Number One Flaw in Cessationism

[ICONO'CLAST]

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, Angel's as messengers spoke in the language of the person speaking the message.

 

[CharismaticLady]

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, "​

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.

 

[swordsman1]

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.

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.

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.

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).

Yes, you are contradicting yourself. Now you are arguing there isn't a spiritual gift of healing. Make your mind up.

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.

At least your bizarre interpretation means we agree that people who claim to heal today do not have the gift of healing!

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.

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, ..."

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."

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!

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.

I have already proved from scripture that some believers were given the spiritual gift of healing. If someone already had the ability to heal they would not need to pray before healing someone. And that's exactly what we see in all the examples of healing in Acts. You would only need to pray if you didn't have that gift and needed to ask for God's help.

 

[swordsman1]

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 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.

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 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.

 

[NBB]

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.

You read the bible: it says the hidden secrets of his heart would be revelead.

 

[JAL]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

That wasn't implied. The plural 'gifts' was applied to healing.

The reality is that 1Cor 12 doesn't clearly articulate who is gifted or who is not gifted. The collective term 'manifestations' suggests a dynamic, Spirit-controlled environment in which anyone of His choosing can suddenly manifest a charism. Today Bob prophesied, next Sunday it might be Sally. You are are trying to build a doctrine of gifts out of a chapter that doesen't clearly articulate what you want to conclude.

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, ..."

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.

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!

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.

But in general? The answer is Yes - the types of gifts that you just named - they generally won't become, or remain, abundant in the church without prayer. "Then he said to his disciples, "The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; (38) therefore pray earnestly to the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest"

Why would you find it bizarre that God condition His blessings on prayer - knowing that prayer is what He created us for! Is it not your position that is bizarre?

I have already proved from scripture that some believers were given the spiritual gift of healing.

No proof from Scripture is apodictic. I think we both can agree on that, right? But your conclusion is particularly dubious.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

The question was asked what is the number one flaw in cessationism?

Number 1 Answer is

it’s Flawless.

now proceed

hope this helps !!!

 

[JAL]

The question was asked what is the number one flaw in cessationism?

Number 1 Answer is

it’s Flawless.

now proceed

hope this helps !!!

Thanks for resolving that.

 

[Acts2:38]

Both the speaking and the hearing were supernatural. There is no natural understanding to tongues.

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.

 

[JAL]

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.

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.

That's why there's no interpreter - the gift of prophecy doesn't need the gift of interpretation.

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.

(BTW, I do not subscribe to all of Pentecostalism but, as a continuationist,I do share some of their charismatic beliefs).

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.

 

[Acts2:38]

Post number?

#225

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.

Yes, I do see that. I agree with the scripture. I disagree with how you are reporting it only do to the context and other scripture that relates.

γλῶσσα glōssa, gloce-sah'; of uncertain affinity; the tongue; by implication, a language (specially, one naturally unacquired):—tongue; the language or dialect used by a particular people distinct from that of other nations

Both Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians 14 use the same word for "tongue(s)". This definition above is the Koine Greek meaning for that word in the NT. The entire NT was written in that Greek.

By the definition alone, people with this gift spoke languages of a nation(s) that they had not spoken before. Not some gibberish people do now days. So it stands to reason even more so by context, and the definition of the word, that this gift granted someone the ability to speak at least one language that the user had not know before, that the language granted was understood by at least that one nation of people.

Acts 2
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?

In 1 Corinthians, the Corinthians were abusing their gifts. Paul had to straighten them out. Paul went on a tangent from at least 1 Corinthians 12 to 14 about gifts.

If you continue in 1 Corinthians 14 you find that you need another person who can speak that nations language and the language you speak so he can interpret.

27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.

28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

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....

6 Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?

27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.

28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

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.

 

[JAL]

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.

Wouldn't an angelic tongue sound like 'unintelligible gibberish'? How can you positively rule that out? I don't think you can.

 

[Acts2:38]

The gift of tongues doesn't exist in Acts.

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.

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.

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.

 

[CharismaticLady]

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.

So you are saying we should or shouldn't pray alone? If you pray in English, but pray amiss, what benefit is it to you or anyone else? From experience, I know that unanswered prayer caused me to even wonder if God existed? I never had one prayer answered in my first 30 years of being a Christian and going to church. What about you? How many prayers can you say were miraculously answered?

Ephesians 6:
17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God; 18 praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, being watchful to this end with all perseverance and supplication for all the saints.

Jude 1:
20 But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, 21 keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.

You may say that is not praying in tongues, even though it is described as such in 1 Corinthians 14:

13 Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful. 15 What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding.

This can mean one of two things regarding the understanding. I will pray or sing in the Spirit alone, or I will pray or sing in the Spirit with the gift of interpretation of tongues following. Or the other, I will pray or sing in English. But that is not what this chapter is about. It is about when to speak in tongues alone, and when to speak in tongues followed by the gift interpretation of tongues.

As far as abuse, swordsman, praying in the Spirit by yourself is never an abuse. What was happening in Corinth that was an abuse was all of them using their private prayer or praise language that doesn't require interpretation with the congregation, and speaking it loudly for all to hear, AND all at the same time. Utter confusion. No, the congregation is not the place for speaking our prayer language out loud for all to hear WITHOUT the gift of interpretation present. It is the other gift of tongues that is receiving messages from the Spirit that you know is for the whole congregation and only 2-3 give those messages, and only one person give the interpretation. What those messages could be are found in verse 6.

(I'll finish responding to the rest of your post in another response.)

 

[Acts2:38]

Wouldn't an angelic tongue sound like 'unintelligible gibberish'? How can you positively rule that out? I don't think you can.

I just did with that post you quoted from. Did you read the definition and read the context?

 

[JAL]

#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.

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.

 

[CharismaticLady]

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.

Hi swordsman,

Here is to the rest of your post to me.

Go back one verse to find out how many this applies to. I believe ALL.

16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; 18 they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

1. How many of "he who believes and is baptized will be saved" does that apply to?
a. none b. some c. all

2. How many of those that do not believe will be condemned?
a. none b. some c. all

3. How many of those who believes and are baptized and saved will have those signs following them?
a. none b. some c. all

The part about not being harmed by deadly snakes or deadly poison is a Hebrew idiom. Like "letting the cat out of the bag." It is not a literal cat, nor literal bag. So what does the Hebrew idiom actually mean. It still applies today. And no, not literally as believed by some Eastern Tennessee mountain people, and others.

 

[JAL]

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.

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.

 

[CharismaticLady]

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.

1 Corinthians 14:2 must be understood completely.

2 For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries.

Again you are contradicting the rule by believing the Jews heard them naturally speaking in their own language.

1. They were not speaking to the Jews present.
2. They were speaking to God.
3. NO ONE UNDERSTANDS TONGUES.

So with these factors of the RULE. How could they all separately hear them (all of them) speaking that many different languages all at once.

8 And how is it that we hear, each in our own language in which we were born? 9 Parthians and Medes and Elamites, those dwelling in Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya adjoining Cyrene, visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretans and Arabs—we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God.”

Don't you understand that the Parthians heard ALL OF THE DISCIPLES (THEM) speaking his language. But the Medes heard ALL OF THE DISCIPLES (THEM) speaking his language. And so on.

The only possible answer that doesn't blatantly contradict scripture is the devout Jews were given the supernatural gift of interpretation of tongues. Nothing else shows proper exegesis of the gifts of the Spirit.

 

[JAL]

I just did with that post you quoted from. Did you read the definition and read the context?

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.