Speaking in tongues -- revisited -- your thoughts?

[Billy Evmur]

There are no Charismatic Gifts today. In Daniel 9, when the 70th week came (Christ's crucifixion) God sealed (ended) the vision and the prophecy. This finally happened when John published Revelation.

Yet we have Ireneus in the 3rd century witnessing to visions, prophecy, healings, miracles even the raising of the dead happening all over the world in his day.
Against heresies book 2. ch. 32.

A correct reading of Daniel will show that whereas 69 of the 70 weeks are accounted for the 70th is yet to come.

So you quoted the "Holy Spirit will shew you things to come" but you don't really believe it...it is just doctrine, the scriptures, mustn't take it literally....

It is a oxymoron to say that the scriptures are sealed, finished and not believe what they teach concerning gifts...for you have STILL not found a scripture which says they have ceased.

 

[Dave L]

Yet we have Ireneus in the 3rd century witnessing to visions, prophecy, healings, miracles even the raising of the dead happening all over the world in his day.
Against heresies book 2. ch. 32.

A correct reading of Daniel will show that whereas 69 of the 70 weeks are accounted for the 70th is yet to come.

So you quoted the "Holy Spirit will shew you things to come" but you don't really believe it...it is just doctrine, the scriptures, mustn't take it literally....

It is a oxymoron to say that the scriptures are sealed, finished and not believe what they teach concerning gifts...for you have STILL not found a scripture which says they have ceased.

It's all hear say. Nothing more than what you have today. No scripture to back it up.

 

[Billy Evmur]

So is the bible hearsay, it is Peter's testimony or Paul's but the Holy Spirit backs it up and people who strive against them are reproved.

 

[Billy Evmur]

Why won't you believe Charles Spurgeon when he says God spoke to him with a booming voice?

Or why won't you believe the testimony of George Muller of Bristol?

 

[Dave L]

So is the bible hearsay, it is Peter's testimony or Paul's but the Holy Spirit backs it up and people who strive against them are reproved.

We must verify what scripture teaches about the charismatic gifts. In Acts and in the epistles, they came only through the hands on an apostle (besides the two outpourings). And the gifts ended with the apostles. If you can debunk this, then you can proceed to step two. Teaching what people teach today.

 

[Billy Evmur]

Stephen was not an apostle, a mere deacon, yet we see he was a man mighty in signs and wonders and in irrefutable wisdom. Phillip who went down to Samaria is not the Apostle but an evangelist and Samaria turned to the Lord when they saw the signs he did on those who were sick.

The promise is made "these signs shall follow the apostles? no...these signs shall follow them that BELIEVE " "...your sons, your daughters the old men will dream dreams and prophesy etc"

Phillip had 4 daughters who were prophetesses...it is just nonsense what you are saying.

Were all those in the Body of Christ at Corinth who spoke with tongues and interpreted or were healers, workers of miracles, who prophesied etc" were THEY apostles?

There were false teachers among them, you can always expect false teachers when God is at work, the devil gets frightened.

Why are YOU listening to false teachers, there are PLENTY of good ones around...but you can't lampoon the good ones, you can only lampoon the false ones.

 

[Billy Evmur]

I keep asking you to verify the scriptures and show where Paul taught the gifts were no longer to be desired or sought...

 

[tdidymas]

If it is exaggeration it is not truth. If it is not truth then it is lying. There is no in between.

I just disagree. Your black/white law here appears to me as an exaggeration. I still say it depends on the usage whether it be lying or not. However, I'll change my tune that Paul's language in ch. 13 was exaggeration. It appears to be, since he uses worst case scenarios. He is setting up a hypothetical if/then argument to make a point. But in the case of Jesus' hyperbole to gouge out eyes, that is definitely an exaggeration, and it is not a lie. Jesus does not intend for anyone to do that, he is just pointing out the gravity of sin.
TD

 

[tdidymas]

You made me go back into my notes .....to prove you wrong. And I proved myself wrong on this one.

Vs 1 is a third class conditional clause. It isn't Paul lying, like you said. It is a debate technique. It is basically saying, " let us assume( whether true or not) and debate in that assumption." We could call it an exaggeration, but it really is not.

It's more like, "Lets assume that what you say is true, and debate in that assumption and compare that assumption with truth and SEE if it lines up with truth."

Yes, I see what you're saying. Perhaps "exaggeration" is not the right word for it, but it appears exaggerative when he uses worst case scenarios in this whole passage.
TD

 

[tdidymas]

No it is stronger than a wish, Paul would that they did all speak in tongues because they should all speak in tongues. But I do have a habit of not quoting exactly and I accept your admonishment

also "earnestly desire the higher gifts especially that you may prophesy is a strong exhortation.

How God works is very important, I am no freewiller, I certainly don't belong to WoF and yet as C.H.Spurgeon says "God will not drag anybody to heaven by the ears" What this generation of Christians are doing is rejecting.

Now it is OK to reject Benny Hinn, but not to reject the Holy Spirit by rejecting how He is pleased to move in our day. Also "forbid not speaking in tongues" and "do not quench the Holy Spirit" are commands.

"...the violent take it by force" is another conversation which we might have for I am a Premillennialist.

I disagree with you, it is not more than a wish. Paul acknowledged that not all spoke in tongues, therefore he did not believe that all should. He just got through explaining about body parts not being the same as an analogy of how members of the church don't all have the same function. He just got through explaining how God is the one who decides who gets what gift. I don't see that Paul could possibly have some idea that people "should" speak in tongues when his whole conversation is against that idea.
TD

 

[tdidymas]

No I believed miracle reports and was saved before I saw a miracle...like the Roman soldier who even made the Lord marvel by his faith.

All the prejudice is on the other side. They are prejudiced against tongues, they are prejudiced against the gifts, they are prejudiced against signs and wonders

...and they have got no right to be.

To Capernaum the Lord said "Sodom and Gomorrah will rise up at the judgement against this generation because if the works which you have seen were done in them they would have repented in dust and ashes"

That is a stern rebuke. Again He says "if they had not seen the works which I have done in My Fathers name they would have no guilt"

Now I don't believe that anyone saved can lose their salvation, but I do believe that stubborn unbelief carries a high price tag.

We needed their theology, but they folded their arms.

You judge me wrongly, if you think this post is going to "convict" me or make me afraid. You are misapplying the scriptures you are referring to in here. I'll explain: the people who were prejudiced against Jesus and rejected Him actually acknowledged that He was performing miracles. Their unbelief had to do with Him personally, not what He was doing. And besides that, you seem to be saying that I am against miracles here, which is a false accusation. You make judgments and come to conclusions without even asking any questions. Such activity is the definition of prejudice.
TD

 

[Gr8Grace]

Yes, I see what you're saying. Perhaps "exaggeration" is not the right word for it, but it appears exaggerative when he uses worst case scenarios in this whole passage.
TD

I believe we are on the same page. Just different word use.