- Mar 28, 2005
- 21,810
- 10,792
- 76
- Country
- New Zealand
- Faith
- Charismatic
- Marital Status
- Married
It amuses me to see folks fail to just read the New Testament and take it at face value, instead of trying to read stuff into it that is not there. For example, 1 Corinthians 12 and 14 are clear as the nose on our faces that Paul includes tongues as a normal part of Christian experience and life. And that tongues and interpretation are included in the gifts and ministries of the Church.Thanks for the detailed reply.
I'm amazed at the way these texts are picked over by opponents. From that perspective maybe I shouldn't be surprised. They have a preconception to prove. They are creating a case against tongues because they don't believe in it. But they are being intellectually dishonest.
It seems to me that the "What is it?" question was answered in Acts chapter two. Peter explained that the tongues they were all hearing were the prophesied outpouring. This was a whole new thing. This was the Holy Spirit that they could receive, with the evidence of tongues. So, when Peter asked them to repent and be baptized in water to receive the Holy Spirit, they expected to receive tongues. That was the evidence.
In Samaria the Apostles needed to lay hands on the new believers, "because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." - Acts 8:16
If you ask those who don't believe in tongues what the evidence is that someone has received the Holy Spirit, they name something that would take time to reveal itself. Yet in this text we see something immediate. Scripture below.
Those who are anti-tongues look at this passage and say that tongues is not mentioned. That is the intellectual dishonesty I mentioned earlier. What was the evidence that these new believers had received the Holy Spirit? Immediate evidence that happened when the Apostles laid hands on them. Two questions.
1) How did they know they had NOT received the Holy Spirit?
2) How did they know they HAD received the Holy Spirit? (immediately)
Acts 8:15-17
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.
In fact, 1 Corinthians 12 13 and 14 are all the same passage without the chapter divisions (put in later for easy reference). Most folk will accept 1 Corinthians 13 without question, but reject 12 and 14. How can people cherry pick part of what Paul says and reject another? Either we accept all of what Paul says or none of it.
This is what I think is the issue centred around the prejudice:
"I don't believe that tongues is for today" (basic belief)
"Therefore all folk who speak in tongues today are deceived"
"Paul taught the use of tongues only for the early Church and it does not apply today"
The alternative is:
"I believe that tongues is for today"
"Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 12 and 14 are for modern believers"
"Those who receive the gift are receiving the genuine article"
The fact is, if folk are going to reject parts of 1 Corinthians 12 and 14, they have to reject 1 Corinthians 13, and the teaching about the body of Christ in 1 Corinthians 12, and actually, all the rest of 1 Corinthians, because if parts of it are not for today, then none of it is.
And we could go from the sublime to the ridiculous and say that if 1 Corinthians is not for today, then none of Paul's letters are for today. and applies only to the Early Church of the First Century AD.
Therefore, Paul was lying when he said that 1 Corinthians was written not only for the Corinthians but for all believers everywhere, for whom the Lord shall call, including believers of every century right up to the modern day.
So, we can see the ridiculousness of cherry picking parts of Paul's writing that we decide to accept and parts we don't.
Upvote
0