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.
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:
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
can (and should, in my view) be replaced with this rendering:
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other languages, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
The Greek term in question means 'language'. Don't confuse the generic term for language with the GIFT of tongues.
Acts is about prophecy-as-evangelism and what it's trying to convey is that prophecy is the perfect evangelistic tool because it has the ability to surmount all language barriers. Unfortunately most of the church still hasn't grasped the basics of NT evangelism.
I guffawed at that one. Thanks.Well this is a new argument, for sure. But it doesn't hold water.
I don't see what you're saying. My argument was:I'm not saying prophecy was not present, but it was Peter who demonstrated it by correctly interpreting Joel 2. And even though the gift of interpretation of tongues was also present, it wasn't interpreting prophecy, but praise.
I guffawed at that one. Thanks.
I don't see what you're saying. My argument was:
(1) Jesus implied prophecy at Acts 1:8. I provided two links that proved it twice.
(2) Then Peter CONFIRMED that Acts 2 was the fullfilment of Joel. Joel, as you recall, promised an outpouring of prophecy, not the gift of tongues.
Paul's logic in 1Cor 14 further confirms it, because there was no interpreter. 1Cor 14 is dealing with a tongue that NO ONE UNDERSTANDS without an interpreter. NOWHERE in Acts do we find a two-stage message of the kind:
(1) First the message is spoken in a tongue that no one understands
(2) Then an interpreter translates into a tongue that everyone in the vicinity understands.
So basically, I've confirmed my conclusion in triplicate. From where I'm standing, it is the dissenting views that don't hold water.
So, before Peter spoke to tell them what was happening was a fulfillment of Joel 2, are you thinking that those who were speaking, that the devout Jews heard in their own languages, were speaking prophecies? Is that what you mean?
"It will not be you speaking but the Spirit of my Father speaking through you."
Witnessing/evangelism refers to Spirit-inspired speech, also known as prophecy. Some people think that prophecy is limited to predicting the future but the majority of utterances spoken by prophets were probably not predictive.
We do find, in 1Cor 14, one restriction on prophecy is that the audience must be able to understand it. But no issues there, for Acts.
Personally I don't give much thought to the dynamics of how it was accomplished. For example the Spirit could have both modified and multiplied the sound vibrations, as needed, to insure that every needed language was heard. The main points are:Correct.
Correct. The difference between foretelling and forth-telling.
True, there wasn't, except for the mockers. Why didn't the mockers understand. All they heard was gibberish, a term mockers today love to describe a gift of God - Yikes!
So if the disciples were actually speaking in tongues, how could the devout Jews of different languages understand them?
(1) Peter classified it as prophecy.
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.
I back this up with concessions from cessationist scholars at post 58.
Actually, the point of the whole chapter was about Love as the greatest gift among two others, and that that will not vanish. However, the others will vanish away; cease; stop from being used.
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:
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
can (and should, in my view) be replaced with this rendering:
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other languages, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
The Greek term in question means 'language'. Don't confuse the generic term for language with the GIFT of tongues.
Yes, heaven will be full of love. There will be no need for any of the gifts in heaven. But, now it another matter altogether. We need all the help we can get!!!
Friend,
That is the gift! The gift to speak a language not studied or known before, suddenly becoming known. That is the gift of tongues!
Greek term and context of scriptures states such. You nailed it on the head and still refused it. It amazes me.
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!
In that post you said:
"If you only speak English, and you go to people who only speak German....
2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.Well yeah God understands you and knows what your saying, but the people who speak German have no clue what you say. So you need an interpreter. One who knows both German and English. If you dont have that interpreter...."
Are you saying that the gift of interpretation is someone who already knows the languages at issue? How is that a gift? Does't one just goto school for that kind of knowledge? Here's what Paul said:
"Therefore, one who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret." (14:13).
If the interpreter is supposed to be someone who already knows the languages, why is anyone supposed to PRAY for an interpretation? Why not just say, "Hey guys? Does any of you know both English and German?"
And if we're talking about known languages such as English and German - and according to you there is supposed to be someone in the congregation who DOES understand both languages - why does Paul say:
"Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit"
"No one" generally means "No one". There is no one in the congregation who knows both the languages.
I see you expressing a lot of opinions but having difficulty seeing where they line up with Paul.
Are you saying that if I only know English (which is true) and I am given the gift of tongues, all of sudden I know the meaning of other languages and can speak them fluently?
How many? One or more?
I was referring to 'gifts of healing'. The plural doesn't favor your view.
Right now you are debating me on whether:
(1) There is a gift of healing
(2) There is no such gift of healing.
But here's what interesting. NEITHER of those premises establishes your conclusion.
(3) That prayer isn't needed.
Your thesis (automatic charismata without prayer) simply isn't clearly articulated in Scripture. Basically, you're asking us to disregard a strongly articulated thesis (prayer) in favor of a non-articulated one.
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.
Look, we were created for fellowship with God. On that ground alone, it doesn't make much sense to postulate a doctrine that flows the same volume of blessings to the prayerless. The burden of proof falls on you. You haven't met that burden.
That wasn't implied. The plural 'gifts' was applied to healing.
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.
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.
#1 First error, you compared "prayer" as a miraculous gift on the same level as tongues and what have you. It is not. "Prayer" is a "spiritual blessing" reserved for those who are in Christ. There is a huge difference there. Everyone (unsaved and saved) has the "physical blessing" of "being fruitful and multiplying" which is quite obviously not a miracle (supernatural going against what is natural or normal). However only the saved are granted access to prayer.
Ephesians 1
1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:
2 Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
It continues to list a broad spectrum of the blessings, in the following verses in which prayer would fall under.
It is clear that God would listen to any with that blessing of prayer so long as they are "in Christ" (Galatians 3:26-27;Ephesians 1:3) when looking at 1 Peter 3:12. The reason I mention this is because when it came to miracles, people granted the miracles gifts didnt typically have ALL of the miracles, hence when Paul mentioned:
9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. (1 Cor. 13)
Elsewhere we also see Paul said:
1 Cor. 12
8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;
9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;
10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:
So it would be obvious prayer is not a miraculous gift, but a spiritual blessing, which is different, because everyone "in Christ" has access to prayer to God through Jesus.
Unlike Acts, chapters 12 to 14 of 1Corinthians do feature the gift of unknown tongues as rightly defined in modern Pentecostalism
And based on 14:28, I see no reason one can't speak the tongue quietly to himself for personal edification.
From an exegetical standpoint, the gift of interpretation, as Pentecostals point out, appears to be a sudden enduement for understanding a language unknown to anyone in the congregation, probably a language currently unknown to anyone on planet earth, such as an angelic tongue or an ancient human language.
Yes, reason....
Acts 2
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues,
Acts 10
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
Acts 19
6...the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
Scripture doesnt say. But all the people heard their language Acts 2
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?
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, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
Define what you mean by "unknown" bearing in mind that word doesn't appear in the Greek.
1 Cor 14:28 doesn't say "speak in tongues quietly to himself". If says "keep silent".
Using a gift solely for personal edification would be an abuse of a spiritual gift which are only supposed to be used for the benefit of others.
You cited that article in response to a post of mine - but it doesn't address all of the objections in that post. And I don't yet see where it convincingly addresses any of them. How does the article positively rule out angelic tongues? Consider the following reading of 13:1 (paraphrase):You used quotes, heres mine:
What Are the "Tongues of Angels" in 1 Corinthians 13:1?
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?