the recommended way of interpreting scripture?

bbbbbbb · Mar 17, 2018

pescador said:
This is absurd! If someone speaking Italian (not Chinese) says "ciao" the meaning is a) clear and b) well-intended. If your Chinese friend said that "ciao" sounds identical to a vulgar word in Chinese, so what?? If he was offended because he misinterpreted the word, it's his problem, not the well-intentioned speaker's. He refused to acknowledge what he heard, plain and simple.

And to extend this to speaking in tongues is doubly absurd. In both cases, it's the hearer's problem, not the speaker's.

Forget the emotionalism explanation and the wrong interpretation of Scripture. What is your real problem with someone else speaking in tongues? Are you protecting God, denying the gift of the Spirit, or what? If someone else is praising God, praying, rejoicing, etc. in a language you don't understand, why do you object?? It's the same wrong interpretation as that of your Chinese friend. If either or both of you harbor judgment in your heart(s), ask God to give you 'ears that hear'.

Actually, my problem with people who speak to me in other languages that I do not understand (tongues, as it were) is that they fail to communicate with me, unless there is an interpreter who is fluent in both languages, which has been my experience in China.

I do believe that if a person resides in a country on a permanent basis he ought to become fluent in the language of that country. Thus, I have a problem with immigrants who remain marginalized because of their inability or refusal to learn the language of the country.

bbbbbbb · Mar 17, 2018

Biblicist said:
I could easily take maybe a dozen completely unchurched individuals off the street, who nothing absolutely nothing about the Scriptures, where I would have no doubt, after having read 1 Cor 12, 13 &14 that they would all be able to inform you that when we pray in the Spirit, that the Holy Spirit will always, and without exception, pray to the Father on our behalf in unintelligible utterances.

I always smile when I encounter the word, unchurched. What does that actually mean?

I was churched since I was born, but it was not until I was born again that I was saved. Hell will be filled with plenty of churched people.

1stcenturylady · Mar 17, 2018

swordsman1 said:
You are another one trying to put words into my mouth. I never said that was written in scripture. That was my own statement. If you think I'm wrong please tell me which prophet became omniscient.

I didn't, Paul did - if you hadn't noticed they form part of the same conditional IF statement. If they were separate examples Paul would have used a separate "if" as he does with the other hypothetical examples.

If you think prophecy and "understanding ALL mysteries and ALL knowledge" are referring to separate gifts, then perhaps you could tell us where the gifts of "understanding ALL mysteries" and "understanding ALL knowledge" are listed in scripture. Remember the context of this passage is spiritual gifts.

If you don't think prophecy can be called a mystery perhaps you could explain this verse:

Rom 15:51 "Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. "

And where a prophecy contains information (such as the above prophecy) then obviously it is divinely revealed knowledge.

You are lying. I said no such thing.

You might want to try googling "hyperbolic metaphor".

Saying "I have faith to move mountains!" would indeed be understood to mean overcome difficult obstacles. But you would only use it for rhetorical effect in an exclamation. You wouldn't use such a rhetorical device in a conditional sentence presenting a hypothetical scenario. Saying "If I had faith so that I can remove mountains...." would not be understood to mean "if I could overcome difficult obstacles....". It would be understood mean "if I could literally move mountains in a hypothetical scenario...." ie if I could achieve the impossible.

We can see that Paul uses it in this literal sense by his use of the word ὥστε, "so that" or "to such an extent". The word is used to underscore the ultimate consequential result of something. Paul says "if I have all faith, so as [ὥστε] to remove mountains," (or as the NKVJ better puts it "so that I could remove mountains") meaning if I have faith to such an extent as to remove mountains.

The following usages of the word will help you to understand this better:

Matthew 8:24 And behold, there arose a great storm on the sea, so that [ὥστε] the boat was being covered with the waves;

Mark 1:45 But he went out and began to proclaim it freely and to spread the news around, to such an extent [ὥστε] that Jesus could no longer publicly enter a city

Mark 3:20 And He came home, and the crowd gathered again, to such an extent [ὥστε] that they could not even eat a meal.

Mark 4:32 yet when it is sown, it grows up and becomes larger than all the garden plants and forms large branches so that [ὥστε] the birds of the air can nest under its shade.

Acts 5:15 to such an extent [ὥστε] that they even carried the sick out into the streets and laid them on cots and pallets,

Luke 5:7 And they came and filled both of the boats, so that [ὥστε] they began to sink.

Luke 12:1 a crowd of many thousands had gathered, so that [ὥστε] they were trampling on one another,

Acts 16:26 suddenly there came a great earthquake, so that [ὥστε] the foundations of the prison house were shaken;

Acts 19:12 God did extraordinary miracles through Paul, so that [ὥστε] even handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched him were taken to the sick, and their illnesses were cured and the evil spirits left them.

Acts 19:16 He gave them such a beating that [ὥστε] they ran out of the house naked and bleeding.

2 Corinthians 1:8 we were burdened excessively, beyond our strength, so that [ὥστε] we despaired even of life;

So clearly Paul is not using the phrase "remove mountains" as a rhetorical device to mean overcoming obstacles.

Dear oh dear. Didn't you notice the word "all" in v3? "And if I give ALL my possessions to feed the poor". Is giving away ALL your possessions to the poor, even if they are given away piecemeal, the normal operation of the gift of giving? And is giving up your own life (giving up my body to be burned) the normal operation of the gift of giving? Don't you think Paul might have been exaggerating slightly?

Rubbish. Where in 1 Cor 14 does it say tongues "is not possible for a human to understand"?

And pray tell us, how do you think the disciples knew they had received the Holy Spirit? Hint: look at the previous verse, Acts 10:46. It begins "For.." (ie it provides the explanation of why the disciples knew the gentiles had received the Spirit).

Why would he make a point of re-describing it if it was the same thing. He would only give a new description if it was something different. He doesn't. In the absence of any redefinition it must be presumed to be the same thing.

A strange remark?? Really. If that is so, then perhaps you could tell us yourself where it says the gentiles spoke in a non-human language.

I didn't think it would be long before you started dishing out the derogatory remarks again.

Since when has asking "a dozen completely unchurched individuals off the street" been the recommended way of interpreting scripture?

Please answer #2125. Thanks

Francis Drake · Mar 17, 2018

swordsman1 said:
But no prophet has ever "understood ALL mysteries and ALL knowledge" (which IS omniscience). That is not the normal operation of prophecy. Paul was giving an exaggerated hypothetical example of prophecy - notice the IF in that verse, not when.

If you insist on interpreting scripture like that, then your rules should work everywhere, including in the words of Jesus, like when he spoke to the apostles about ALL TRUTH.
John16v13But when He the, Spirit of truth, shall come, He will lead you into all truth. For He will not speak from Himself, but whatever He may hear, He will speak. And He will declare to you the things coming.
Did all apostles get ALL God's truth.
Did the Spirit of Truth declare to them EVERY SINGLE WORD he heard in the Throne Room of Heaven?
Did the Spirit of Truth declare to them ALL the things coming ahead in world future?

When Paul talks about all mysteries and all knowledge, he is no more claiming omniscient than Jesus is promising omniscience to the apostles in John16v13.
In both scriptures, it shows that the Holy Spirit gives all truth, reveals all mysteries, and all knowledge only as is required for that time. Jesus himself said there were things hidden from him by the Father!
So there was no need for exaggeration in Paul's words because they simply paralleled what Jesus had already promised.

The hyperbole you mention, originates in you alone.

Yes moving mountains is a metaphor, a hyperbole in fact. Nobody has ever literally moved a mountain. Paul was giving another exaggerated hypothetical example.

When you've got a moment, go read the OT prophets. You will see plenty of miracles that equate in magnitude to moving mountains.
Here's a good place to start.-
Exodus14v21Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD swept the sea back by a strong east wind all night and turned the sea into dry land, so the waters were divided. 22The sons of Israel went through the midst of the sea on the dry land, and the waters were like a wall to them on their right hand and on their left.

But giving away ALL that you own or giving up your own life is not the normal operation of the gift of giving.

This is the early church for goodness sake, I suspect most people there knew of people who had given everything including life itself!
Millions have given up everything to go forth with the gospel, and it still happens today. Jackie Pullinger being just one among many in modern times.
And people still die in doing so.

The normal operation of the gift of giving would be someone of means unhesitatingly giving generously to those in need. Paul was giving another exaggerated hypothetical example.

No, not necessarily "someone of means", generosity starts from the heart and even when poverty stricken.
I agree that giving should be done with unhesitating generosity, but Paul's clearly description was certainly no exaggeration, and well within their experience and understanding.

And the same applies to the tongues of angels. That too is not the normal operation of tongues. It should be obvious to anyone that Paul is giving 5 parallel exaggerated hypothetical examples to make the point that having the most superlative of gifts is worthless without love.

This is just your opinion based on unbelief.
Just as the other points are provably not exaggerated, neither is Paul's "tongues of men and angels" exaggerated!

Right there in Acts 10:47 - the gentiles "received the Holy Spirit just as we did". And also in Acts 11:15 "the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning." Peter said the Holy Spirit came upon the gentile just as He came upon the disciples.

Stop presuming and read the actual words.
It is the Holy Spirit that was always the same, and is still the same, but the gifts and their operation constantly differs.
You should really s

top putting God in your little theological boxes.

The only evidence the Holy Spirit had come upon the gentiles was their speaking tongues. There was no other manifestation of the Spirit among the gentiles that led the disciples to believe they received the Spirit. So their tongues must have been exactly the same.

Total garbage. There is nothing whatsoever in those verses to say their tongues were exactly the same. Also, many receive the Holy Spirit, and don't start speaking in Tongues till some time later, (as in my case.)

If the gentiles spoke in non-human tongues as you suppose, -

I never said the Cornelius spoke in tongues of angels. From the beginning I have just repeated what Paul said, the gift of tongues was of men or angels. I have no clue who spoke what.

then Peter was lying, -
the Holy Spirit did not come upon the gentiles just as He did with the disciples, He came upon them in a different manner.

It is just the Holy Spirit himself that remains always the same. Read Peter's actual words, the ones you keep twisting.-
Acts10v47"Is anyone able to withhold the water to baptize these who have received the Holy Spirit, just as we also?"
There is one Holy Spirit. The Jews had received it at Pentecost, and now the Gentiles received the same Holy Spirit.
There is no mention of the gift of tongues being the same type or the same operationally as Pentecost.
For the gift to be exactly the same as Pentecost, Cornelius's house would have to be full of the following people.-
Acts2v9Parthians and Medes and Elamites; and those inhabiting Mesopotamia, also Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10both Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya around Cyrene; and those visiting from Rome, 11both Jews and converts; Cretans and Arabs

The fact the gentiles received the same phenomenon as the disciples was the evidence that led them to accept the gentiles as equals. If it was something different then at best they could have regarded the gentiles as a 2nd class of Christian.

Its so abundantly obvious, surely you can see that the tongues would be very different at Cornelius's house than at Jerusalem. There was a totally different bunch of people there, tongue speakers and hearers.
In Jerusalem, the Holy Spirit fell on believing Jews, all of the same language. Their tongues were heard by a motley assortment of maybe 15 languages.
In Cornelius's house, the hearers were all Jews, ie. One language!

In any case there is not the slightest hint in scripture the gentiles spoke in a non-human language. If they did then Luke, as an accurate historian, would have recorded that important fact. So you are making an unwarranted presupposition - an exegetical fallacy.

You are planting your garbage in the text again.
Acts10v46For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and magnifying God.
Unless Luke had used the gift of interpretation, he would have no idea what language is spoken, human or angelic.

Where in scripture does it say tongues were non-human languages? You haven't given us any unequivocal example. And where in any Christian literature prior to the turn of the 20th century is the idea suggested?

Firstly, I never ever said tongues were non-human language, those are your words.
Secondly, I have never claimed that all tongues are any language. I simply keep repeating what Paul says -that tongues can be of men or angels.

Francis Drake · Mar 17, 2018

bbbbbbb said:
This reminds me of an interesting experience I had once. I had a Chinese friend and we were chatting one day. He informed me that the common Italian word, "Ciao" is actually a really profane and vulgar word in Chinese. Thus, some friends who were in the habit of greeting him in Italian, whose hearts were as pure as the driven snow, were guilty of deeply offending him.

The fact does remain that you don't have the slightest idea as to what came out of your mouth other than the fact that you uttered unintelligible language.

I'm not sure where you are going with this?
Firstly, is it not obvious to you that the Italians speakers were not guilty of offending your friend.
The guilty one is your Chinese friend who chose to be offended by words which you admit were as pure as the driven snow.

You might be offended, but do you seriously imagine that God takes offense at my tongues?

bbbbbbb · Mar 17, 2018

Francis Drake said:
I'm not sure where you are going with this?
Firstly, is it not obvious to you that the Italians speakers were not guilty of offending your friend.
The guilty one is your Chinese friend who chose to be offended by words which you admit were as pure as the driven snow.

You might be offended, but do you seriously imagine that God takes offense at my tongues?

I have no idea as to what God thinks of your tongues, do you?

Francis Drake · Mar 17, 2018

swordsman1 said:
It's a shame people have been taught to abandon their God given ability to reason and apply sound exegesis, in favor of subjective experiences that have no basis in scripture.

Mmmm
The Pharisees walked by reason.
The fishermen walked by Spirit.

Saul, another high minded Pharisee, also walked by reason, until he stumbled to a halt along the Damascus road, suddenly discovering exactly how blind his reasoning was.

Fortunately for Saul, there was a local fool around named Ananias who very unreasonably listened to God.

Acts10v10................ The Lord called to him in a vision, “Ananias!”
“Yes, Lord,” he answered.

11The Lord told him, “Go to the house of Judas on Straight Street and ask for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying. 12In a vision he has seen a man named Ananias come and place his hands on him to restore his sight.”

For a brief moment, Ananias starts using his reason to quiz God's wisdom.
13“Lord,” Ananias answered, “I have heard many reports about this man and all the harm he has done to your holy people in Jerusalem. 14And he has come here with authority from the chief priests to arrest all who call on your name.”

15But the Lord said to Ananias, “Go! This man is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel. 16I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.”

But unlike many Christians today, Ananias knew when to shove his human reason back in its box.

And because of Ananias's unreasonable behaviour, Saul became Paul, and also decided it was time to shackle his human reasoning powers.

Major1 · Mar 17, 2018

pescador said:
There is absolutely no provable truth in your statement. Where does it say that the gifts of the Spirit died with the apostles? What else in the Bible has died, according to you?

I will certainly try to entertain your question. However, I think that we both know that you will not accept any explanation given to you.

1 Corth 13:8............
“Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.”

“Love never fails”

1)
This could be the closing of the previous verses and mean “Love is never defeated, never brought down and persists even when faced with opposition”

2)
This statement “Love never fails” could be starting a new paragraph which will contrast the three verbs that follow:
"Pass away” (13:8)
“cease” (13:8)
“remain” (13:13)

In this second case it would mean: “Love never comes to an end or becomes invalid like the charismata”.

Correct exegesis says that Paul is still focused on charismata and lists three of them here.

“they will cease” “katargethesontai” or literally “they will be abolished”.

1.) future indicative passive
2). means “to render inoperative, to make ineffective
3). the active voice means “they will be made to stop by someone or something else.”

“they will be stilled” “pausontai” or literally “they will cease”.

1). future indicative middle
2). means “to cause to rest, to cause to cease”
3). the middle voice means “they shall make themselves cease or automatically cease of themselves.”

“it will pass away” “katargethesetai” or literally “it will be abolilshed”

1). same as above only singular

13:9............
“For we know in part and we prophesy in part.”

“in part” “merous” or literally “For in part”

1). means “partially”
2). The gifts are a part of the work of the church that leads to the completion

13:10.................
“but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears.”

“comes” “elthe”

“perfection” “teleion” or literally “perfect THING’.’
Greek Grammer here does NOT ALLOW THE MEANING TO BE A person OR A place BUT INSTEAD A THING!

“teleion” mean s“end, fulfillment, completeness, maturity”

“teleion” is contrasted with the phrase “in part” which would tend to make the correct translation of “teleion” the counter side of “part” such as “whole”, “full”, “complete”

“imperfect” “to ek merous” or literally “the thing in part”

“disappears” “katargethesetai” or literally “will be abolished”

same as above
future, indicative, passive

I am relating to you my understanding as it is the Classical (or "Weak") cessationists in that the "sign gifts" such as prophecy, healing and speaking in tongues ceased with the apostles and the finishing of the canon of Scripture. They only served as launching pads for the spreading of the Gospel; as affirmations of God's revelation. However, I certainly do believe that God still does miracles today, such as healings or divine guidance.

John Chrysostom (c 347-407)
Concerning the spiritual gifts of 1 Corinthians:...... “This whole place is very obscure: but the obscurity is produced by our ignorance of the facts referred to, and by their cessation, being such as then used to occur but now no longer take place”
(“Homilies on 1 Corinthians,” Vol. XII, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Hom 29:2).

Thomas Watson (c 1620-1686).........
“Sure, there is as much need of ordination now as in Christ's time and in the time of the apostles, there being then extraordinary gifts in the church which are now ceased” (The Beatitudes, 140).

Matthew Henry (1662-1714) Speaking of the ‘gift of tongues,’ he said.............
“These and other gifts of prophecy, being a sign, have long since ceased and been laid aside, and we have no encouragement to expect the revival of them; but, on the contrary, are directed to call the Scriptures the more sure word of prophecy, more sure than voices from Heaven; and to them we are directed to take heed, to search them, and to hold them fast ...” (Preface to Vol IV of his Exposition of the OT & NT, vii).

Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758)...........
“Of the extraordinary gifts, they were given 'in order to the founding and establishing of the church in the world. But since the canon of Scriptures has been completed, and the Christian church fully founded and established, these extraordinary gifts have ceased” (Charity and its Fruits, 29).

George Whitefield (1714-1770) .........
"the karismata, the miraculous gifts conferred on the primitive church ... have long ceased ...” (Second Letter to the Bishop of London, Works, Vol. IV, 167).

James Buchanan (1804-1870) ..........
“The miraculous gifts of the Spirit have long since been withdrawn. They were used for a temporary purpose” (The Office and Work of the Holy Spirit, 34).
When did tongues and the sign gifts cease

Is Speaking In Tongues Biblical Today?

Returning adventurer.

Spirit-filled follower of Christ

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Spirit-filled follower of Christ

Wise old man

Wise old man

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Wise old man

Spirit-filled follower of Christ

Full Gospel believer

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Spirit-filled follower of Christ

Returning adventurer.

Returning adventurer.

Well-Known Member

Returning adventurer.

Well-Known Member

Similar threads