ICONO'CLAST
Well-Known Member
Correct, Angel's as messengers spoke in the language of the person speaking the message.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Correct, Angel's as messengers spoke in the language of the person speaking the message.No one spoke in the tongues of angels. The context makes it clear that Paul was making a wild exaggeration to make a point.
Correct. The purpose of spiritual gifts is to benefit others, not self.
1 Cor 12:7 "To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good."
1 Peter 4:10 "As each has received a gift, use it to serve one another, "
That the gifts do not necessarily operate automatically, contrary to your assumptions. A gift may need to be fanned into flame,and prayer is conceivably the best way to do that.
Already refuted. Again, you're making an unwarranted assumption. The sick person arguably receives a gift of healing. Isn't it odd that the plural is used here? Why would one person need multiple gifts of healing? More likely, it is because he's healing multiple sick people and thus dispenses multiple gifts of healing. It's a gift, and gifts come by prayer, for "How much more will your father in heaven give good gifts (plural) to those who ask him?" (Mat 7:11).
Healing refers to the restoration of a body part to its proper functionality. You gratuitously assume that raising someone up from the dead doesn't count as healing. That doesn't make sense. Again, unwarranted assumptions.
Do not divide asunder what God has united. Paul collectively calls them manifestations of the Holy Spirit. They are all in the same category - apples.
"Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. 8To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, 9to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, 10to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, a and to still another the interpretation of tongues. b 11All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines."
See above. You have established nothing of the kind. You haven't even established whether it is the healer who 'has' the gift of healing, on the one hand, or the sick person who receives the gift of healing, on the other. You've simply jumped to an unwarranted conclusion that flies in the face of multiple verses suggesting otherwise.
You are almost correct regarding the gifts of 1 Corinthians 12. They are for the benefit and the profit of all, (not all others), and for use in the congregation, or ministering to others. But, when God uses a gift through you, and you see the results, are you not benefited? Doesn't it make your faith grow? Of course it does.
But the gifts of 1 Corinthians 12 are not the ONLY gifts we are given. This is something you don't understand because you evidently don't have first hand knowledge. In Mark 16:16-18 we have another list for the benefit of all believers (not just the apostles). These are for us individually when we are alone.
The prophets in that passage were not using extra sensory perception to get the information about the unbeliever. Like all prophets, they would have heard a message from God and passed the message on.
I was referring to 'gifts of healing'. The plural doesn't favor your view.I thought you said the gift of healing was only a gift to the recipient of healing? Now you are saying there is such a spiritual gift. You seem to be contradicting yourself...Yes, you are contradicting yourself. Now you are arguing there isn't a spiritual gift of healing. Make your mind up.
You're shifting the burden of proof. From cover to cover, the Bible esteems men of prayer and implies that the blessings of God are more abundant for them. Jesus had a lot to say about prayer in John 14, 15, and 16, not to mention Mark 11. In those places He indicated that His blessings are given in response to prayer and faith.Gifts can be neglected and need to be exercised (fanned into flame). But that is not proof that people with the gift of healing had to pray before they healed someone.
That wasn't implied. The plural 'gifts' was applied to healing.So you believe the gift of healing in 1 Cor 12:8 is only a gift to the recipient. That means all the other gifts listed alongside it must also be gifts to the recipient and in fact nobody has any spiritual gifts. The gift of prophecy was only a gift for the person receiving a prophecy. The gift of tongues was only a gift for those who heard the tongues. The gift of teaching is only a gift to those being taught. The gift of leadership is only a gift to those being led.
Show me in Scripture where the exegete isn't supposed to use common sense. Both healing and resurrection have in common the restoration of bodily functions (which is healing). But for obvious reasons, it's useful to have a word that identifies resurrection from the dead - as it is a DEGREE of healing monumentally more impressive. Even ordinary doctors can heal ordinary diseases. But they can't raise men from the dead. Scripture calls attention to such gradations in healing just like you yourself would distinguish first-aid healing from brain-surgery-healing. But common sense puts them in the same general category.Show me in scripture where raising someone from the dead is referred to as a healing...You heal sick people. Dead people are raised. Mat 10:8 "Heal the sick, raise the dead, ..."
YOU claimed that the gift of healing is an automatic charism that NEVER needs prayer. That's what this debate was about. Now you're changing the topic, and putting words in my mouth. I didn't say it was IMPOSSIBLE for God to do a miracle without prayer.Now that is a stretch and a half!! So because Peter prayed before raising Tabitha from dead, that means the apostles also had to pray to become apostles, prophets also had to pray before they could prophesy, the disciples also had to pray before they spoke tongues??!! I've seen some twisting of scripture in my time, but that must rank near the top!
No proof from Scripture is apodictic. I think we both can agree on that, right? But your conclusion is particularly dubious.I have already proved from scripture that some believers were given the spiritual gift of healing.
Thanks for resolving that.The question was asked what is the number one flaw in cessationism?
Number 1 Answer is
it’s Flawless.
now proceed
hope this helps !!!
Both the speaking and the hearing were supernatural. There is no natural understanding to tongues.
The gift of tongues doesn't exist in Acts. That was the gift of prophecy because Acts is concerned with evangelism and, as it so happens, Luke defined evangelism as prophetic utterance, discussed in Post 179 and Post 180 on another thread.Well this right here is your whole problem in misunderstanding.
I have repeatedly given you the Greek meaning of tongues. When you read the context of Acts 2 (and yes, of course 1 Cor 14 in in mind too), it literally means that the disciples received the ability to speak another language they have not known before. Gift of tongues. This by no means demands that the receiver must have a gift. Thats where your problem is.
Post number?
In the word of God from Paul I quoted, it clearly says that tongues, when no one else is around edifies the one speaking or praying.
Wouldn't an angelic tongue sound like 'unintelligible gibberish'? How can you positively rule that out? I don't think you can.The gift of tongues is merely the ability to speak a language one has had no study or knowledge of, and is able to speak it suddenly with the Holy Spirits granting. A language of any number of nations on earth. Not this unintelligible gibberish they do now days.
The gift of tongues doesn't exist in Acts.
Unlike Acts, chapters 12 to 14 of 1Corinthians do feature the gift of unknown tongues as rightly defined in modern Pentecostalism - and that gift is supposed to have an interpreter when proclaimed publicly, at least that was Paul's regulation THEN but not sure if his regulations apply EVERYWHERE today because nowadays there isn't much abundance of gifts to actually regulate. And based on 14:28, I see no reason one can't speak the tongue quietly to himself for personal edification.
But that wouldn't be the case of speaking in tongues in private. Nobody benefits except the speaker. It would be an abuse of a spiritual gift.
Wouldn't an angelic tongue sound like 'unintelligible gibberish'? How can you positively rule that out? I don't think you can.
This is a horrible reading of 1Cor 13:8-12. That chapter is dealing with the maturation of the gifts, not the cessation of the gifts. On another thread, post 52 exposes some of the flaws in your exegesis. I back this up with concessions from cessationist scholars at post 58.#2 The second error, is you imply miraculous gifts still happen today.
Paul was quite clear that these would vanish away when a certain event happened. John and Mark also support this.
First Paul.
1 Cor. 13
8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
Since Christ is not a "that", but a "he", it would stand to reason that the "that which is perfect" is the bible, which was not fully written out until around 96 AD. We know for a fact as well that scripture from God written by men through the Holy Spirit, makes scripture just that, perfect 2 Timothy 3:16-17.
So I dont leave any loose ends, the "knowledge" talked about in verse 8 is merely the miraculous gift of knowledge mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12:8. Not to be confused with just normal simple knowledge we can obtain, but knowledge granted by the Holy Spirit. Some people get hung up on that one so I jotted it in here.
Paul even states this here to the Ephesians in chpt 4
11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:
16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.
This supports 1 Cor 13 in the fact that miracles (supernatural against what is normal/natural process) will cease "when that which is perfect comes".
Miracles were only used to "confirm the word", show the world that Jesus was the Christ, and to "perfect the saints for ministry and edify the body of Christ (Eph 4:12)"
John says,
20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
Mark says,
16:20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.
All 4 gospels witness that Jesus is the Christ.
So, do we need to have the word confirmed now days?
The bible is completed. There wont be any more revelations. There is no need for miracles anymore. It has all been confirmed now. It's our job to be messengers with this completed word.
The word "all" does not appear in Mark 16:16-18.
How can they be signs to others when they are practiced alone?
And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.”
This prophecy was fulfilled in the first century AD. Nobody today picks up deadly snakes or drinks poison without harm.
Nope. No gift of tongues in Acts. Did you read the links I gave you where I proved it was prophecy? Had you read them, you'd see that this rendering:Hello,
I welcome your discussion. Though, honest reading of scripture would beg to differ with your view:
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
That is honestly, a gift of tongues in Acts. Furthermore, Acts 10 records more gift of tongues:
44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
Might I also call your attention to Acts 19?
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
That seems to separate tongues from prophesy.
So we should take scriptures word over anyone's. And scripture says Acts had the gift of tongues mentioned a few times as being received by people. So it was there.
This information above in your quote would all get cleared up once you see what is happening and believe that the gift of tongues actually was there.
Well this right here is your whole problem in misunderstanding.
I have repeatedly given you the Greek meaning of tongues. When you read the context of Acts 2 (and yes, of course 1 Cor 14 in in mind too), it literally means that the disciples received the ability to speak another language they have not known before. Gift of tongues. This by no means demands that the receiver must have a gift. Thats where your problem is.
Lets simplify:
Peter's native tongue/language is Galilean
However, he is in Jerusalem, a major trade hub of that time. There are MANY tongues/languages walking about there.
Remember in the OT the Jews from the Northern kingdom were scattered before Judah was. What this means, is that from the time they were scattered and displaced in the OT till Peter came in Acts 2 to preach with the others, the Jews who traveled back to Jerusalem for whatever reason spoke other tongues/languages.
6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard[the Jews heard] them speak[disciples spoke] in his own language [Jews heard their native tongue/language that they were born with from the disciples].
This is where those Jews were from and therefore natives of, since the scattering in the OT by Assyria and Babylon:
9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
11 Cretes and Arabians,....
Jews from these areas, were natives of those areas, spoke the tongue/languages of those areas
11 ...we do hear them speak[Jews heard the disciples] in our tongues[disciples spoke the native tongue/language of those people who were native to those areas] the wonderful works of God.
Lets say Peter who spoke Galilean but not Parthian, received the gift of tongues to speak the tongue of Parthians.
Well for heaven's sake, all that means is Peter can speak Parthian now without having ever learned it himself.
Does that mean that the Parthians have to have a miraculous gift to hear their own language/tongue?
No.
8 And how hear we every man[for example: the Parthians are hearing Peter speak that language] in our own tongue, wherein we were born[Parthian Jews are natives of Parthian since their displacement by the Assyrians in the OT and therefore speak Parthian]?
Another example:
You speak English.
A German, who speaks German, but not English suddenly receives the gifts of tongues.
The German begins to preach in English.
Do you have to have any special gift to hear the German speaking English?
No. You already know English. But you would be amazed that the German who was not speaking English before suddenly began to.
6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
No. The Jews, no matter how devout, did not need any special gift to hear their own native tongue/language.
And so now my posting about 1 Cor 14 should make more sense.
I see where you frequently assert your conclusions but I'm not clear why you think Scripture has strong support for them. Paul mentioned the tongues of angels in chapter 13. You claim to positively rule this out. Should I believe you, or Paul? Boy - that's a tough one!I just did with that post you quoted from. Did you read the definition and read the context?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?