Speaking in tongues not happening anymore

JohnClay said:

Yes the first option. Even if it wasn't Biblical there would be a passage that kind of supports it.

Click to expand...

But do you see believers healing like the early apostles today?
I am not talking about believers who have healed some people here and there on occasion. I am talking about how EVERYONE who comes to these apostles are 100% healed every time. If you find them, let me know.

Do you believe new words of prophecy should be added to the Bible when Revelation 22:18 says we are not to add to the prophecy of this book? Several men (throughout history) have lost their voice for adding to God's Word.

Bible Correctors lose Voice
Bible Corrector Loses Voice on Ankerberg Show

Also, you need to understand the nature of an apostle. Once you do, it will become clear of the temporary nature of the miraculous gifts. Apostleship was a gift (1 Corinthians 12:1, 1 Corinthians 12:28-31). To be qualified as an apostle you had to have seen the risen Lord (See: 1 Corinthians 9:1). Paul was the last one to have claimed to see the risen Lord and so he was the last apostle (1 Corinthians 15:8).

In addition, check out this article here about apostles according to the Bible:

Are There Apostles Today?
(Note: Please understand that I merely agree with this article, and may not agree with everything this website or author believes).

I am sure if somebody was just given Genesis 6 to read and they that is all they had of the Bible, and they did not have much contact with the outside world, they could be led to the conclusion that they need to find Noah so as to get on the boat.

The point here is that we have to look at all of Scripture to get context in relation to what commands and gifts apply today, and which ones do not.

I recognize the original question was about what scriptures are used to claim tongues is no longer for today, so I'm not going to get into debating the opposite view except to say, there are plenty of Christians today, and scriptures to support the following:

Tongues is still for today.
Miracles are for today and the 100% thing is not true.
Apostles and prophets are still for today (ie You do not need to have seen the risen Lord with your own eyes).

Again, the point is not to debate it because that is the nature of the question, but some statements are being made that seem to imply tongues ceasing is a settled point which it is very much is not. Not by a long shot.

JohnClay said:

Yes the first option. Even if it wasn't Biblical there would be a passage that kind of supports it.

Click to expand...

Again, it is 1 Corinthians 13:8, but she's wrong.

Oscarr said:

Get a pair of scissors and cut 1 Corinthians 14 out of your Bible and then you can pretend it isn't there.

Click to expand...

I don't cut Bible verses, I cut man interpretations.

Lost4words said:

No need to Catholic bash. If you knew Catholicism you would know that they welcome Charismatic services etc. What i stated was 'my' opinion.

Click to expand...

Your opinion did not originate with you. It came from man. Let the Word of God be your only foundation, and "your" opinion is nullified by 1 Corinthians 14:2.

Lost4words said:

Utterly wrong

Click to expand...

Why do you think the Church made Mary the "Queen of heaven"? Look up "Queen of heaven" in the Bible and see who Jeremiah is talking about. No where in the New Testament is she given that title. The whole concept of goddess and child is ancient Babylonian, and spread to every country.


Here are just some of the different names of Ashtoreth:

• ISIS- by the Egyptians
• ISHTAR- by the Canaanites
• APHRODITE- by the Grecians
• VENUS- by the Romans
• DIANNA- by the Ephesians
• ATHTAR – by the Arabians
• KALI- by the Indians
• COLUMBIA- by North Americans

CharismaticLady said:

Why do you think the Church made Mary the "Queen of heaven"? Look up "Queen of heaven" in the Bible and see who Jeremiah is talking about. No where in the New Testament is she given that title. The whole concept of goddess and child is ancient Babylonian, and spread to every country.

Click to expand...

Alexander the Great called himself "The Son of God".

David Cabrera said:

Alexander the Great called himself "The Son of God".

Click to expand...

Many have.

John 10:
7 Then Jesus said to them again, “Most assuredly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. 8 All who ever came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them. 9 I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. 10 The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly.

CharismaticLady said:

Why do you think the Church made Mary the "Queen of heaven"? Look up "Queen of heaven" in the Bible and see who Jeremiah is talking about. No where in the New Testament is she given that title. The whole concept of goddess and child is ancient Babylonian, and spread to every country.


Here are just some of the different names of Ashtoreth:

• ISIS- by the Egyptians
• ISHTAR- by the Canaanites
• APHRODITE- by the Grecians
• VENUS- by the Romans
• DIANNA- by the Ephesians
• ATHTAR – by the Arabians
• KALI- by the Indians
• COLUMBIA- by North Americans

Click to expand...

Whenever I hear the title, Queen of Heaven, I immediately think of Isis. I've never heard of Mary as being Queen of Heaven until I started reading posts on CF. Since then, I've heard some people refer to Mary and Isis as being the same goddess though, though whether they meant it as in a spiritual sense or actually being the same physical person wasn't completely clear.

1 Kings 13 is about a man of God who was tricked by an outside prophet to disobey the Lord's message of not eating and drinking in Bethel.

See:
1 Kings 13 NLT

This man of God was killed by a lion for disobeying God's commandment.
The key point here is that we need to follow what God says in His Word alone and not follow any outside prophetic messages or words in addition to the Bible (Which usually contradicts what His Word says). We are told not to add any words to the prophecy of this book. The canon is closed. No new revelations, visions, or messages can be added to the Bible.

So even if the miraculous gifts is taking place by some slim chance (of which I have not seen done in a biblical way), the safer play is to stick to God's Word (the Bible) alone. For we walk by faith, and not by sight. We don't need a miracle to confirm our faith. Our faith in the Lord is sufficient. Also, what new words or revelations or prophecies from Charismatics is on par with Scripture? Nothing that I know of.

Do we not open pandora's box to a whole score of problems when we start to venture outside of God's Word (the Bible)? Church traditions, added holy books, visions, dreams, prophecies? Are these things on the same level of divine inspiration as the Scriptures? If not, they should be discarded. For faith comes by hearing, and hearing the Word of God.

Paul was not healing - Jesus was healing and the gifts operate subject to His will.

Jesus did not heal 100% of those who sought to be well.

I never came to see folks healed because of a theology, I simple obeyed what I read that we should pray for the sick, it was not a matter of having a gift, it was simple obedience to the Word and He moved.

It was a very simple childlike response to what I read.

So am I to believe some sophisticated theology and deny what He has done? That would seem utterly nuts.

Carl Emerson said:

Paul was not healing - Jesus was healing and the gifts operate subject to His will.

Jesus did not heal 100% of those who sought to be well.

I never came to see folks healed because of a theology, I simple obeyed what I read that we should pray for the sick, it was not a matter of having a gift, it was simple obedience to the Word and He moved.

It was a very simple childlike response to what I read.

So am I to believe some sophisticated theology and deny what He has done? That would seem utterly nuts.

Click to expand...

Well said Carl

bekkilyn said:

Whenever I hear the title, Queen of Heaven, I immediately think of Isis. I've never heard of Mary as being Queen of Heaven until I started reading posts on CF. Since then, I've heard some people refer to Mary and Isis as being the same goddess though, though whether they meant it as in a spiritual sense or actually being the same physical person wasn't completely clear.

Click to expand...

Also, when Christianity became the state religion and paganism was outlawed about two emperors after Constantine, all the pagan temples and their pagan garb became Christian churches and garb.

Bible Highlighter said:

From my experience in talking with others on this topic, I am led to believe that it is usually not the Bible that guides the Continuationist view but it is their experience that guides their position first. It should be the Bible that guides our faith and not sight. This is why I believe many Continuationists cannot see what the Bible says on this matter. It is because they don't want to see it. Their experience rules over what the Scriptures say. They had an experience and so now they have to justify it with the Bible. Then again, I do leave room for 1% chance that I could be wrong (So as not to speak against GOD in case I am wrong), so maybe your right. Maybe GOD is operating by the full gifts somewhere on this planet like He did with the early church. If so, it is in remote places on our planet that is not so easily viewed within the public eye. I say this because nobody is healing like Peter and Paul did where everyone that came to them were 100% healed. In fact, even towards the end of Paul's life, he was not able to heal like he was able to do before.

Click to expand...

I think it is more a matter of common sense and logic that if Paul lists spiritual gifts in 1 Corinthians 12 and goes to the trouble to carefully explain the correct use of tongues and prophecy in the church, and does not clearly say that the gifts are meant to be in operation while the Apostles were still alive, but as he says in 1 Corinthians 13 that tongues and prophecy will cease when Jesus comes again. This is because when we are fellowshiping with Him face to face, we won't need tongues and prophecy.

It is quite true that the spiritual gifts did decline and cease, but this was because there was a gradual change in the culture of the church from the priesthood of every believer, and every believer having a ministry function in the church, to specifically appointed clergy to take over the ministry functions, and the replacement of the bishop's authority to the prophetic word. This meant that congregations became passive, with the priest having the authority to dispense God's Word to them because he was the only one in the church who had the ear of God, and the common people didn't. So because congregations became passive and just depended on the teaching and ministry of the one-man-band priest (just as it is today with priests, ministers and pastors leading passive congregations), less and less people used the spiritual gifts, so they declined.

So as long as we have churches run by one-man-band priests, pastors and ministers, we won't see much of the spiritual gifts operating. Many may yell like Commanche Indians at a football match on Saturday, but sit like wooden Indians in church on Sunday!

Carl Emerson said:

Paul was not healing - Jesus was healing and the gifts operate subject to His will.

Jesus did not heal 100% of those who sought to be well.

I never came to see folks healed because of a theology, I simple obeyed what I read that we should pray for the sick, it was not a matter of having a gift, it was simple obedience to the Word and He moved.

It was a very simple childlike response to what I read.

So am I to believe some sophisticated theology and deny what He has done? That would seem utterly nuts.

Click to expand...

Paul was the chosen vessel by which the Spirit operated. Paul had the gift of healing from the Spirit. That is what I was saying. No Cessationist I know of believes Paul had power independent of the Spirit. In fact, I did not suggest such a thing, either.

As for Jesus healing:
What verse or passage are you referring to?
It is true that Jesus did not do miracles because of the people's lack of belief or faith.
But that is not people seeking healing from the Lord Jesus with Jesus being unable to heal them.

I am also not against praying for those who are sick and or who need to be healed.
I also believe God can heal, but it is His will if they will be healed or not. Sometimes they may not be healed. This is not the case with the early church believers who had the gift of healing. They were able to heal 100% of the time all who came to them. This was to confirm the Word that they spoke was from God (See Mark 16:20).

Lost4words said:

'Speaking in tongues' as seen today, is not the same as in the Apostles day. Then, it was used to preach the Gospel to all nations in their own tongues. Today, what i see, is gobbledegook.

Click to expand...

Hello Lost4words. I was a member of a Pentecostal Church for ten years, you are correct in that there does seem to be some measure of, what you term as 'gobbledegook'. People are human, some 'speak in tongues' for attention, or promotion. The genuine is still present as well, it's extremely powerful and extremely rare. The only two times I have experienced genuine speaking in tongues it did seem to be directed at people who otherwise would not hear and understand the gospel, it was a genuine human language that could be understood and translated and several people came to faith through it. The second time it was Bulgarians and Romanians who heard the gospel through a speaker from England.

God Bless

I don't agree with the cessationist viewpoint at all. I believe that God still bestows both physical and spiritual gifts on people and is still very much active and interested in our world today. I don't at all believe he's just been ignoring us since the 1st century. With that said, I also don't believe he gives the exact same spiritual gifts to everyone, so while speaking in tongues is indeed real, it's not a gift that he has given to all and it's not necessarily even the most (or least) important gift. I don't agree that a person has to speak in tongues to prove themselves to be a "true believer". They simply just have other gifts that suit them better.

Bible Highlighter said:

It is true that Jesus did not do miracles because of the people's lack of belief or faith.
But that is not people seeking healing from the Lord Jesus with Jesus being unable to heal them.

Click to expand...

What is it then - I am smiling - you are not believing in the gifts yet presume to teach how they are meant to work !!!

Same old story - some study the map learn all the place names, work out the route and presume to know more than those actually walking on the road !!!