Is Speaking In Tongues Biblical Today?

Biblicist

Full Gospel believer
Mar 27, 2011
7,023
992
Melbourne, Australia
✟51,094.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
As about 40 have viewed my last post, I need to point out that I mistakenly referred to ex-charismatics instead of ex-cessationists, which dramatically changed the intent of the post; it is not always wise to rush a post!
 
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
It seems that I had one of those so-called Freudian moments, where dare I say, I failed to insert the qualifier Arminian into the equation, where it should have said “non-Charismatic Arminian Evangelical” – and the response by most would undoubtedly be “He said what!”

My Freudian remark reflects my deep-down viewpoint or bias (which may be either correct or incorrect) that it is not logical to refer to those who adhere to the old-school understanding of either Reformed theology or Calvinism as being Evangelical.

What I mean by this, is that even though we often see on this particular thread (and with others), that the paradigm is seen as being cessationists vs. Continuists, which is certainly a false paradigm; when it comes to acknowledging that God can and does heal through prayer, and through the prayer of others, such as with James 5:14, this means that the paradigm shifts to that of Reformed (and/or) Calvinism vs. Arminianism.

This means that the question should not be viewed as being between cessationists and Continuists, but instead as (old-school Reformed theology or Calvinism) vs. (Arminian non-Charismatic Evangelicals and Continuists).

This has been my own experience within the cessationist congregation that I was nurtured within, along with seemingly “all of those” who I had associations with at this time. So for them (which included me as well), we recognised that God certainly answered our prayers for healing along with the prayers of others on our behalf. This to me was the normal way of thinking with my Arminian (non-Charismatic) Evangelical peers.


Even with this statement, since the late 1970's and particularly with the here and now, it may very well be that the vast majority of non-Charismatic Arminian Evangelicals (what a mouthful), that they could very well fall into the category of being those who we refer to as being Open-but-cautious when it comes to the Full Gospel understanding of the ministry of the Holy Spirit, which is why so many of these Believers will acknowledge that "tongues is okay for those who want to go this way, but for me, it is not something that my Congregation encourages".

You said............
""tongues is okay for those who want to go this way, but for me, it is not something that my Congregation encourages".

I have seen that said in the past and to me it means that the person saying it just does not want to argue about the use of tongues because he knows that it will end in a argument.

Most people can not debate sensitive things such as this and if you will take the time to scan the responses here I think that you will see all most all of them end in conflicts unresolved and "personal" comments from the posters.

You see, most people like what they know and do not want to be told that what they think may not be correct. They start off friendly but soon turn to "confrontational theology" because they just can not substantiate their claims and that results in frustration and anger.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: swordsman1
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
As I am running out of time I need to keep my reply short.
From my own exposure to what we can refer to those who are now ex-cessationists, along with the wealth of published commentary on this passage, including the incredible amount of online articles within Christian magazines and the like, this leaves us with absolutely no doubt that the Canon perspective is primarily the domain of those who adhere to the old-school versions of Reformed theology and Calvinism; it is not something that most Arminian Evangelicals are all that comfortable with as it becomes an attack, or that it at least undermines their high view of Christology.

Even though I welcome posts or online articles that promote this view, I do so as I know that it will help to jolt the uncommitted quasi-cessationist into realising that this final bulwark of cessationism has absolutely no foundation. Now, when it comes to the more contemporary approach to cessationism, which is through a defence that is based on a philosophical approach, this then becomes another matter.

Edit: I have replaced ex-charismatics with ex-cessationists.

I can not agree with you my brother. I really did not know much about this area 50 years ago or so, and there was not a whole lot of information available. Bit since the computer has allowed us to do Bible study without going to the Seminary library it seems to me that there is more and more information available all the time on this.

Now YOU or anyone else certainly do not have to agree with me but it is my understanding that I place before you.

Cessationism is the view that the “miracle gifts” of tongues and healing have ceased—that the end of the apostolic age brought about a cessation of the miracles associated with that age. Most cessationists and I as well believe that, while God can and still does perform miracles today, the Holy Spirit no longer uses individuals to perform miraculous signs.

The biblical record shows that miracles occurred during particular periods for the specific purpose of authenticating a new message from God. Moses was enabled to perform miracles to authenticate his ministry before Pharaoh (Exodus 4:1-8).

Elijah was given miracles to authenticate his ministry before Ahab (1 Kings 17:1; 18:24).

The apostles were given miracles to authenticate their ministry before Israel (Acts 4:10, 16).

Jesus’ ministry was also marked by miracles, which the Apostle John calls “signs” (John 2:11). John’s point is that the miracles were proofs of the authenticity of Jesus’ message.

After Jesus’ resurrection, as the Church was being established and the New Testament was being written, the apostles demonstrated “signs” such as tongues and the power to heal.

1 Cor, 14:22 says............
“Tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not”.

Now it does not take a Master or Dr.'s degree to understand that Paul said that this is a verse that plainly says the gift was never intended to edify the church.

The Apostle Paul predicted that the gift of tongues would cease in 1 Corinthians 13:8. Really, the only question is WHEN DID THAT HAPPEN.

Here are six proofs that it has already ceased:
Is cessationism biblical? What is a cessationist?..........

1)
The apostles, through whom tongues came, were unique in the history of the church. Once their ministry was accomplished, the need for authenticating signs ceased to exist.

2)
The miracle (or sign) gifts are only mentioned in the earliest epistles, such as 1 Corinthians. Later books, such as Ephesians and Romans, contain detailed passages on the gifts of the Spirit, but the miracle gifts are not mentioned at all.

Also helpful is the fact that the Greek word translated “prophecy” means “speaking forth” and does not necessarily include prediction of the future.

3)
The gift of tongues was a sign to unbelieving Israel that God’s salvation was now available to other nations.
(1 Corinthians 14:21-22 and Isaiah 28:11-12.)

4)
Tongues was an inferior gift to prophecy (preaching). Preaching the Word of God edifies believers, whereas tongues does not. Believers are told to seek prophesying over speaking in tongues (1 Corinthians 14:1-3).

5)
History indicates that tongues did cease. Tongues are not mentioned at all by the Post-Apostolic Fathers. Other writers such as Justin Martyr, Origen, Chrysostom, and Augustine considered tongues something that happened only in the earliest days of the Church.

6)
There are indications that the miracle of tongues has ceased. If the gift were still available today, there would be no need for missionaries to attend language school. Missionaries would be able to travel to any country and speak any language fluently, just as the apostles were able to speak in Acts 2.

As for the miracle gift of healing, if it was valid today for a MAN to do as the Apostles did, then that MAN would be going from one hospital to another healing the sick and not going to a church to perform AND TAKE UP A LOVE OFFERING to pay for his airplane, Rolls Royce and 4 homes.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

tdidymas

Newbie
Aug 28, 2014
2,323
998
Houston, TX
✟163,485.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Have you ever heard ME say that speaking in tongues is the evidence? No. The EVIDENCE is being dead to sin. The law of the Spirit of life in Christ has freed me from the law of sin and death.
What about my original question: Do you firmly believe that person has blasphemed the Holy Spirit, and is now bound for hell?
TD:)
 
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You said you have experienced tongues. Did you feel it to be genuine?
Asking seriously.

No. I was very young. 12 years old or so.

I was "couched and encouraged" to do it because........ "it would prove that you are saved.

After all of these years and upon much reflection, the only answer I have is that even at that age, the Holy Spirit was in me and helping me as I never felt comfortable speaking in tongues.
 
Upvote 0

1stcenturylady

Spirit-filled follower of Christ
Site Supporter
Feb 13, 2017
11,189
4,193
76
Tennessee
✟431,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
What about my original question: Do you firmly believe that person has blasphemed the Holy Spirit, and is now bound for hell?
TD:)

I have no idea.

I mainly quoted that scripture in Hebrews 6 for when someone who has once been a Pentecostal, and has not believed that nothing about it was real, it is impossible to undo that thought, because they believe they had an epiphany.
 
Upvote 0

tim416

Tim
Oct 26, 2010
20
10
Visit site
✟20,612.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No. I was very young. 12 years old or so.

I was "couched and encouraged" to do it because........ "it would prove that you are saved.

After all of these years and upon much reflection, the only answer I have is that even at that age, the Holy Spirit was in me and helping me as I never felt comfortable speaking in tongues.

This is a very fair and honest answer to the one I asked and have heard the same answer from others, (not all) that I have discussed this with.
 
Upvote 0

pescador

Wise old man
Site Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
I do not know of anyone who only accepts 1 Cort. 13:10 as the basis for Cessationalism.

2 Corinthians 12.12 Paul says.........
'Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.'

Acts 2:43..............
"Then fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles."

Acts 5:12...........
"And through the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were done among the people. And they were all with one accord in Solomon’s Porch."

Only the apostles are recorded as having healed, together with two apostolic assistants or delegates, Stephen and Philip, and Barnabas.

There is no other healing apart from these in the early church. The Pentecostal/charismatic idea that healings took place constantly by Christians at large is not taught in the Bible. Thus the infallible record of Scripture shows the entire charismatic approach to healing to be a mistake based on a myth. The record proves that the healings and mighty deeds were restricted to a class of people who have passed away.
Cessationism | Charismatic Gifts | What is Cessationism? | Proving that Charismatic Gifts have ceased - Metropolitan Tabernacle

Very funny! Even though it's not scriptural, it's a very humorous fallacy.
 
Upvote 0

pescador

Wise old man
Site Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
I can not agree with you my brother. I really did not know much about this area 50 years ago or so, and there was not a whole lot of information available. Bit since the computer has allowed us to do Bible study without going to the Seminary library it seems to me that there is more and more information available all the time on this.

Now YOU or anyone else certainly do not have to agree with me but it is my understanding that I place before you.

Cessationism is the view that the “miracle gifts” of tongues and healing have ceased—that the end of the apostolic age brought about a cessation of the miracles associated with that age. Most cessationists and I as well believe that, while God can and still does perform miracles today, the Holy Spirit no longer uses individuals to perform miraculous signs.

The biblical record shows that miracles occurred during particular periods for the specific purpose of authenticating a new message from God. Moses was enabled to perform miracles to authenticate his ministry before Pharaoh (Exodus 4:1-8).

Elijah was given miracles to authenticate his ministry before Ahab (1 Kings 17:1; 18:24).

The apostles were given miracles to authenticate their ministry before Israel (Acts 4:10, 16).

Jesus’ ministry was also marked by miracles, which the Apostle John calls “signs” (John 2:11). John’s point is that the miracles were proofs of the authenticity of Jesus’ message.

After Jesus’ resurrection, as the Church was being established and the New Testament was being written, the apostles demonstrated “signs” such as tongues and the power to heal.

1 Cor, 14:22 says............
“Tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not”.

Now it does not take a Master or Dr.'s degree to understand that Paul said that this is a verse that plainly says the gift was never intended to edify the church.

The Apostle Paul predicted that the gift of tongues would cease in 1 Corinthians 13:8. Really, the only question is WHEN DID THAT HAPPEN.

Here are six proofs that it has already ceased:
Is cessationism biblical? What is a cessationist?..........

1)
The apostles, through whom tongues came, were unique in the history of the church. Once their ministry was accomplished, the need for authenticating signs ceased to exist.

2)
The miracle (or sign) gifts are only mentioned in the earliest epistles, such as 1 Corinthians. Later books, such as Ephesians and Romans, contain detailed passages on the gifts of the Spirit, but the miracle gifts are not mentioned at all.

Also helpful is the fact that the Greek word translated “prophecy” means “speaking forth” and does not necessarily include prediction of the future.

3)
The gift of tongues was a sign to unbelieving Israel that God’s salvation was now available to other nations.
(1 Corinthians 14:21-22 and Isaiah 28:11-12.)

4)
Tongues was an inferior gift to prophecy (preaching). Preaching the Word of God edifies believers, whereas tongues does not. Believers are told to seek prophesying over speaking in tongues (1 Corinthians 14:1-3).

5)
History indicates that tongues did cease. Tongues are not mentioned at all by the Post-Apostolic Fathers. Other writers such as Justin Martyr, Origen, Chrysostom, and Augustine considered tongues something that happened only in the earliest days of the Church.

6)
There are indications that the miracle of tongues has ceased. If the gift were still available today, there would be no need for missionaries to attend language school. Missionaries would be able to travel to any country and speak any language fluently, just as the apostles were able to speak in Acts 2.

As for the miracle gift of healing, if it was valid today for a MAN to do as the Apostles did, then that MAN would be going from one hospital to another healing the sick and not going to a church to perform AND TAKE UP A LOVE OFFERING to pay for his airplane, Rolls Royce and 4 homes.

Not as funny as your previous post. Keep trying!
 
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Not as funny as your previous post. Keep trying!

My comment was not directed to you so why do you think that a comment is needed from you especially one that is so sarcastic?

Is the way you speak to others what is taught in the Christian church you belong to?

Be well my friend and the Lord bless you!
 
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

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Very funny! Even though it's not scriptural, it's a very humorous fallacy.

God bless you my friend.

I encourage you to read comment #2322.

I think it fits your comments extremely well my friend.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
This is a very fair and honest answer to the one I asked and have heard the same answer from others, (not all) that I have discussed this with.

Very nice comment. I see no reason to not be honest about this.

I am just very blessed to have found my way out of that situation.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

tdidymas

Newbie
Aug 28, 2014
2,323
998
Houston, TX
✟163,485.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
I have no idea.

I mainly quoted that scripture in Hebrews 6 for when someone who has once been a Pentecostal, and has not believed that nothing about it was real, it is impossible to undo that thought, because they believe they had an epiphany.
It looks to me like you are changing your tune. It looked like condemnation to me, and you admitted that you thought it was blasphemy. But when I specifically asked you if you condemned such people you changed your tune. Now you are saying that it's just that they "can't come back" to Pentecostalism. But that is a misuse of Heb. 6, because that passage (specifically 6:6) is a statement of condemnation for apostates such as Judas was. By your responses, it appears to me that you are slippery, and I just don't know if I can have an honest dialog with you. I wanted to ask you some specific questions, but now I'm not sure I can get a straight answer to any of them, even after several days of replies.
TD:)
 
Upvote 0

Fidelibus

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2017
1,185
300
67
U.S.A.
✟66,007.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
This will be long with all your questions.

Okay, mine however only need's to be relatively short.

The ancient Church was always headed by a desposyni - a relative of Jesus. James, the brother of Jesus was the first head of the Church in Antioch.

Being you are a sola scripturist, (the bible alone is sufficient) that is, a person that believes all one needs for a sole rule of faith, can be found within the pages of the Bible, and is totally dismiss Sacred Tradition/ tradition, as you stated on post #2247 of this thread. Now with that being said, and using your bible alone, could you show the passage in Scripture that say's as you claim....

"The ancient Church was always headed by a desposyni - a relative of Jesus"


Do you pray the rosary?

Yes

That is worship.

Yes, and as always.... to God, and to God only.

Do you call MARY—CO-REDEMPTRIX AND MEDIATRIX.

See...catholicbridge.com/catholic/mary_mediatrix_co-redemptrix.php

OF ALL GRACE? Do you call her QUEEN OF HEAVEN?

Mary a Queen?

"Some Evangelicals have problems with this "Queen" thing. Perhaps the best way to explain it is to compare Heaven to the Commonwealth. We live in a time when the Queen of England is the highest in the Commonwealth. There is no king. She wears the commonwealth trousers. She is it. She is the focus. I grew up singing "God save the Queen." So it is natural that our contemporary understanding of the word queen would be that of someone in highest authority. But what happens to the queen when there is a king. Then who has the authority? In commonwealth law, when there is a king, the queen has absolutely no authority whatsoever except perhaps the quiet of a whisper in the king's ear to influence a decision. (Jn 2:3)

JESUS IS KING. He is it. Now if Mary is Queen, it means that she has no authority whatsoever over his decisions except a whisper in His ear (Jn 2:3). So I don't believe that calling Mary the Queen of the Universe diminishes the King's (Jesus') authority in the least. In fact it reinforces it. What respectable King does not have a Queen? Revelation 11:12 says:

12 :1 A great portent appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. 2 She was pregnant and was crying out in birth pangs, in the agony of giving birth. Then the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, so that he might devour her child as soon as it was born. 5 And she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron. But her child was snatched away and taken to God and to his throne..

Jesus only had one Mother and this passage is talking about the woman that gave birth to the Saviour. She has a Crown. The passage also clearly shows Mary as an active participant in the war against the devil. The Passage presents Jesus on his rightful throne. What respectable King does not have a Queen?" -----Source: (catholicbridge.com/catholic/mary_rosary.php)


Have a Blessed Lenten Season
 
Upvote 0

Fidelibus

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2017
1,185
300
67
U.S.A.
✟66,007.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
The reason that I commented on your posts was that you began by trying to establish the supposed notion of the unchallengeable authority of your particular denomination over that of others – but this issue was dealt with half a millennia ago.

May I ask, by your reasoning, by who's and what Entity was it that delt with this issue 500 years ago, and by what authority were they/it is qualified?

Sadly, what I have posted is so accurate that it could almost be printed and used as currency.

Hmmmm.... not so sure about that. Realistically, there is a lot of this printed currency you speak of out there that's counterfeit.

This is a well phrased question and it’s a question that is not all that easy to respond to.

Yes, I can see how it could be with no central authority to fall back on when there is a disagreement.

As to the role of the Holy Spirit with respect to teaching, to keep things brief, I do not believe that He plays a major role in this.


All I can say Biblicist is that Jesus disagrees with you. In John 16:13 Jesus promised to send the Advocate to the apostles, he assured them that the Spirit of truth would guide them into all truth.

"But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming."


As I am one who understands that I know very little about a lot of things, I must accept my boundaries and with the limitations that most of us will have with our level of education and general ability to comprehend what we are investigating. So, when I disagree with someone, how I will respond to their opinion will be controlled by how I view their own knowledge or biases toward a given subject. When it comes to the Pneumatic passages within the New Testament, as I have focused most of my efforts in this area over the years, where I have assessed many of the better sources that speak on this subject, then I have a strong confidence in my own views on this subject, but when I move away from my comfort zone I am more than prepared to quickly accept that I could easily be wrong – which is undoubtedly with a lot of things.

But most importantly, for those of us who feel the need to engage at a serious level with our theology, we need to be well read on the matters that interest us, and this is where even those who have a high level of intelligence can be ham-strung if they cannot access these often illusive and certainly expensive resources as they will be unable to effectively engage with those who do.

This is all very nice Biblicist, but I feel it still dosen't answer my very simple question. Since you beleive the Holy Spirit does not play a major role in teaching us the Word of God, Written or Spoken, lets leave Him out of the equation, just this one time. Okay?

So..... Let's say you are in a disagreement on the meaning of a certain Scripture passage with another Pentecostal such as yourself, say from your church or a church across across town. In this disagreement, you both claim the other is in error. and there is no way you two can come to an agreement. Who or what authority could the two of you could turn to that would determine who among you two is in error, or that the both of you are in error?

Have a Blessed up coming Holy Week.
 
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

1stcenturylady

Spirit-filled follower of Christ
Site Supporter
Feb 13, 2017
11,189
4,193
76
Tennessee
✟431,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
It looks to me like you are changing your tune. It looked like condemnation to me, and you admitted that you thought it was blasphemy. But when I specifically asked you if you condemned such people you changed your tune. Now you are saying that it's just that they "can't come back" to Pentecostalism. But that is a misuse of Heb. 6, because that passage (specifically 6:6) is a statement of condemnation for apostates such as Judas was. By your responses, it appears to me that you are slippery, and I just don't know if I can have an honest dialog with you. I wanted to ask you some specific questions, but now I'm not sure I can get a straight answer to any of them, even after several days of replies.
TD:)

As for your friend, I don't know. I haven't talked to her. I don't know if she was ever baptized with the Spirit.

But as far as the poster of this thread, he claimed tongues today is of the devil. THAT is blasphemy. I reported him, and he put me on ignore.

It is on an individual basis.
 
Upvote 0

pescador

Wise old man
Site Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
My comment was not directed to you so why do you think that a comment is needed from you especially one that is so sarcastic?

Is the way you speak to others what is taught in the Christian church you belong to?

Be well my friend and the Lord bless you!

a) You are participating in a forum, not a private conversation. Anyone is free to comment on posts.

b) I speak to others with honesty and forthrightness.

c) I find your rigid stance on the spiritual gifts, especially speaking in tongues, to be totally wrong. You have an idea fixed in your mind and no logic or debate will change your opinion.

I wonder why you're so motivated to prove many of us who have spiritual gifts wrong. Is that behavior what they teach in your church?

You can't reason somebody out of something they haven't reasoned themself into.
 
Upvote 0

Biblicist

Full Gospel believer
Mar 27, 2011
7,023
992
Melbourne, Australia
✟51,094.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
You said............
""tongues is okay for those who want to go this way, but for me, it is not something that my Congregation encourages".

I have seen that said in the past and to me it means that the person saying it just does not want to argue about the use of tongues because he knows that it will end in a argument.

Most people can not debate sensitive things such as this and if you will take the time to scan the responses here I think that you will see all most all of them end in conflicts unresolved and "personal" comments from the posters.

You see, most people like what they know and do not want to be told that what they think may not be correct. They start off friendly but soon turn to "confrontational theology" because they just can not substantiate their claims and that results in frustration and anger.
Leaving aside this forum, or for that matter, with any online facility, my comment related specifically to the broader church.

Within the worldwide Church, even though we should probably expect those who have more of a phlegmatic temperament, who are those who have a disposition that keeps them away from rocking-the-boat, for most people, when they say that something is okay for others but where they are prepared to stay within the status-quo, it tends to reflect a desire to keep within a domain that they are familiar with – after all, we tend to be creatures of habit and if we are to be honest with ourselves, we probably all find some comfort with most of the accepted traditions of whatever community we are a part of.

There are undoubtedly other factors at play, where some might be afraid of some powerful influences within their congregation or maybe even with a close family member who does not want to see their ecclesiastical tradition being challenged and we even meet those on the occasion who are simply offended by any presence of the Spirit of God.

Over the years I have heard numerous congregational leaders speaking on this issue, either directly, through journal articles, within Christian magazines or even on Youtube, where they often seem to give the impression that as things seem to be working fine just as they are and that most people seem to be happy with the current state of affairs, then there is really no need to be “too spiritual” but any of their members who wish to go this way are free to do so, but our meetings will still remain as they have been down through the years -- or with similar variations to this theme.

A good example of the tensions that can exist within virtually all Christian communities, is with how congregations might see the need to establish different styles of Sunday meetings, where the first meeting could be traditional and the next meeting might be more open to the Spirit.
 
Upvote 0

Biblicist

Full Gospel believer
Mar 27, 2011
7,023
992
Melbourne, Australia
✟51,094.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
I can not agree with you my brother. I really did not know much about this area 50 years ago or so, and there was not a whole lot of information available. Bit since the computer has allowed us to do Bible study without going to the Seminary library it seems to me that there is more and more information available all the time on this.
Time certainly flies by, where I once used to refer to the Charismatic Renewal of the 60’s through to the late 70’s as just that, but as time goes by I have started to use the date format 1970’s; but for me, it will still be another six years before I can say it has been 50 years.

One of the unintended advantages that I had within the mid 70’s was that as a youthful member of our Armed Forces that I was able to experience a number of Pentecostal and Charismatic congregations within my country; where many of their members were recently cessationist, either by conscious choice or simply that it was what their particular community believed.

During this time within my own country, which was probably from maybe 1970 through to about 1977, the numbers that embraced the Full Gospel were seemingly astronomical, where they either joined (or fellowshipped) with a Pentecostal congregation, or where they remained within their own new Charismatic assembly or found a Charismatic assembly elsewhere within their particular denomination. Though in those days I should say charismatic and not so much Charismatic.

What would undoubtedly be the primary theological influence for many of them deciding to embrace the fullness of the Spirit, was for at least the Arminian Evangelical, was with the realisation that the final bulwark of cessationism, which is of course with 1 Cor 13:10, that this did not refer to the death of the last Apostle-of-Christ, with the release of the last Book of the Bible or with the compilation of the Canon of Scripture centuries later, but that it refers to the return of Christ with his Kingdom, which has been the traditional understanding of this passage by the Church down through the ages.

To be fair, for many others, they did not hold to a theological reason for not embracing the fullness of the Spirit, other than it being-the-way-it-was for their denomination and the second reason was how it was for me as well.

Now it does not take a Master or Dr.'s degree to understand that Paul said that this is a verse that plainly says the gift was never intended to edify the church.
I fully agree with you on this. All it should take to understand this is with maybe a third or fourth year junior reading level. Paul goes to some length to describe how we pray in the Spirit (tongues) within the congregational setting as being just that, prayer, as in praise and worship that is always being directed to the Father, we of course worship the Father not to benefit or uplift others but to worship Him as Lord of all. The Holy Spirit never uses tongues as a form of communication to either the congregation or an individual, as he always speaks to us through prophecy which is always given in the vernacular tongue of the local Christian community. Then we have personal prayer which we can offer to the Father through the Holy Spirit, or to be more precise, that the Holy Spirit speaks through us to the Father with regard to our personal intercessions and needs.

As for the miracle gift of healing, if it was valid today for a MAN to do as the Apostles did, then that MAN would be going from one hospital to another healing the sick and not going to a church to perform AND TAKE UP A LOVE OFFERING to pay for his airplane, Rolls Royce and 4 homes.
Even though you have moved away from the Manifestations of the Spirit (1 Cor 12:7-11) to that of the agency of the Father, as with Signs & Wonders; the two are not one and the same, I cannot recall reading how the Apostles-of-Christ ever moved through hospitals healing anyone that they came across. For that matter, do we read where any of the Apostles-of-Christ walked through any leper communities which apparently existed in their day?

As for me, even though I regularly pray and worship in tongues, where I have seen many mighty outworkings of the Holy Spirit, I have never, nor do I ever expect to see a Sign and Wonder in my life time, though I would certainly relish being able to correct this sometime down the track.

As for the Office of healings (1 Cor 12:28), I would say that this Office is limited to that of the Congregational setting, where even I wonder if we should be praying for those who are unsaved to be healed - this is something that I still struggle with even after many years within the Full Gospel movement. For that matter, should we really be advertising 'Healing meetings' and the like, especially ones that are being aimed at the unregenerate?
 
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

Biblicist

Full Gospel believer
Mar 27, 2011
7,023
992
Melbourne, Australia
✟51,094.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
May I ask, by your reasoning, by who's and what Entity was it that delt with this issue 500 years ago, and by what authority were they/it is qualified?
As you appear to be unaware of some of the most important developments within Europe over the centuries, then maybe you are not quite the right person to defend your denominations various positions? Of course, as we both know that you are merely being disingenuous, then if you were to return to the question in a more honest manner then I will be prepared to discuss this with you.

But we should keep in mind the purpose of this thread as it is not about the peculiar views of any specific denomination but about speaking in tongues.

This is all very nice Biblicist, but I feel it still dosen't answer my very simple question. Since you beleive the Holy Spirit does not play a major role in teaching us the Word of God, Written or Spoken, lets leave Him out of the equation, just this one time. Okay?

So..... Let's say you are in a disagreement on the meaning of a certain Scripture passage with another Pentecostal such as yourself, say from your church or a church across across town. In this disagreement, you both claim the other is in error. and there is no way you two can come to an agreement. Who or what authority could the two of you could turn to that would determine who among you two is in error, or that the both of you are in error?
As this is a relevant question, at least on the surface, then let’s take this a step further, where I was maybe discussing a passage of Scripture with a Christian before I was saved, just as many have done before me and who will continue to do so until the Day of the Lord.

So, depending on my cognitive skills and interest at a given point of time, let’s presume that I had encountered a cessationist who was sitting at a railway station, though at the time I wouldn’t have realised what a cessationist was. Being the inquisitive person that I can be at times, I soon noticed that he was reading 1 Cor 14:2-5 and for good measure he somehow makes the tactical error of mentioning John 16:13 “the Holy Spirit will guide you”, which I realise a few years later is not a great idea at the best of times.

As he just happens to have two Bibles (very nice of him), he hands me something called an NASB and he keeps one that apparently some bloke called Holman has stuck his name on the front of. Anyway, he starts reading from the Bible that is owned by this Holman fellow about some “person who is speaking in another language” where the Bible that I was given, says “For the one who speaks in a tongue . . .”; where I say, ‘wait a minute, whose right, was the person speaking in a tongue, whatever that means, or was he speaking in another language?”

The friendly fellow train traveller then informs me that as the original New Testament was written in Greek that the word in English means language. Okay says me, then why did the Bible you gave say tongues instead of language? Well, it actually means both and even though there is apparently another specific Greek word for language, we know that Paul, who wrote this part of the Bible meant to say language instead of tongue. So right away I am thinking that this Paul chap is not all that sharp; as I heard him earlier saying to someone on his phone how the Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth, I then kindly suggested that he should maybe go and ask him about this!

Where he replies by saying, 'Well, it doesn’t really seem to work that way'; where I reply, 'What do you mean, either he can tell you what the word is supposed to mean or he can’t – which is it?' 'Oh . . . the friendly traveller says, I know, I can check on my phone to see what the Greek has to say about the word'. 'Fine says me, let’s go for it'. So he comes back and says, 'Actually, the word does mean tongue, so wasn’t the Holy Spirit a great help' . . . where I say, 'The “Holy Spirit”, but didn’t you just check your phone for the answer?'​

So this is what always seems to happen when we come across a passage of Scripture that confuses us, we pretend that the Holy Spirit gave us the solution when in reality we simply take a guess and say it it the Holy Spirit who guided us. As I have never really come across anyone who is able to receive Divine revelation every time that they come across a difficult passage, then there has to be a reason why this passage “seems” to be wrong!

But as they say “Wait a minute – there is more to it than we think”; could it be that John meant something quite different to what we hear in the proverbial traps about this passage, where I would say, certainly so.

What John actually said, was NOT that the Holy Spirit would “teach us” but that he will “guide us” into all the truth. Which by the way, he assisted with doing with the great Reformation, though this was only a precursor into even greater things. The Greek word for teaching is didaskolos where the Greek for guiding is hodegeo. So, for those of us who make the effort to peruse the better commentaries along with grasping the basics of using a good lexicon or two, then the Holy Spirit is better able to guide us into the truth, whereas those who do not make the effort are left to their own devices, or to the devices of their peers who may know as little as they do.

Now, how this applies to me is that as I have made an incredible amount of effort to learn from the best of the best, where I have and continue to source the commentary from a wide range of sources, then I am undoubtedly better prepared than many to have the Holy Spirit to speak to me (at least with certain areas), where he can guide me through the often complex pathways that beset us, including through the limitations of my own fallen humanity and even with my occasional (I’m being generous to myself) blindness and folly.

_________________________________

Lexical references behind our English word to guide:

When I provide Lexical references, it is not always to demonstrate a particular point of view, where they seem to be posted more as a point of reference, or a way of finding some common ground.​

Friberg Lexicon:
19306 ὁδηγέω fut. ὁδηγήσω; literally lead someone on the way, escort, guide (MT 15.14); figuratively instruct, teach, guide in learning (AC 8.31)​

UBS Lexicon:
4252 ὁδηγέω lead, guide​

Louw-Nida Lexicon:
15.182 ὁδηγέω: to guide or to direct, with the implication of making certain that people reach an appropriate destination - 'to lead, to guide.' τυφλὸς δὲ τυφλὸν ἐὰν ὁδηγῇ, ἀμφότεροι εἰς βόθυνον πεσοῦνται 'if one who is blind tries to guide another who is blind, they will both fall into a ditch' Mt 15.14; ὁδηγήσει αὐτοὺς ἐπὶ ζωῆς πηγὰς ὑδάτων 'he shall lead them to living springs of water' Re 7.17.​

LSJ Lexicon:
0062 ὁδηγέω
ὁδηγέω
, f. ήσω, (ὁδηγός) to lead one upon his way, c. acc. pers., Aesch.; absol. to lead the way, Eur.​

BDAG Lexicon:
5186 ὁδηγέω
ὁδηγέω (ὁδηγός) fut. ὁδηγήσω; 1 aor. ὡδήγησα LXX; pass. aor. 3 sg. ὡδηγήθη (Just.) ([for ὁδαγέω s. B-D-F §29, 3] Aeschyl. et al.; ins fr. Transjordan [NGG Phil.-hist. Kl. Fachgr. V n.s. I/1, ’36 p. 3, 1: divine leading]; Kaibel 1041, 1; PSI 332, 6; LXX; Test12Patr, Just.; Tat. 13, 2)

1. to assist in reaching a desired destination, lead, guide, lit. (Jos., Vi. 96; ὁ δὲ Μωσῆς ὁ τοὺς Ἰουδαίους Theoph. Ant. 3, 20 [p. 242, 16]) τινά someone τυφλὸς τυφλόν (cp. Hesiod, Astron. fgm. 182 Rz. a blind man; Plut., Mor. 139a τυφλούς; TestReub 2:9; Ps.-Phoc. 24) Mt 15:14; Lk 6:39. τινὰ ἐπί τι someone to someth. (cp. M. Ant. 7, 55, 1 ἐπὶ τί σε ἡ φύσις ὁδηγεῖ; PSI loc. cit.; Ps 106:30; 22:3; 24:5) ἐπὶ ζωῆς πηγὰς ὑδάτων to springs of living water Rv 7:17.

2
. to assist someone in acquiring information or knowledge, lead, guide, conduct, fig. ext. of 1 (Plut., Mor. 954b; Sextus 167 σοφία ψυχὴν ὁδηγεῖ πρὸς θεόν; LXX; Theoph. Ant. 1, 14 [p 90, 12]) of the Spirit ὁδηγήσει ὑμᾶς εἰς τὴν ἀλήθειαν πᾶσαν J 16:13 (in the Herm. Lit. Hermes-Nous leads the souls to knowledge: Herm. Wr. 10, 21 εἰς τὴν εὐσεβῆ ψυχὴν ὁ νοῦς ὁδηγεῖ αὐτὴν ἐπὶ τὸ τῆς γνώσεως φῶς. Cp. 4, 11; 7, 2; 9, 10; 12, 12. Rtzst., Poim. 23, 5, Mysterienrel3 297; PGM 13, 523ff πάντα κινήσεις … Ἑρμοῦ σε ὁδηγοῦντος.—Wsd 9:11; 10:10, 17; TestJud 14:1 εἰς πλάνην. Theoph. Ant. 3, 15 [p. 234, 118] λόγος ἅγιος ὁ.). Of lying ὁδηγεῖ εἰς τὴν κλοπήν it leads to theft D 3:5. Of complaining: εἰς τ. βλασφημίαν 3:6. Of divination: εἰς τὴν εἰδωλολατρείαν 3:4 (cp. TestJud 19:1 ἡ φιλαργυρία πρὸς εἰδωλολατρείαν ὁδηγεῖ). Also ὁδ. πρός τι (TestGad 5:7) 3:2f. Without further qualification: ἐὰν μή τις ὁδηγήσει με if no one instructs me Ac 8:31.—DELG s.v. ὁδός. M-M. TW.​

LEH Lexicon:
274 ὁδηγέω
ὁδηγέω+
- V 5-3-1-31-4-44
Ex 13,17; 15,13; 32,34; Nm 24,8; Dt 1,33to guide, to lead [τινα] Ex 13,17; id. [τινα] (metaph.) Eccl 2,3 *Dt 1,33 ὁδηγῶν guiding -tנחה for MT tחנה to camp, to pitch tent; *Is 63,14 ὡδήγησεν αὐτούς )the spirit( guided them -תנחנו tנחה for MT תניחנו t) נוחthe spirit( gave them rest; *Ps 89)90(,16 καὶ ὁδή-γησον and guide -והדרך tדרך for MT ך/והדר tהדר and your glorious powerCf. DOGNIEZ 1992, 119(Dt 1,33); DORIVAL 1994, 446; LARCHER 1984, 589; WEVERS 1995, 20 (Dt 1,33); ïTWNT (ïκαθ-)​

EDNT Dictionary:
3635
ὁδηγέω
hod¢geœ lead, guide; instruct*
Matt 15:14 par. Luke 6:39, in the saying on the blind man who leads the blind; John 16:13: "the Spirit of Truth" "will instruct you in all truth"; Acts 8:31, of instruction in the (Christian) understanding of the Scriptures; Rev 7:17: the "lamb" will lead the martyrs to springs of the water of life. W. Michaelis, TDNT V, 97-102; G. Ebel, DNTT III, 942f. [2:491]


Have a Blessed up coming Holy Week.
Hey, isn't every week holy in the Lord?
 
Upvote 0