Acts 2 vs 1 Cor 14

Hillsage

One 4 Him & Him 4 all
Supporter
Jun 12, 2009
5,244
1,767
The land of OZ
✟322,350.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
I know where they were and for clarity sake, lets drop the word "tongue" since there is such an emotional attachment to it by those who speak in tongues.
If "I know where they were" obliquely means you really don't agree with me, then you should rebut, and not divert. My POV clearly spells out the two different tongues spoken from one location on that day.

I suppose Crazimatics' may certainly come out as 'too emotional' to the fundamental church. But (sad though funny), I've also heard those same 'Crazimatics' call those same fundamentalists things like, 'the frozen chosen' 'bedside Baptists' 'mattress Methodists' etc.etc. for their very lack of emotion. Personally I don't consider myself to be 'that emotional', other than those emotional fruits I strive for which are called LOVE, JOY and PEACE. I hope those emotions don't bother you guys too. ;)
Let's use instead, what the underlying word specifically is saying.. LANGUAGES. On that day they spoke in OTHER LANGUAGES and all the people from all the nations there heard them in their OWN LANGUAGE. This isn't an "unknown tongue" because Luke specifically states that they spoke in an "other" language not an "unknown" or "angelic" or "spiritual" or "godly" language.
Are you not hearing, or just not understanding what I've said. I agree with what you're saying, in as much as you got right. You want to call it languages because we're emotional...sorry. Just as long as you don't carnal mindedly hyperblole "tongues of men and of angels" into 'languages of men' period. And since the KJV uses "tongues" 20 times in chapter 12-14 and 'your' suggested word "language" is only in the NT once I'm suspicious as to your reason 'why'. Your point seems to come more from 'doctrinal protection' than it does 'seeking the truth' wherever it may lead. As a matter of fact your preferred "languages" is only used one single time in the KJV NT, and that's in Acts 2:6 and is the Greek word dialektos as pertaining to dialect. A bit different than the 20X GLOSSA/TONGUES is used in Corinthians. And whether they be they earthly tongues heavenly tongues or both contextually, is truly the point here. My unemotional opinion is call Glossa what the Greek says it is.

If one can't "rightly divide the word" to separate the nuanced difference between prayer tongues/languages 'BY US, from our spirit TO GOD', which no man understands, as opposed to tongues manifested THROUGH US from the HOLY SPIRIT then you're stumped. You can't possibly go on to the deeper revelation of the difference between the prayer tongue of your spirit for "self edification" and tongues from the Holy Spirit for 'others edification' as on the day of Pentecost.
 
Upvote 0

Blade

Veteran
Supporter
Dec 29, 2002
8,165
3,989
USA
✟629,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Jeremiah33.. anyone that believes Jesus came in the flesh died on the cross for the worlds sins rose 3rd day is the only way to the Father is family. Some believe gifts are gone dead.. praise God.. still family.

If we listen to man we only see and get what that man personally believes. You said tongues more the once I believe. For me.. I use to go to this bible study where they keep asking never once forcing.. just asking if I wanted the holy Spirit. One day I said sure. So I sat in this chair and they then read exactly and only what the word said about the Holy Spirit. Then they asked me again if I wanted it. I said yes. They prayed. They stopped and said "thats it you got it". Huh? Nothing happen. No one said anything.. I got up and when I went to sit down.. BAM! It just came out. I was like 15-16. It was many years later that I read what happen to me was exactly what happen in the bible.

yes.. yes I hear man say its dead..or its HAS to be some earthly language on and on. See for me.. I read the bible.. I take HIM at HIS word. He said.. if I ask the Father for the Holy Spirit I will get it. He told the 120 to wait on the promise. ALL while they waited were saved. Yet.. JESUS did what? He said. I will pray the Father.. JESUS had to ask the Father to send what? And what did Jesus say about it? You SHALL receive power. I don't care what some man on this planet says. MAN when it happen to me.. WOW POWER OF GOD .. JESUS haha was right! And this power? You ALWAYS want HIM..nothing but HIM.. HIM HIM HIM.. to praise to love to you name it. To always give HIM all the glory and praise.

See nothing ended.. something was born. And if we read the word everything God does GROWS..NEVER dies. It cant.. He is LIFE! And in this world its FAR worse now then it was then. Know this.. He will never go against our belief. If we believe gifts are dead.. then we will never see them. See for me.. HE never once in my 56 years told me they were dead. Now.. I WILL NOT be the one to tell that woman in my early Church where they spoke in tongues and this preacher touched this blind woman said in JESUS name...she cry screams.. shouts.. ..yeah..not going to tell here tongues and gifts are dead.. I dont think she would believe anyway. Hundreds saw it. I can go on for a VERY Long time.

If I tell GOD NO! He will do what? Nothing. See in my own life.. I dont pray YOU see what I believe. I pray.. Father if I am wrong in ANYTHING change me 1st. See JESUS is truth. The only way. The only life. I can never go wrong seeking HIM. Seeking my Fathers kingdom and HIS righteousness. He is real. And He said.. we being evil can do good things. How much more will He give the Holy Spirit to them that ask. And will GOD give you a rock if you ask for a fish? When you ASK to what IS WRITTEN.. Just what is it you expect to happen? Him to LIE or change His mind? He cant.. He never ever has changed. WE have.

Just head on over to some 3rd world nation..where magic.. is real. See they believe in the supernatural. So God can work. You find dead raised.. blind deaf you name it. Happens today. But when we tell GOD.. sorry its dead dont happen.. you what.. think He will go against your will? He cant even force anyone to believe in Him period. So.. if you dont believe.. praise GOD. JESUS IS LORD the only way to the Father yes? THATS what matters praise GOD.

I just watched Grahams son talk again. Ever notice.. like him or not.. but.. he ALWAYS has to make sure you hear.. JESUS CAME DIED FOR THE WORLDS SINS! MAN I LOVE THAT!
 
Upvote 0

Ken Rank

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 12, 2014
7,218
5,560
Winchester, KENtucky
✟308,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
If "I know where they were" obliquely means you really don't agree with me, then you should rebut, and not divert. My POV clearly spells out the two different tongues spoken from one location on that day.

I suppose Crazimatics' may certainly come out as 'too emotional' to the fundamental church. But (sad though funny), I've also heard those same 'Crazimatics' call those same fundamentalists things like, 'the frozen chosen' 'bedside Baptists' 'mattress Methodists' etc.etc. for their very lack of emotion. Personally I don't consider myself to be 'that emotional', other than those emotional fruits I strive for which are called LOVE, JOY and PEACE. I hope those emotions don't bother you guys too. ;)

Are you not hearing, or just not understanding what I've said. I agree with what you're saying, in as much as you got right. You want to call it languages because we're emotional...sorry. Just as long as you don't carnal mindedly hyperblole "tongues of men and of angels" into 'languages of men' period. And since the KJV uses "tongues" 20 times in chapter 12-14 and 'your' suggested word "language" is only in the NT once I'm suspicious as to your reason 'why'. Your point seems to come more from 'doctrinal protection' than it does 'seeking the truth' wherever it may lead. As a matter of fact your preferred "languages" is only used one single time in the KJV NT, and that's in Acts 2:6 and is the Greek word dialektos as pertaining to dialect. A bit different than the 20X GLOSSA/TONGUES is used in Corinthians. And whether they be they earthly tongues heavenly tongues or both contextually, is truly the point here. My unemotional opinion is call Glossa what the Greek says it is.

If one can't "rightly divide the word" to separate the nuanced difference between prayer tongues/languages 'BY US, from our spirit TO GOD', which no man understands, as opposed to tongues manifested THROUGH US from the HOLY SPIRIT then you're stumped. You can't possibly go on to the deeper revelation of the difference between the prayer tongue of your spirit for "self edification" and tongues from the Holy Spirit for 'others edification' as on the day of Pentecost.
OK
 
Upvote 0

Marvin Knox

Senior Veteran
May 9, 2014
4,291
1,453
✟84,588.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
There can be no doubt that the disciples spoke in foreign languages on the day of Pentecost. It says so plainly in v4 - "and they began to speak in other tongues". It then goes on to list the tongues spoken..."Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya around Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs". Virtually all commentators agree the disciples were miraculously speaking foreign languages.
There can be doubt and there is doubt.

It does not say so plainly in vs. 4. It does say they spoke in other tongues but it does not say what the tongues were except that many people who heard their tongues thought they were drunk.

It does not list the "languages" spoken. It lists the places the ones who heard them speaking were from.

Assuming what you say is true - then virtually all commentators are wrong. They, like you after them, read into the passage what you want to believe it is telling us.

If they really compared the situation in the book of Acts with the Corinthian situation with an open mind they would believe otherwise.
There is no mention of any kind of interpretation taking place in Acts 2. If there was this great miracle of automatic translation in the ears of the hearers Luke would have told us, not remain silent on such an important fact.
Luke did not remain silent on what happened. Luke tells us exactly what happened. The people from other countries "heard" them praising God in their own language."
The Holy Spirit fell on the disciples giving them the gift of miraculously speaking in foreign languages, "as the Spirit enabled them" (Acts 2:4).
The Holy Spirit fell on the disciples and they spoke in tongues. That's all we know. Anything beyond that is conjecture.
There is no mention of the Spirit falling on the unregenerate crowd giving them the ability to interpret.
There is mention of many of the people hearing them speak in their own language while others merely thought the disciples drunk.

You have no idea when they were regenerated nor even exactly how regeneration works.

"The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit." Jn. 3:8
Only Christians receive the Holy Spirit (Eph 1:13-14; Rom 8:9), and the supernatural gift of interpretation is a manifestation of the Spirit which is only given to believers (1 Cor 12). Yet after the tongues speaking at Pentecost the crowd remained unregenerate until Peter preached the gospel to them.
There was no "gift" of interpretation of tongues given to any of the people at Pentecost.

I didn't say any of them "interpreted" for anyone in order for them to understand - much less a congregation as in Corinth (they didn't need to).

As I said, God Himself provided the interpretation directly for each of the people in question at Pentecost.

Perhaps you are misunderstanding what I have said because I used the word "interpretation" for both instances.

Let me rephrase and refer to the Pentecost example another way.

God gave them the "understanding".

At Corinth He worked through people who were operating in that gift.
You don't see anyone operating in the gift of interpretation of tongues at Pentecost.

God didn't need to work through the gift of interpretation at Babel and He didn't at Pentecost either. The various abilities at Babel had absolutely nothing to do with certain people being born again or "regenerated". The Holy Spirit's giving of the ability to understand certain languages had nothing what so ever with salvation or gifts of the Spirit at Babel.

At Pentecost it does appear the majority or even all of those hearing in their own language at Pentecost were among the elect of God and that is to be expected given the selective nature of the understanding given.

You, like so many before you, are letting your preconceived notions convince you about these things.

There are other ways to look at these things which line up with scripture even better than your IMO.

By the way - do you speak and pray in tongues (known or unknown) by the Holy Spirit?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Deadworm

Well-Known Member
May 26, 2016
1,061
714
76
Colville, WA 99114
✟68,313.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Jeremiah: "I am presently reading the book, Strange Fire by John MacArthur. From Cessationists point of view, in Acts 2, the tongues spoken in the upper room, when the Holy Spirit came, was of foreign languages and not senseless babbling.

Cessationists likr MacArthur like to claim that Acts 2 is normative for the other NT references to speaking in tongues. It is not. The Pentecost outpouring fulfills Joel 2:28 which predicts prophesying, not speaking in tongues. But the tongues of Pentecost are an example of prophesying precisely because they are understood by the witnesses. Elsewhere in Acts and 1 Corinthians 12 and 14 prophesying is clearly distinguished from tongues. This proves that the tongues of Pentecost are unique as the only NT example of tongues as prophesy. This point is not affected by Peter's claim that tongues were spoken in Cornelius' household just as they were spoken on the Day of Pentecost. Peter is referring the fact of tongues, not the duplication of type of languages.

Cessationists also like to claim that the use of "tongues" (Greek: "glossai") must mean "foreign human languages. This claim can be refuted on 3 grounds:

(1) In its article on "glossai" Kittel's massive 9 volume dictionary of the New Testament,
gives several examples in classical Greek in which "glossai" denotes poetic gibberish which needs interpretation to be understood.

(2) Paul identifies this gift as speaking in the "tongues of men or of angels." Angelic speech would sound like gibberish to the natural ear. Indeed an ancient Jewish document, the Testament of Job, reports humans being inspired to speak angelic dialects! No, there is no need to prove that Paul read this document; it is enough to demonstrate that speaking in angelic tongues was considered a viable possibility in the early Christian era. Indeed, Paul describes the Corinthians as "zealots of spirits" (Greek: 'pneuma"--14:12) not as "zealots of spirituals gifts" as the mistranslation in your Bible probably reads. Paul's point is that the Corinthians as zealots of angelic tongues. This refutes the otherwise unprovable claim that Paul is being hyperbolic in his reference to "tongues of men and angels."

(3) The spontaneous outbursts of tongues in Cornelius's household (Acts 10) and in Ephesus (Acts 19) are not interpreted. So why would these tongues be human speech, when no one is available to understand them?

Jeremiah: "It is also understood that tongue has ceased after the Apostalic age."

That claim is indefensible from a NT perspective. No, it is not implied by 1 Corinthians 13:8-10, which refers to the end of the age. Indeed in 1 Corinthians 14 Paul says, "I want you all to speak in tongues (14:5)" and then thanks God that "I speak in tongues more than you all (14:28)." In the context, he is discussing praying in uninterpreted tongues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hillsage
Upvote 0

Jeremiah33

Active Member
Nov 5, 2017
29
5
61
Singapore
✟9,739.00
Country
Singapore
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
he
Jeremiah: "I am presently reading the book, Strange Fire by John MacArthur. From Cessationists point of view, in Acts 2, the tongues spoken in the upper room, when the Holy Spirit came, was of foreign languages and not senseless babbling.

Cessationists likr MacArthur like to claim that Acts 2 is normative for the other NT references to speaking in tongues. It is not. The Pentecost outpouring fulfills Joel 2:28 which predicts prophesying, not speaking in tongues. But the tongues of Pentecost are an example of prophesying precisely because they are understood by the witnesses. Elsewhere in Acts and 1 Corinthians 12 and 14 prophesying is clearly distinguished from tongues. This proves that the tongues of Pentecost are unique as the only NT example of tongues as prophesy. This point is not affected by Peter's claim that tongues were spoken in Cornelius' household just as they were spoken on the Day of Pentecost. Peter is referring the fact of tongues, not the duplication of type of languages.

Cessationists also like to claim that the use of "tongues" (Greek: "glossai") must mean "foreign human languages. This claim can be refuted on 3 grounds:

(1) In its article on "glossai" Kittel's massive 9 volume dictionary of the New Testament,
gives several examples in classical Greek in which "glossai" denotes poetic gibberish which needs interpretation to be understood.

(2) Paul identifies this gift as speaking in the "tongues of men or of angels." Angelic speech would sound like gibberish to the natural ear. Indeed an ancient Jewish document, the Testament of Job, reports humans being inspired to speak angelic dialects! No, there is no need to prove that Paul read this document; it is enough to demonstrate that speaking in angelic tongues was considered a viable possibility in the early Christian era. Indeed, Paul describes the Corinthians as "zealots of spirits" (Greek: 'pneuma"--14:12) not as "zealots of spirituals gifts" as the mistranslation in your Bible probably reads. Paul's point is that the Corinthians as zealots of angelic tongues. This refutes the otherwise unprovable claim that Paul is being hyperbolic in his reference to "tongues of men and angels."

(3) The spontaneous outbursts of tongues in Cornelius's household (Acts 10) and in Ephesus (Acts 19) are not interpreted. So why would these tongues be human speech, when no one is available to understand them?

Jeremiah: "It is also understood that tongue has ceased after the Apostalic age."

That claim is indefensible from a NT perspective. No, it is not implied by 1 Corinthians 13:8-10, which refers to the end of the age. Indeed in 1 Corinthians 14 Paul says, "I want you all to speak in tongues (14:5)" and then thanks God that "I speak in tongues more than you all (14:28)." In the context, he is discussing praying in uninterpreted tongues.

I spent a total of 10 years in 2 charismatic churches. The former was a mega church. So, I've spoken in tongue for that long. When I was a young Christian, and in love, I was prepared to believe anything. 10 years on, I began to question about the gifts of tongues, falling under the power of the Spirit, prophesies, tithing and so on. What help are they to my life? In this thread, I'm just wanting to seek clarification concerning tongue, just to stay focus. So how does the gift of tongue edify me (mind you, I'm very good at speaking in tongue)? I have no answer to that. It only feeds my pride. I'm willing to give it up if it was self-made or worse, ungodly stuff. I believe it could be both.

I can only conclude that only the Word of God will do me good. I have learned to be more like Him thru' His Word. Still in the making, but His grace is sufficient for me.
 
Upvote 0

Jeremiah33

Active Member
Nov 5, 2017
29
5
61
Singapore
✟9,739.00
Country
Singapore
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
hasing
If we listen to man we only see and get what that man personally believes. You said tongues more the once I believe. For me.. I use to go to this bible study where they keep asking never once forcing.. just asking if I wanted the holy Spirit. One day I said sure. So I sat in this chair and they then read exactly and only what the word said about the Holy Spirit. Then they asked me again if I wanted it. I said yes. They prayed. They stopped and said "thats it you got it". Huh? Nothing happen. No one said anything.. I got up and when I went to sit down.. BAM! It just came out. I was like 15-16. It was many years later that I read what happen to me was exactly what happen in the bible.
I've heard more than one preacher commented on the pulpit that the Bible is easy to understand. That cannot be true. If so, we wouldn't have this discussion. I believe we have to read the Scriptures and also hear from (godly) man's interpretation and we have to take our position with discernment. It is our responsibility to do so.

I've had quite similiar experience with you. The tongue came for the first time and I was flat on the floor for 45 min. It felt good after that. It's an experience. I've done that for a decade. But how does that help me other than feeling good? Does it edify those around me? None that I know of.

I'm not usually vocal about my life. But I'm aware that younger Christians may be watching this thread. So, it is important that I relate my first hand experience about Charismatic gifts and they can decide what helps them. For me, The gift of tongues breeds pride in me and chasing prophesies breed greed. Both are not good.
 
Upvote 0

Jeremiah33

Active Member
Nov 5, 2017
29
5
61
Singapore
✟9,739.00
Country
Singapore
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Messiah said that he had not been sent but to the lost sheep of the House of Israel. If you know your history, you know that when Israel split into two kingdoms after Solomon, that the Northern Kingdom, Israel, was eventually taken into Assyria as punishment for idolatry and never returned. Instead, they were scattered from there over all of the earth and became know, historically, as the lost sheep of the House of Israel.

Since they were in all nations, you might note that the Great Commission was to go out into the nations. What we see in Acts 2 is disciples speaking in OTHER languages, not an unknown language. People from all nations were hearing the message in their own tongue... their own language and this was a sign that the call to the lost sheep had indeed begun. To use that event and try to use it to say we all have to speak in tongues is just out of context entirely. I am not saying tongues is real or not, for today or not... I am saying what happened in Acts 2 is not what Paul is talking about in 1 Cor. 14.
Thank you. It seems I get more clarity as the thread gets longer.
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: Ken Rank
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
It does not say so plainly in vs. 4. It does say they spoke in other tongues but it does not say what the tongues were except that many people who heard their tongues thought they were drunk.

It says the disciples spoke in other languages in v4. Then in v6 it tells us that each foreigner was "hearing them speak in his own language". It couldn't be much clearer.

The people who accused the disciples of being drunk were the locals from Jerusalem and the surrounding area who did not recognize the languages spoken. We know this because Peter addresses them first "Men of Judea and all you who live in Jerusalem, let this be known to you and give heed to my words. For these men are not drunk, as you suppose". To them the foreign languages they heard sounded like gibberish. A Spaniard who had never heard Mongolian may indeed think that a Mongolian speaker was speaking gibberish, and vice versa.

Assuming what you say is true - then virtually all commentators are wrong. They, like you after them, read into the passage what you want to believe it is telling us.

If they really compared the situation in the book of Acts with the Corinthian situation with an open mind they would believe otherwise.

The vast majority of commentators agree the disciples were speaking foreign languages because that is the plain meaning of the passage. To conclude it was anything else is to fallaciously read a preconceived idea into the text.

Luke did not remain silent on what happened. Luke tells us exactly what happened. The people from other countries "heard" them praising God in their own language."

Since when does "heard" mean "an automatic interpretation in the ears of the hearer"?

If someone said "I heard a Frenchman speaking English" it doesn't mean the Frenchman was speaking gibberish, but it was miraculously translated in my ears as English words. It means what it says - the Frenchman was speaking English.

The plain reading of Acts 2 cannot be taken any other way. You have your own pre-conceived idea about what tongues is and are attempting to force that idea into Acts 2. That is called the fallacy of eisegesis.

The Holy Spirit fell on the disciples and they spoke in tongues. That's all we know. Anything beyond that is conjecture.

Right. The Holy Spirit fell on the disciples and they spoke in other languages (v4), which the foreigners heard and recognized (v6). As you say anything beyond that is pure conjecture. There is nothing about the Spirit falling on the crowd and nothing about a miracle of automatic interpretation in their ears.

You have no idea when they were regenerated nor even exactly how regeneration works.

Yes I do. "Faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the Word of God" (Rom 10:17). The crowd at Pentecost only became believers after Peter preached to them. Only then were they indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

"Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?” Peter said to them, “Repent....and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. ...". So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls."

There is absolutely no indication of the Spirit falling on the unregenerate crowd beforehand and performing a miracle on them.

As I said, God Himself provided the interpretation directly for each of the people in question at Pentecost.

Perhaps you are misunderstanding what I have said because I used the word "interpretation" for both instances.

I know exactly what you meant. You are suggesting that the disciples spoke in a gibberish sounding language and there was a miracle of interpretation in the ears of the crowd and the words were automatically translated into their own native tongue inside their head. That would be a fantastic miracle if it occurred, far greater than that of the disciples in fact, and yet Luke remains completely silent on such a thing occurring, despite this being a highly detailed historical account of the Pentecost event. It is a completely unwarranted assumption.

Let me rephrase and refer to the Pentecost example another way.

God gave them the "understanding".

It doesn't say that either. It says the foreigners "heard them speak in their own language."

At Corinth He worked through people who were operating in that gift.
You don't see anyone operating in the gift of interpretation of tongues at Pentecost.

No interpretation was needed at Pentecost because the foreigners heard the disciples speaking their own native language. It says so plainly.
 
Upvote 0
Mar 14, 2012
416
270
over here in Texas
✟55,821.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Hi Jeremiah. I understand your concerns as you want to stay in God's will. I remember when, shortly after surrendering my life to Jesus Christ in faith and repentance, i was filled with the Holy Spirit at home seeking the Lord for His filling. That night, i began praying in tongues. There is a difference in praying or praising in tongues (unfruitful understanding, 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Corinthians 13:1) than speaking in tongues during which there is to be an interpreter like Paul said in 1 Corinthians 14. The confusion might be that what we pray in tongues just isnt meant to be on display. And Paul explained that in 1 Corinthians 14. Today, living the invention of microphones, we hear people praying in tongues all the time because the mic is available not because God moved on us to do so. And it's not wise. The GIFT of SPEAKING is meant with an interpreter. You're concerned like i have been and many have been. Even in early church in Corinth. That's why Paul was clarifying.

People think tongues no longer exist and should think ths same way about knowledge then. Because 1 Cor tells us knowledge will pass away. In fact, the Word says heaven and earth will pass away but not God's Word. Do heaven and earth still exist? Yes. And i believe cessationists who are true believers love the Lord as charismatics who are truly believers do. We are all learning. And learning the Word is just not a 1 time occurrence or 1 decade process. Its lifetime of learning from the Lord. John the apostle had to be corrected for worshipping an angel in error. The correction never ends. And yet there is a gloriousness in it because it entails walking with Christ listening to Him like a child walks with their beloved Father who is inclined to say things like, "No John. Don't do that. Dont you know that thing will bite you?" What's offensive in that?? lol

As a new believer, I testified of my Spirit-filling experience with praying (at the time i said "speaking") in tongues at the Baptist church where i attended at the next testimony evening service. The congregation of leaders were joyful considering the carnal teenager they knew me to be previously. But there is another experience that stands out years later.

My pastor of that church was one of the first people to warn me of this: Do not pattern my life after what ANYBODY does. Keep my eyes on Jesus and the ONLY way to do that is to stick with God's Word - not adding to It and not taking away from It. Stick to the text - nothing extra Biblical, nothing anti Biblical. I will never forget those words of admonition.

I was a charismatic then "on fire for the Lord" as i saw it, and i am now in a different sense (I no longer examine God's Word by what Kenneth Hagin, RW Schambach, or John Osteen said but examine their/other teachings by what God's Word says).

But i saw my Baptist pastor as too much of a disgruntled grouch (as he was pretty angry internally) to take very seriously. But he was right. Now, almost 30 years later, i know him to have been right. Because i started really adhering to his counsel just over a decade ago finally. Even though i did study the Bible a lot. The leadership kept urging us to. I am still charismatic in distinction from somebody like John MacArthur, whom I greatly respect and listen to on occasion. I cherish prayers privately in tongues. When i don't know what else to pray, i do so. When im moved with emotional joy or sadness I do so when no other speakable words can express my longing to express to my Father. I rely on the Spirit to give my spirit (that part of me that is willing to surrender despite my flesh) utterance to pray privately in tongues with as much peace as I'd have just humming with an assurance that only He'd no the conversation my heart mysteriously speaks. But also keep myself guarded and distanced from today's charismatics for a number of reasons. Its too common that there is Biblical illiteracy among a lot of circles and within our American culture period. And people will argue and argue about unBiblical practices with weak weak reference to the Bible and they are leaders doing so. I heard a leader in charismatic church say Abraham's wife Sarah may have had a Jezebel spirit for suggesting he sleep with Haggar. I wanted no part if that. Todays Charismatics are so preoccupied with how spiritual sounding "revelations" are, some forgot it's more important to seek expert studies in the Word rather than doctrines of demons called Jezebel. Even years ago, I started noticing the charismatic circles i had been in more focused on revelations of well-known writers/speakers more than revelations of Scripture. Scripture was too simple. And what did not sell well among our charismatic circles were books that focused on the simplicity of focusing on God and at the same time the gloriousness of that focus. Books that explained to shun sin didnt sell. The super spiritual sold. Those books that requires expert insight from the likes of Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland and other esoteric leaders. I saw more embracing of the messengers rather than the message of the gospel. From the beginning, since i kept reading the Bible closely at my leaders' urging and spending that time in private devotion +Bible Studies under teachers who just love the the Word, i kept getting alarmed by people continually adhering more to the teachings of popular charismatic preachers no matter what and no matter how contradictory some things said were to Scripture.

I read one post that said you should throw out that book "Strangd Fire". I agree there would be safety in doing that and just getting into the Word alone spending time getting to know God completely. Sometimes we wont even know His will unless we know His character because certain things just aren't written - like in exteme terms, cocaine usage isn't addressed in the Word per se, but by knowing God's Word, we know it to be against His will. His character and His will, and of course His Word, are revealed in Scripture from Genesis to Revelation. Charasmatics say, "and also listen to the voice of the Spirit so you can know God's will." And that's true. But you wont even HEAR from the Spirit typically if you turn a blind eye or deaf ear to God's written Word. Reject the written? Dont expect the audible. And in too many of our circles, that revelation is MISSED because it doesn't seem supernatural enough. And for a believer thats sad.

John MacArthur's book offends a lot of charismatics. I think his intentions are well-meaning and make points that we do need to take heed to. Does he make false accusations in some ways? I think so because while, emotions are actually what are often mistaken as being a move of the Spirit, there is nothing wrong with being emotionally moved by God to the point of sobbing, shouting and dancing. This happens in many Black churches - certainly within the ones i grew up in where people, so happy for the simplest of blessings even in that Baptist church, didn't hold back strong dramatic emotions as they did not hold back when they came to church grieved and released emotions out to God just as dramatically. Nothing wrong with that at all. In charismatic circles emotions are just mislabeled. Emotions are too followed and mimic the supernatural. No one knows how to say, i was so moved and fell to the ground to reflect on God. At least in that old Baptist church, people called it exactly THAT and were accurate. Now, the hand of the "special one" is sought for an experience with God. But we love to criticize Catholics for going through man to reach God.

Please also consider that, just as we charismatics can be very offended by Strange Fire, charismatics too often offend our own when we read esoteric books that compel us to keep falsely accusing our fellow believers of having Jezebel spirits. This widespread teaching has us confusing our own kids into thinking a genuinely saved person can have a "Jezebel spirit" due to domineering flaws right alongside the half naked celebrities that entertain these kids outside our church doors. By the time we try telling them that such a vulgar celebrity man or woman has a "Jezebel spirit", these kids are desensitized to that extra Biblical term from hearing it so much directed at well-meaning but flawed believers. So any charismatic, including myself, offended by accusation of John MacArthur really needs to look within our own circle and see the ridiculous false accusations that we already have among us.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Marvin Knox

Senior Veteran
May 9, 2014
4,291
1,453
✟84,588.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
It says the disciples spoke in other languages in v4. Then in v6 it tells us that each foreigner was "hearing them speak in his own language". It couldn't be much clearer..................It doesn't say that either. It says the foreigners "heard them speak in their own language."
What else would it say? The foreigners "heard them eat in their own language"?
The people who accused the disciples of being drunk were the locals from Jerusalem and the surrounding area who did not recognize the languages spoken
The residents of Jerusalem were very familiar with people speaking other languages during festivals like Pentecost or Passover.

I frequent the "Pike Place Market" where the original Starbucks store is located.

I hear people speaking other languages all the time. Not as often as the residents of Jerusalem, but quite often.

I have never once thought any of them to be drunk as I listened to their babble around my lunch table.
Since when does "heard" mean "an automatic interpretation in the ears of the hearer"?
Since the Holy Spirit wrote that they heard specific, identifiable to them, languages.
It means what it says - the Frenchman was speaking English.
No it means exactly what it says. "I heard a Frenchman speaking English"
There is absolutely no indication of the Spirit falling on the unregenerate crowd beforehand and performing a miracle on them.
No one said that the text does say that the Spirit fell on them and performed a miracle on them. It doesn't say that He "fell" at Babel either. Nor does it say that he "fell" on Caiaphas or the donkey. The Holy Spirit is everywhere and He often works in unbelievers.
That would be a fantastic miracle if it occurred, far greater than that of the disciples in fact, and yet Luke remains completely silent on such a thing occurring,
Paul gives us the required insight into it in the Corinthian letter IMO.
No interpretation was needed at Pentecost because the foreigners heard the disciples speaking their own native language. It says so plainly.
Exactly.

No "gift of interpretation" was needed - only God given understanding.

Yours is the most often cited view of these things. But IMO it just doesn't make sense that it is correct.

While it's possible, I suppose, to plug actually speaking known languages into the Pentecost narrative - try plugging that idea into the other instances of tongues in the Book of Acts and into the directions for church use in Corinthians and you will find the results to be rather silly IMO.

Now plug my interpretation of what tongues were and are into the same narratives and you will find it make much more sense.

Do you speak in tongues? Do you believe tongues is for the church today as it was at Corinth?

Have you observed known languages used in the Church in the Corinthian way? Because I have observed what you call gibberish language used and interpreted that way.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Deadworm

Well-Known Member
May 26, 2016
1,061
714
76
Colville, WA 99114
✟68,313.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Jeremiah,

As a lifelong Pentecostal who has experienced all the gifts, I am certain of one thing: that 95% of what is passed off as speaking in tongues and interpretation is of "the flesh." From your descriptions of your charismatic experience, I am confident that most of what you have experienced falls in this category. You don't even seem to grasp the mind-blowing functions of tongues and what it means for Paul to teach that the gift "edifies."

I received me Spirit baptism in a camp meeting at the altar. I was waiting on God at the altar long after the crowd hand exited. Tongues was preceded by a supernatural breeze that I at first thought was a wind from the nearby lake and then it was forced on me, when I was a total skeptic. My experience was so intense I thought it would kill me. I felt that at any moment my ego would be absorbed in God's mind and I would cease to exist. After an experience of holy wind, wave after wave of liquid love engulfed me, each more intense and sweeter than the last. A lady sat nearby, watching in awe. When I asked her why she was staring at me, she replied, "Don't you know? Your face is glowing in the dark!" A Lutheran pastor approached me, saying, "I don't believe in tongues and I'm here just as a curious observer. But I can tell that God is doing something truly special for you. Would you pray for me?" I simply touched him gently on the forehead and he exploded into tongues!" God spoke to me unmistakably during this thrllling experience. God said: You crave answers, but right now answers are not what you need the most because you would live in your head too much. I want you to live the big questions until they lead you to the center of my heart."

Charles Finney and D. L. Moody were both converted during the2nd Great Awakening in the 19th century. Both were mightily used by God and both were baptized in the Spirit like I was, even using the same language to describe their experience as I have. Yet neither spoke in tongues. To learn more about the real thing and its astounding benefits, go to the Spiritual Gifts section and then the subforum "Sign Gifts" and read my 2 threads "Speaking in Tongues and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit" and "The Spirituality of Premonitions" to see just how supernatural, powerful, and useful the gift of tongues can be and how valuable it is as a gateway gift that leads to other more spectacular gifts listed in 1 Corinthians 12.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Hillsage
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
What else would it say? The foreigners "heard them eat in their own language"?

"they heard them speaking in their own language" means what it says - the disciples were speaking in the native language of the foreigners. And that is what the foreigners heard.


I frequent the "Pike Place Market" where the original Starbucks store is located.

I hear people speaking other languages all the time. Not as often as the residents of Jerusalem, but quite often.

I have never once thought any of them to be drunk as I listened to their babble around my lunch table.

That is because you expect to hear foreign languages at your local market.

The locals in Jerusalem would not have expected to hear a cacophony foreign languages spoken. Especially in the temple courts where this event undoubtedly took place. Hebrew, the holy language, was the language of the Temple. Speaking a foreign language in Jerusalem would be considered an anathema. It was always considered a sign of judgement (Isaiah 28:11-12, Deu. 28:49-50; Jer. 5:15; Eze. 3:5-6).

As there was a crowd of thousands gathered around the disciples, not every one of them would have recognized the foreign language they heard, so it is not surprising that a few heard what they thought was gibberish.

No it means exactly what it says. "I heard a Frenchman speaking English"

And does that mean the Frenchman was speaking gibberish but I heard it as English due to a miracle of automatic translation in my ears? Is that the plain reading of that sentence?

No one said that the text does say that the Spirit fell on them and performed a miracle on them. It doesn't say that He "fell" at Babel either. Nor does it say that he "fell" on Caiaphas or the donkey. The Holy Spirit is everywhere and He often works in unbelievers.

Except there is absolutely no indication in the text that the Holy Spirit did work a miracle on the crowd. You are making an unwarranted assumption. The only people it says the Holy Spirit worked on were the disciples. Acts 2:4 “as the Spirit enabled them". Nowhere does it also say the Spirit enabled the hearers.

No "gift of interpretation" was needed - only God given understanding.

No, it doesn't say they heard as a result of a "God given understanding". They heard in the same way as you and I hear someone speaking.

While it's possible, I suppose, to plug actually speaking known languages into the Pentecost narrative - try plugging that idea into the other instances of tongues in the Book of Acts and into the directions for church use in Corinthians and you will find the results to be rather silly IMO.

Not at all. In fact if you replace 'tongue' with 'another language' in 1 Cor 14, it makes perfect sense. Try it for yourself.
 
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
(1) In its article on "glossai" Kittel's massive 9 volume dictionary of the New Testament,
gives several examples in classical Greek in which "glossai" denotes poetic gibberish which needs interpretation to be understood.

Where in classical Greek is 'glossai' used to describe gibberish? I have the abridged version of Kittel's TDNT and it give the same 3 meanings of the word glossa that every other lexicon lists:

(1) the human speech organ or something shaped like it.
(2) language.
(3) a term for the spiritual gift of speaking a language you have never learned.


(2) Paul identifies this gift as speaking in the "tongues of men or of angels." Angelic speech would sound like gibberish to the natural ear.

Nobody spoke in the tongues of angels. Paul was speaking hypothetically to make the point that even if someone spoke in tongues to such a superlative degree it would be worthless without love. As practically every commentator agrees.

Indeed an ancient Jewish document, the Testament of Job, reports humans being inspired to speak angelic dialects! No, there is no need to prove that Paul read this document; it is enough to demonstrate that speaking in angelic tongues was considered a viable possibility in the early Christian era.

The Testament of Job is an ancient Jewish fairy tale, not real life account! It is as much proof of someone speaking the language of angels as it is of concluding that lions can speak English because one appeared in the Wizard of Oz!

(3) The spontaneous outbursts of tongues in Cornelius's household (Acts 10) and in Ephesus (Acts 19) are not interpreted. So why would these tongues be human speech, when no one is available to understand them?

Because Peter identified the Gentile tongues as being same as those spoken at Pentecost. Obviously there was someone in Peter's party who recognized the foreign language spoken. It was on this basis alone that the Gentiles were accepted as equals into the church - something which they would not have done if their tongues was a something different. The only description of the gift of tongues in scripture is Acts 2:4-11. In the absence of any redefinition, all subsequent instances of tongues including Acts 10, 19 and 1 Corinthians must be presumed to be the same as those spoken at Pentecost.

That claim is indefensible from a NT perspective. No, it is not implied by 1 Corinthians 13:8-10, which refers to the end of the age.

That is one popular interpretation of 1 Cor 13:8-10, but another interpretation that many scholars hold to (for good exegetical reasons) is that it refers to the completion of the canon and subsequent maturing of the church. And church history verifies this interpretation - tongues did indeed cease shortly after the apostolic age as affirmed by the Church Fathers.
 
Upvote 0

Marvin Knox

Senior Veteran
May 9, 2014
4,291
1,453
✟84,588.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
that is what the foreigners heard.
We've established that.
Especially in the temple courts where this event undoubtedly took place. Hebrew, the holy language, was the language of the Temple.
It took in and around a "house" not in the temple.
Speaking a foreign language in Jerusalem would be considered an anathema.
Nonsense.

People spoke many languages including Hebrew Greek, Latin, and Aramaic. In fact the inscription on the cross was in 3 languages precisely because other languages were spoken in Jerusalem.
And does that mean the Frenchman was speaking gibberish but I heard it as English due to a miracle of automatic translation in my ears? Is that the plain reading of that sentence?
No.

The example was your own and it was not something which happened in Corinth or even in any church.

By the way - whenever I use the word "gibberish" here it is only for your understanding as "unknown". It is an offensive term to me and to others here, I'm sure.
Nowhere does it also say the Spirit enabled the hearers.
Nonsense.

"a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised."
1 Corinthians 2:14

".............Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven." Matthew 16:17
Not at all. In fact if you replace 'tongue' with 'another language' in 1 Cor 14, it makes perfect sense. Try it for yourself.
I have.

I've tried every passage in the N.T. from both the national language perspective and the unknown, Heavenly or, if you prefer, gibberish perspective.

The only one which makes sense in all circumstances in the scriptures and in the actual Church practice of today is the latter.

I really don't have a problem figuring out what I believe about these things. The OP apparently does. He (she?) seems to even be in doubt concerning whether what he has been doing might be of the enemy.

I have not such misgiving. I am quite sure that, even if I am wrong and what I have done for decades and others around the world have as well is just out of my own flesh somehow - my Lord will not either give me a serpent or a stone or allow me to be given such by the enemy.

I'm trying as best I can figure it to answer the queries of the O.P. You, on the other hand, seem to have an agenda of your own. I'd just like to pin down what it might be.

Are you purposefully avoiding answering my questions about your beliefs concerning cessation either of known or unknown languages use in the church and in the field today and other such questions I have posed?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
It took in and around a "house" not in the temple.

You seriously think thousands of foreigners squeezed into a room in a normal dwelling house to witness the 120 disciples speak in tongues? The word house (οἶκος) can mean any kind of building, including the Temple or any of its associated structures. "He went into the house of God" (Luke 6:3), "It is written, ‘My house is a house of prayer," (Luke 19:46). Clearly it was where there were thousands of foreigners gathered for the Feast of Pentecost.

Nonsense.

People spoke many languages including Hebrew Greek, Latin, and Aramaic. In fact the inscription on the cross was in 3 languages precisely because other languages were spoken in Jerusalem.

Not in the Temple courts they wouldn't (I should have been more specific).

No.

The example was your own and it was not something which happened in Corinth or even in any church.

My example was the modern equivalent of Luke's words to highlight the folly of your interpretation.

We are not talking about what happened in Corinth, but at Pentecost where Luke says the foreigners were "hearing them speak in his own language" (NASB). Is the natural meaning of that phrase: 'the disciples were speaking a non-human language but it was automatically translated in the foreigners ears so they heard their native language'? Or is it: 'the disciples were speaking the foreigners languages, and the foreigners heard them'? Which is it, bearing in mind we are told a couple of verses earlier the disciples spoke in other languages as the Spirit gave them utterance?

Nonsense.

"a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised."
1 Corinthians 2:14

".............Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven." Matthew 16:17

How do those verses tell us that the Spirit was working a miracle of hearing in the unregenerate crowd in Acts 2?

I've tried every passage in the N.T. from both the national language perspective and the unknown, Heavenly or, if you prefer, gibberish perspective.

The only one which makes sense in all circumstances in the scriptures and in the actual Church practice of today is the latter.

Which verses does tongues as a foreign language not make sense?

I'm trying as best I can figure it to answer the queries of the O.P. You, on the other hand, seem to have an agenda of your own. I'd just like to pin down what it might be.

If you put forward a highly dubious interpretation to the OP, one which virtually all commentators reject, then why should I be forbidden from challenging it?


Are you purposefully avoiding answering my questions about your beliefs concerning cessation either of known or unknown languages use in the church and in the field today and other such questions I have posed?

Seeing as I am a cessationist the answers to your questions should be obvious. Not that I can see the relevance of them.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Marvin Knox

Senior Veteran
May 9, 2014
4,291
1,453
✟84,588.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
You seriously think thousands of foreigners squeezed into a room in a normal dwelling house to witness the 120 disciples speak in tongues?
Don't be silly.
No one said that the people squeezed into the house.
Clearly it was where there were thousands of foreigners gathered for the Feast of Pentecost..............Not in the Temple courts they wouldn't (I should have been more specific).
It was not in the temple courts. The disciples were "sitting" in the house where the tongues of fire appeared. There was no seating in the temple court you refer to. This is obviously a stretch on your part.
How do those verses tell us that the Spirit was working a miracle of hearing in the unregenerate crowd in Acts 2?
The people who heard them speaking were obviously being drawn by God to the Son for salvation.
Which verses does tongues as a foreign language not make sense?
Plug foreign languages into any of the occurrences in the book of Acts or the Corinthian ministries and you'll easily see how it doesn't make sense.

I can't and won't lead you through it here. If you care to you will do it yourself and see just how silly it would be.
If you put forward a highly dubious interpretation to the OP, one which virtually all commentators reject, then why should I be forbidden from challenging it?
No one has forbidden you from challenging it.

What I have said is that it makes more sense to see all of the instances of tongues in the light of a miraculous "Holy Spirit" language of some sort than to see them as known languages.
Seeing as I am a cessationist the answers to your questions should be obvious. Not that I can see the relevance of them.
There is no scriptural grounds for a cessationist position either on known languages or miraculous language.

I am unaware of any church on the face of the earth which practices the Corinthian related directions for the use of tongues in messages, prayer, prophecies or any other way which does so in known languages.

I know of thousands. Something like 1/3 of all evangelicals on earth currently practice tongues in a different way than you believe (of disbelieve) in.

Most of the effective evangelizing in the far corners of the world is being carried out by people who believe as I do concerning the practice of tongues in their private lives and in services.

But you are quite sure that your ideas are correct and theirs are wrong.

What's more, for the purpose of this discussion, my vision of what tongues were and are makes more sense than yours.

You are welcome to it I suppose. But why you would feel the need to take a chance of being found fighting against what the Holy Spirit is doing in this world in this day - I really can't understand.

It seems like you'd just worship your own way and let others worship the way they see it in the scriptures rather than spend so much time trying to undermine their way on internet forums.

But that's between you and God at this point.

The OP has questions which I tried to answer to help him. You have offered nothing of value for him IMO.:wave:
 
Upvote 0

Jeremiah33

Active Member
Nov 5, 2017
29
5
61
Singapore
✟9,739.00
Country
Singapore
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
As a lifelong Pentecostal who has experienced all the gifts, I am certain of one thing: that 95% of what is passed off as speaking in tongues and interpretation is of "the flesh." From your descriptions of your charismatic experience, I am confident that most of what you have experienced falls in this category. You don't even seem to grasp the mind-blowing functions of tongues and what it means for Paul to teach that the gift "edifies."
I'm asking from a logical point. Why does the church even allow 95% of tongues and interpretation of the flesh to go on in His church? What do you think God's response would be?
I would like to hear about the works of the mind-blowing functions of tongue. Thanks:)
 
Upvote 0

Jeremiah33

Active Member
Nov 5, 2017
29
5
61
Singapore
✟9,739.00
Country
Singapore
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
I received me Spirit baptism in a camp meeting at the altar. I was waiting on God at the altar long after the crowd hand exited. Tongues was preceded by a supernatural breeze that I at first thought was a wind from the nearby lake and then it was forced on me, when I was a total skeptic. My experience was so intense I thought it would kill me. I felt that at any moment my ego would be absorbed in God's mind and I would cease to exist. After an experience of holy wind, wave after wave of liquid love engulfed me, each more intense and sweeter than the last. A lady sat nearby, watching in awe. When I asked her why she was staring at me, she replied, "Don't you know? Your face is glowing in the dark!" A Lutheran pastor approached me, saying, "I don't believe in tongues and I'm here just as a curious observer. But I can tell that God is doing something truly special for you. Would you pray for me?" I simply touched him gently on the forehead and he exploded into tongues!" God spoke to me unmistakably during this thrllling experience. God said: You crave answers, but right now answers are not what you need the most because you would live in your head too much. I want you to live the big questions until they lead you to the center of my heart."
As in my previous post, I mentioned that I was prepared to believe anything as a young christian. I've heard and seen some of these things you have described, although not to that extend. I do not know what to make of them. And I have believed them. You see, I look at the charismatic movement in the broad sense. I avail myself to one of these things, I'll be exposed to the others like prophesies, and they are very inaccurate. The Bible teaches us to judge them by their fruit. And it isn't a good one. God gave us a head to think. I'm using it!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Jeremiah33

Active Member
Nov 5, 2017
29
5
61
Singapore
✟9,739.00
Country
Singapore
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
See nothing ended.. something was born. And if we read the word everything God does GROWS..NEVER dies. It cant.. He is LIFE! And in this world its FAR worse now then it was then. Know this.. He will never go against our belief. If we believe gifts are dead.. then we will never see them. See for me.. HE never once in my 56 years told me they were dead. Now.. I WILL NOT be the one to tell that woman in my early Church where they spoke in tongues and this preacher touched this blind woman said in JESUS name...she cry screams.. shouts.. ..yeah..not going to tell here tongues and gifts are dead.. I dont think she would believe anyway. Hundreds saw it. I can go on for a VERY Long time.
I believe gifts are not dead. I believe in gifts of teaching, mercy, etc. These gifts are quantifiable. They benefit the church and those in need.
 
Upvote 0