Number One Flaw in Cessationism

[CharismaticLady]

Do you? What are you trying to say?

Only that if you go back to the post of yours I was responding to, you were talking of 'interpretation of tongues' to only be for the born again, and seeing as the devout Jews who were listening that day weren't born again, they couldn't have received a supernatural interpretation. Only Mark 16 has the gifts that are for all born again believers. The gifts of 1 Corinthians 12 are not given to all believers, but as the Spirit sees fit. If you've already read my posts in this thread, you'll see where I mentioned a teenager understand tongues and it caused her to repent and become born again. She wasn't born again when she was given that experience. I'm not saying that all those devout Jews or this teenager received that gift permanently, but it was used for such a time that it was needed by the Spirit who is the One who draws us to Christ.

Christian should test it by drinking poison or handling snakes. These signs operate by faith.

Correct. That isn't even what it means. It is an idiom like the American idiom letting the cat out of the bag that means telling a secret. It doesn't mean literally letting a kitty cat out of a paper bag. The idiom means divine protection from demonic forces, or another way to say it is, "all things working together for good to those who are the called." That is basically a repeat of the promise about the serpents and scorpions given to all Christians.

Not in a way that violates His word.

Right. And we know that those who speak in tongues do not speak to man, but to God, for no man understands him." 1 Cor. 14:2. So a violation of that scripture would be to believe that on the Day of Pentecost they were speaking in the tongues that people COULD understand. Therefore, the only thing that allows man to understand tongues would be the gift of interpretation of tongues. That does not contradict scripture. To restrict the Spirit to not be allowed to use His own gifts to help draw men to Christ is adding to scripture. God can do whatever He wants to do.

You are contradicting yourself in your bending over backwards to defend the erroneous idea that an unsaved person could by your misuse of the sovereignty of God, for such unsaved person to hear the speaking in tongues but also hear English instead, or too.

From what I understand of the experience, the teenager in Arizona did not hear 'tongues' like everyone else, she only heard English. I've had to ask people about what they've experienced, as I don't have this gift or the gift of diverse kinds of tongues to receive messages from God. The reason I use 'sovereignly given' is because it happened. And I've asked that same question of how if they are not Christians yet. The answer came that they are the Spirit's gifts and He is sovereign. And God does not contradict His own Word, so they didn't understand naturally.

The unbeliever is not given the ability to understand the speaking in tongues.. they cannot because in a church service where people are speaking in tongues.. the other Christians don't know what's being said. Further, even the person speaking in tongues doesn't know what they are saying.

So, no.. what you propose is not correct.

Okay, seeing as tongues cannot be understood naturally, how did the devout Jews understand tongues that no one understands?

 

[CharismaticLady]

The fact that non tongues speaking Christians everywhere who've been present at a church that practiced speaking in tongues.. have reported that none of those tongues talkers gave the interpretation.. shows that you are not correct in saying that the interpretation is immediate.

The scripture states by the apostle Paul that a tongues speaking person has to pray to interpret.
Praying effectively has to involve faith, and (Jude 20) faith has to be developed.

So, again, no.. you are not correct.

I'll let you answer my other post, and it is basically an answer to this one.

 

[fwGod]

Only that if you go back to the post of yours I was responding to, you were talking of 'interpretation of tongues' to only be for the born again, and seeing as the devout Jews who were listening that day weren't born again, they couldn't have received a supernatural interpretation. Only Mark 16 has the gifts that are for all born again believers. The gifts of 1 Corinthians 12 are not given to all believers, but as the Spirit sees fit.

So the Holy Spirit wouldn't give a gift that belongs only to believers, to an unbeliever.

If you've already read my posts in this thread, you'll see where I mentioned a teenager understand tongues and it caused her to repent and become born again. She wasn't born again when she was given that experience.

You are generalizing now. And skipping over where you said always before that she was not saved when she allegedly heard English while those around her were speaking in tongues.

I'm not saying that all those devout Jews or this teenager received that gift permanently, but it was used for such a time that it was needed by the Spirit who is the One who draws us to Christ.

That is saying that the Holy Spirit would in her one special case, allow her, an unsaved person, have the gift which is according to 1Cor. chapters 12 and 14, only for believers.

The one time that the gift was operating through a Christian on behalf of an unsaved person.. the sign of prophecy occurred. Not tongues.

At no time in the NT was the use of the gifts of the Spirit for any amount of time given to an unsaved person to personally experience.

Correct. That isn't even what it means. It is an idiom like the American idiom letting the cat out of the bag that means telling a secret.

It doesn't mean literally letting a kitty cat out of a paper bag. The idiom means divine protection from demonic forces, or another way to say it is, "all things working together for good to those who are the called."

That is basically a repeat of the promise about the serpents and scorpions given to all Christians.

Right. And we know that those who speak in tongues do not speak to man, but to God, for no man understands him." 1 Cor. 14:2. So a violation of that scripture would be to believe that on the Day of Pentecost they were speaking in the tongues that people COULD understand.

That is an overstatement that tells me that you are still a bit confused, or could cause confusion to others if you told them that.

There are some scriptures that you haven't considered.

They were speaking in tongues 1Cor.14:2 but when they were outside the direction changed from speaking to God, to speaking to men, according to 1Cor.12:10 where it says .. by the Spirit to speak diversities of tongues.. in the case of the 120 speaking while the men of Acts 2:5 heard their distinctive dialects .. the verse could read.. diversities of languages of men (1Cor.13:1)

The 120 didn't know that they were speaking the tongues of men, to them, they were still speaking a language that they hadn't learned.

The men of Acts 2:5 heard their native language.

Therefore, the only thing that allows man to understand tongues would be the gift of interpretation of tongues. That does not contradict scripture. To restrict the Spirit to not be allowed to use His own gifts to help draw men to Christ is adding to scripture. God can do whatever He wants to do.

Not exactly. If God were to do whatever He wanted.. He'd just make everyone get saved right now.

But, no.. God will do according to His sovereign will, and through His Son Jesus Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit.. regarding all that has been revealed through the Bible.

From what I understand of the experience, the teenager in Arizona did not hear 'tongues' like everyone else, she only heard English. I've had to ask people about what they've experienced, as I don't have this gift or the gift of diverse kinds of tongues to receive messages from God.

Then why would you think that she an unsaved person would get it?

The vernacular of the verse "God's no respecter of person's" in the reverse "God is a respecter of persons", which amounts to 'That is not fair' to us His children, giving it to one who's not a child of God.

The reason I use 'sovereignly given' is because it happened.

That is putting experience above the word of God. That is a spiritually dangerous thing to do. Any experience can then lead you further and further from God's truth.

And I've asked that same question of how if they are not Christians yet. The answer came that they are the Spirit's gifts and He is sovereign.

The answer came from who?
If you thought it, then the thought is exalting itself against the knowledge of God.. and it needs to be captured, or bound, and any further such thoughts be caused to come into the obedience of Christ.

If you are referring to those you were with telling you that.. They are the one's who don't fully know God's word. They use experience and their erroneous idea of God's sovereignty to explain something.

And it seems that you have made the mistake of going along with what they said. Even to the point of attempting to justify it according to what they said.

All the while you hadn't looked at the scriptures or understood what they say, in that they show that those others are not correct.

And God does not contradict His own Word, so they didn't understand naturally.

By naturally, do you mean "obviously"?

They were letting their religious way of thinking rule over biblically based thinking.

Okay, seeing as tongues cannot be understood naturally, how did the devout Jews understand tongues that no one understands?

The verses I supply do fit with the record that is given to us in Acts.

They spoke in tongues (1Cor.14:2) because no one who was there, was left out of that, so no interpretation was needed.

When they got outside those tongues became those of 1Cor.12:10. As it says in 1Cor.14:22, they are for a sign to unbelievers. They were Jews but they didn't yet believe in Jesus until after Peter spoke to them (Acts 2:14-41).

And, that is what I pretty much said right at the first?, post to you.

 

[CharismaticLady]

So the Holy Spirit wouldn't give a gift that belongs only to believers, to an unbeliever.
You are generalizing now. And skipping over where you said always before that she was not saved when she allegedly heard English while those around her were speaking in tongues.
That is saying that the Holy Spirit would in her one special case, allow her, an unsaved person, have the gift which is according to 1Cor. chapters 12 and 14, only for believers.

The one time that the gift was operating through a Christian on behalf of an unsaved person.. the sign of prophecy occurred. Not tongues.

At no time in the NT was the use of the gifts of the Spirit for any amount of time given to an unsaved person to personally experience.

That is an overstatement that tells me that you are still a bit confused, or could cause confusion to others if you told them that.

There are some scriptures that you haven't considered.

They were speaking in tongues 1Cor.14:2 but when they were outside the direction changed from speaking to God, to speaking to men, according to 1Cor.12:10 where it says .. by the Spirit to speak diversities of tongues.. in the case of the 120 speaking while the men of Acts 2:5 heard their distinctive dialects .. the verse could read.. diversities of languages of men (1Cor.13:1)

The 120 didn't know that they were speaking the tongues of men, to them, they were still speaking a language that they hadn't learned.
Not exactly. If God were to do whatever He wanted.. He'd just make everyone get saved right now.

But, no.. God will do according to His sovereign will, and through His Son Jesus Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit.. regarding all that has been revealed through the Bible.
Then why would you think that she an unsaved person would get it?

The vernacular of the verse "God's no respecter of person's" in the reverse "God is a respecter of persons", which amounts to 'That is not fair' to us His children, giving it to one who's not a child of God.
That is putting experience above the word of God. That is a spiritually dangerous thing to do. Any experience can then lead you further and further from God's truth.
The answer came from who?
If you thought it, then the thought is exalting itself against the knowledge of God.. and it needs to be captured, or bound, and any further such thoughts be caused to come into the obedience of Christ.

If you are referring to those you were with telling you that.. They are the one's who don't fully know God's word. They use experience and their erroneous idea of God's sovereignty to explain something.

And it seems that you have made the mistake of going along with what they said. Even to the point of attempting to justify it according to what they said.

All the while you hadn't looked at the scriptures or understood what they say, in that they show that those others are not correct.
By naturally, do you mean "obviously"?

They were letting their religious way of thinking rule over biblically based thinking.
The verses I supply do fit with the record that is given to us in Acts.

They spoke in tongues (1Cor.14:2) because no one who was there, was left out of that, so no interpretation was needed.

When they got outside those tongues became those of 1Cor.12:10. As it says in 1Cor.14:22, they are for a sign to unbelievers. They were Jews but they didn't yet believe in Jesus until after Peter spoke to them (Acts 2:14-41).

And, that is what I pretty much said right at the first?, post to you.

Please explain how the devout Jews listening could understands what the disciples were saying in tongues without contradicting 1 Corinthians 14:2. Thanks

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

Edit: I didn't realize you were citing an article. But the same comments apply.

I agree with you that the Bible teaches Covenant Theology but the defense of it doesn't need to be as complicated as you're making it here. You're referencing a hundred verses that do not even offer explicit support to that topic. The simple defense of Covenant Theology is that, since the cross is retroactive, OT saints were entitled to - and thus received - the same saving and sanctifying grace as we do, thereby establishing a single Covenant of Grace spanning both testaments. And the only passage needed to confirm it is chapter 3 of Galatians.

Also the Bible doesn't teach the TYPE of solidarity that you have in mind. To claim that either Adam or Christ was our representative is nonsense because representationalism makes for a self-contradictory jurisprudence, it is a miscarriage of justice. (I can point out the contradiction if you're not aware of it). As a result I have my own theory of Adam - pretty much the same as Millard J. Erickson's.

Hello Brother .i I agree with most of your post but I believe you are not correct concerning federal headship. Let me look over the link you offered and get back to you

 

[swordsman1]

When they were speaking in tongues all together, each HEARD them like listening to a choir, and each listening heard THEM in their own language.

The foreigners heard the disciples in their own language because the disciples were speaking those languages - as Acts 2 plainly says. And as all commentators agree.

Out of 120 different languages being spoken all at once, how in the world would I be able to pick out the one speaking English without the 119 drowning them out? But not if I would supernaturally and sovereignly (before believing in Christ) hear all of them speaking English like a choir. And as we all talked among ourselves, we find that each one of us from different areas heard them speaking in their own language.

What makes you think the disciples were all standing huddled together like a choir? They were in the vast Temple Courts (where the foreign pilgrims were gathered for the feast of Pentecost). If the disciples were standing several yards apart from each other then they wouldn't be drowning each other out. A passing foreigner would soon pass one who was speaking his native language and recognize it.

18 they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them (Hebrew idiom for receiving divine protection);

Where is your material proof that "drinking anything deadly will not hurt them" was a Hebrew idiom for divine protection? What source did you get that fact from?

 

[swordsman1]

Only Mark 16 has the gifts that are for all born again believers.

Mark 16:17-18 was a prophecy that was fulfilled in the 1st century AD. Nobody today drinks poison or picks up deadly snakes without coming to harm as Paul did in Malta.

And even in the 1st Century not ALL believers performed those tasks. It says those signs ACCOMPANIED the group of believers, not that each individual believer performed them. If Jesus was speaking of the individual he would have continued with the singular "he" from v16, not change to the plural "they".

And the purpose of those signs was to confirm to others the gospel message of those early believers.

Mark 16:20 "Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it."​

And we know that those who speak in tongues do not speak to man, but to God, for no man understands him." 1 Cor. 14:2. So a violation of that scripture would be to believe that on the Day of Pentecost they were speaking in the tongues that people COULD understand.

1 Cor 14:2 is not proof that tongues were non-human. If someone spoke in an unrecognized language, such as Japanese, in my church no one would understand. Only God would know what was spoken.

From what I understand of the experience, the teenager in Arizona did not hear 'tongues' like everyone else, she only heard English. I've had to ask people about what they've experienced, as I don't have this gift or the gift of diverse kinds of tongues to receive messages from God. The reason I use 'sovereignly given' is because it happened. And I've asked that same question of how if they are not Christians yet. The answer came that they are the Spirit's gifts and He is sovereign. And God does not contradict His own Word, so they didn't understand naturally.

So you've come up with your theory of tongues interpretation not because it is in scripture, but because you heard about a teenager in Arizona who told a story to her friends.

 

[fwGod]

Please explain how the devout Jews listening could understands what the disciples were saying in tongues without contradicting 1 Corinthians 14:2. Thanks

I have already done so more than once. But I'll repeat it here again.
1Cor.14:2 is speaking in tongues unto God. While 1Cor.12:10 is speaking in diversities of tongues or languages of men, 1Cor.13:1.
In both cases (14:2 & 12:10-1Cor.13:1) to God or to men the speaker is talking in a language that they did not learn.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

What ended the Old Covenant making way for the New Covenant? Or are we still under the Law? Did Christ put New Wine into old wineskins? Do you desperately need a lesson in Covenant Theology??? Cessationists certainly do.

Christ's death was the last sacrifice and was the end and fulfillment of the Old Covenant with its laws and sacrifices, all needed because of Adam's sin. It was because of sin that the Old Covenant was needed. Christ dealt with the sin issue once and for all for all who enter His New Covenant. The giving of the Holy Spirit was the beginning of the New Covenant needed to prepare us for eternal life in heaven, where only the righteous and holy, Revelation 22:11, will live and reign with Christ. (No sinners, only children of God. John 8:32-36). Not understanding covenant theology is why there is so much false teaching about 'always being a sinner' in the Church as Cessationists have been taught and teach. It is the Holy Spirit that takes the power away from the old nature and makes us born again with a divine nature, 2 Peter 1. Christ's sacrifice and resurrection was a foreshadow of the death of our sin nature and our new life in Him. Christ ended the Law, and His death and resurrection and ascension to heaven brought us the indwelling Spirit. The law of the Spirit of life in Christ has freed us from the law of sin and death.

Covenant Theology 101. (Matthew 5:18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled." In other words, nothing ceases inside a covenant until the covenant, itself, is fulfilled.) The covenant is a will and testament. Christ preached the New Covenant (like writing His will and testament while alive), but it was not put into affect until the death of the Testator, Hebrews 9:6. Out with the old; in with the NEW. Seeing Christ face to face at the second coming is when the gifts of the Spirit will no longer be necessary and will cease. That is the end of the New Covenant.

What Cessationists don't understand among many things is that even with the Bible we only get a dim view of the glory of God, like seeing Him through a dark glass. They think the gifts were only for writing the Bible, yet most of their prayers are not answered, or has prayer ceased too, because it takes gifts of the Spirit to know God's will in particular situations, to pray accurately and receive what you pray for - the sign of our assurance 1 John 3:18-24. But, don't worry, if you are a Cessationist, God won't force the gifts onto a non-believer of the gifts, so you're safe, like an agoraphobic. Not really living to the fullest, but safe.

If you notice, Christ, Himself, brought in the 1st covenant of the Ten Commandments. It was His finger. And only He can end that covenant, which He did on the cross; just as only He can start and end the New Covenant, by returning to heaven and sending His Spirit to start the covenant, and coming again in the second coming to end the covenant with its partial knowledge of God. The New Testament and everything in it, like it or not, is ours, including every gift and office. Christ did not end the New Covenant with the death of the apostles. They fulfilled their ministry to preach the New Covenant just as we are commissioned to do, and Jesus has supplied us with everything we need to sustain us through His Own Spirit, just like He did them. And it did not end with the publishing of the Bible, for the Bible is still only partial knowledge. There is a reason tongues is a "sign to the unbeliever" - to the mockers, even inside the Church, the "uninformed" - Cessationists. It is accurately called a "sign which will be spoken against" (by unbelievers). The Laodecians do not want or need all that God has for us, and the reason they are lukewarm and dull of hearing God's voice.

Acts 2 is historic narrative. If one thinks it's an on-demand, everyday occurrence one should also expect the Red Sea parted as frequently.

 

[CharismaticLady]

The foreigners heard the disciples in their own language because the disciples were speaking those languages - as Acts 2 plainly says. And as all commentators agree.

Interesting that God would contradict His own Word...

What makes you think the disciples were all standing huddled together like a choir? They were in the vast Temple Courts (where the foreign pilgrims were gathered for the feast of Pentecost). If the disciples were standing several yards apart from each other then they wouldn't be drowning each other out. A passing foreigner would soon pass one who was speaking his native language and recognize it.

Where does it say they were mingling? How is it that Peter could point to them as a group and say they were not drunk?

Is this your fabrication, or do commentators actually say such nonsense? Being Spirit-filled, I've never needed to have others do my thinking, especially commentaries that don't even agree with each other. The Spirit of Truth on the one correct meaning is all we need.

Where is your material proof that "drinking anything deadly will not hurt them" was a Hebrew idiom for divine protection? What source did you get that fact from?

swordy, are you still looking for the cat that got out of the bag?

 

[CharismaticLady]

Mark 16:17-18 was a prophecy that was fulfilled in the 1st century AD. Nobody today drinks poison or picks up deadly snakes without coming to harm as Paul did in Malta.

And even in the 1st Century not ALL believers performed those tasks. It says those signs ACCOMPANIED the group of believers, not that each individual believer performed them. If Jesus was speaking of the individual he would have continued with the singular "he" from v16, not change to the plural "they".

And the purpose of those signs was to confirm to others the gospel message of those early believers.

Mark 16:20 "Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it."

So the disciples were they only ones baptized and believes. The signs followed those who believed. The disciples were the first, but they certainly weren't the last that had gifts. Paul said of the Corinthians that they came short in no gift. They had them all.

If you want to scoff at divine protection, you are tying God's hands. "My people perish for lack of knowledge." But by believing, I've seen God deliver me a huge number of times.

Acts 5:
17 Then the high priest rose up, and all those who were with him (which is the sect of the Sadducees), and they were filled with indignation, 18 and laid their hands on the apostles and put them in the common prison. 19 But at night an angel of the Lord opened the prison doors and brought them out, and said, 20 “Go, stand in the temple and speak to the people all the words of this life.”

1 Cor 14:2 is not proof that tongues were non-human. If someone spoke in an unrecognized language, such as Japanese, in my church no one would understand. Only God would know what was spoken.

Japanese IS a human tongue.

So you've come up with your theory of tongues interpretation not because it is in scripture, but because you heard about a teenager in Arizona who told a story to her friends.

That's only one. I've asked my pastor after church when he receives an interpretation. He heard English. In the same meeting, a black woman heard Zulu and confirmed it. But the tongue was neither English, nor Zulu. It is what those with the gift of interpretation of tongues HEARS.

 

[CharismaticLady]

I have already done so more than once. But I'll repeat it here again.
1Cor.14:2 is speaking in tongues unto God. While 1Cor.12:10 is speaking in diversities of tongues or languages of men, 1Cor.13:1.
In both cases (14:2 & 12:10-1Cor.13:1) to God or to men the speaker is talking in a language that they did not learn.

Speaking in tongues is speaking the tongues of men or of angels, but to God, and not to men, because no one present understands them. No where does it talk of understanding tongues without the help of the supernatural gift of interpretation of tongues.

The difference between Mark 16, and 1 Cor. 12 is the purpose and direction. Tongues are TO God in Mark 16 and for individual use, and FROM God in 1 Cor. 12 for the profit of all. In 1 Cor. 14:6 is the result of the interpretation for the profit of all.

Remember the optical illusion of a word that some could only see lines, but others could read what it actually says. Sometimes it is hard for some to see what is actually there.

 

[CharismaticLady]

Acts 2 is historic narrative. If one thinks it's an on-demand, everyday occurrence one should also expect the Red Sea parted as frequently.

Hey Jimmy, long time...

Acts 2 and what happened was the first day of a new covenant which will last throughout the expanse of the covenant.

Red Sea parting was old covenant, and Joshua parted the River of Jordan. But God is God and I wouldn't limit Him.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

Thinking if we do anything outside of the word of God, that it is a violation is religion. A negative form of religion that requires memory bounds rather than being led by the Spirit in freedom, as it was when the scriptures were being written.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Hey Jimmy, long time...

Acts 2 and what happened was the first day of a new covenant which will last throughout the expanse of the covenant.

Red Sea parting was old covenant, and Joshua parted the River of Jordan. But God is God and I wouldn't limit Him.

Really? Since this happens daily in your world, could you send a video please. I've never seen tongues of fire come out of the sky, nor have I ever heard someone speak in a language that he was otherwise unable to. Thanks.

 

[swordsman1]

Interesting that God would contradict His own Word...

God never contradicts His word. It is your understanding of it that is incorrect.

Where does it say they were mingling? How is it that Peter could point to them as a group and say they were not drunk?

Where does it say they were all huddled together, shoulder to shoulder, like a choir?

Is this your fabrication, or do commentators actually say such nonsense? Being Spirit-filled, I've never needed to have others do my thinking, especially commentaries that don't even agree with each other. The Spirit of Truth on the one correct meaning is all we need.

So you don't believe God gave people the gift of teaching to aid the church? Rather you think we should follow our own ideas which you think are implanted by the Holy Spirit? On the issue of Acts 2 tongues all respected commentators are unanimous. You should pay attention to them.

swordy, are you still looking for the cat that got out of the bag?

Why don't you answer my question?

 

[swordsman1]

So the disciples were they only ones baptized and believes. The signs followed those who believed. The disciples were the first, but they certainly weren't the last that had gifts.

No but the signs in v20 are the same signs referred to in v17-18. They were for confirming to others. What other purpose are signs for?

Paul said of the Corinthians that they came short in no gift. They had them all.

I thought you said Mark 16 were not gifts. Make your mind up.

THe Corinthians "not coming short in any gift" does not mean they possessed every available gift. No one from that church was an apostle for instance. It means what it says - that they came did not come short in any of their gifts. They had a full measure of the gifts they possessed.

If you want to scoff at divine protection, you are tying God's hands. "My people perish for lack of knowledge." But by believing, I've seen God deliver me a huge number of times.

Acts 5:
17 Then the high priest rose up, and all those who were with him (which is the sect of the Sadducees), and they were filled with indignation, 18 and laid their hands on the apostles and put them in the common prison. 19 But at night an angel of the Lord opened the prison doors and brought them out, and said, 20 “Go, stand in the temple and speak to the people all the words of this life.”

Strawman. I said nothing of the sort.

Japanese IS a human tongue.

No one in my church understands Japanese. If anyone speaks in an unrecognized tongue in church does not speak to people but to God, because no one understands them.

Now do you understand 1 Cor 14:2?

That's only one. I've asked my pastor after church when he receives an interpretation. He heard English. In the same meeting, a black woman heard Zulu and confirmed it. But the tongue was neither English, nor Zulu. It is what those with the gift of interpretation of tongues HEARS.

So your theology based on stories your hear from other people, not from scripture.

 

[swordsman1]

Tongues are TO God in Mark 16 and for individual use,

No it's not. Signs are for OTHERS.

and FROM God in 1 Cor. 12 for the profit of all.

Where does it say tongues are messages FROM God?

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

No it's not. Signs are for OTHERS.



Where does it say tongues are messages FROM God?

The KJV says the gifts are for the good withal. The YLT is more close to the original and does not say "withal". But is is not wise to only do others good. It should benefit everyone if there is prophecy.

1Co 12:7 To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. ESV

1Co 12:7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. KJV

1Co 12:7 And to each hath been given the manifestation of the Spirit for profit; YLT

Paul mentions word gifts to Timothy, that were only for Timothy.

 

[CharismaticLady]

Really? Since this happens daily in your world, could you send a video please. I've never seen tongues of fire come out of the sky, nor have I ever heard someone speak in a language that he was otherwise unable to. Thanks.

Don't have a video. Only a picture.