Dave, you reading Paul's rebuke of Corinthian excesses as a dismissal of the gifts themselves. But in 1 Corinthians 14, Paul regulates tongues for edification. He is not shutting it down. The "mystery religions" comparison is interesting, but Paul is addressing how to practice the gift in a church setting. Which is why Charismatics/Pentecostals emphasize order and edification . And when Paul says I speak tongues more than you all, hes demonstrating his understanding of the gift (I doubt Paul is saying I speak mystery pagan stuff more than others). So I too accept Paul's experience and he does not deny gifts like tongues or prophecy.(1 Corinthians 14:39-40)
Rose
As I said many times in this thread, Paul is comparing the 'what to do' with the 'what not to do'. I never said that Paul's rebuke of the Corinthian excesses was him dismissing the gifts themselves. And, I never said that Paul was claiming to speak in mystery religion gibberish more than you all. Also, you said experience matters. Paul, an Apostle of Jesus Christ, "who spoke in tongues more than you all", would know and give a reliable testimony. His experience trumps any claims today made by charismatics and Pentecostals. I'm not dismissing the gifts, I'm pointing you to the same ones, and how they should be used, and interpreted by us, that Paul was pointing to, teaching about, and explaining their function for us to know. Paul's experience is what todays Pentecostal and Charismatics are not yielding to, as they want other to do towards their contradicting definitions and claims of use of those same gifts by Paul.
If my car breaks down, I can walk to work and get an equal results, just as if I drove. Walking and driving both get me to work. That doesn't mean that walking and driving are equal. Under certain circumstances, that being when my car is broken down, I can walk to work. Those both, driving my car, and walking, give equal results. When given the choice between walking of driving, I'll drive. You should look at prophesy and tongues in that same way. You can get the same results if tongues are necessary, but prophesy is better. If someone is speaking in a foreign language in your church, it should be interpreted by someone who knows the language, or kept silent. But to prophecy, to pray, to teach in a language that everyone understands is preferable. That's what Paul is saying about the true gift. Driving is still better than walking, even though when walking is necessary, one could get equal results.
As I said in the past, there is nothing that what is called tongues today, or even in Paul's day, while the sign was being given, that I cannot do better, and with complete understanding in my own language.
You seem to assume that the destruction of Jerusalem implies the cessation of spiritual gifts.
You know that's not what I believe, yet you continue to repeat these things. You're painting extremes. Ask yourself, Rose, why do you feel the need to do that? You know that I believe that anything good that comes from us is an undeserved gift from God. We call it the fruit of the Spirit. That's what the gifts are. The sign gifts had a specific purpose. Not only is that purpose long gone, but the things that are called "sign gifts" in Scripture are not what today's Charismatics and Pentecostals are doing by definition. When one cannot actually do what Scripture says, then redefine. That's what's happening. You don't need to make everything into a miracle for it to be from God. God works mostly through providence. You'll glorify Him most when you see that. The Jews always sought after a sign, so God gave them signs. Not in a good way.
The sign gifts (like tongues, healing, miracles) are part of this movement, it is revealing God's power and presence as the temple (church) expands. Not limited to a specific time or place, but serving to empower and edify believers to be Gods presence in the world.
One can only undo the confusion of languages from the dispersion at Babylon one time. That happened at Pentecost. By miracle. After that, there is no miracle. The Jews of that time understood that the confusion of languages could only be undone by God since it was a roadblock that He Himself put up, only He Himself could remove it. They got it. They understood that it could only be from God. That's the only time it was a miracle for the masses The history of it, as Paul alluded to, is foreign languages for a sign of judgment on "this people". What you're doing is not those. There may be some things that are unique to the Apostles who were charged with the task of taking the Gospel to new countries with various languages, thus Paul, 'spoke languages more than you all', that were not recorded in Scripture. That's not what's happening today.
The lens through which you read Scripture is different from mine, so naturally you will come to a conclusion based on your own pre-suppositions. I understand this, but unfortunately I cannot agree.
Paul contrasts the what not to do with the what to do with a "but". All you need to do is pick the one that meets the criteria set by Paul and know which one should be sought after. Which one edifies the church, A or B? The one that edifies the church is the what to do, what to strive for, and the one that edifies self only is the what not to do, the one that is only used to get equal results when the car is broken down. Did you forget how to speak in English? The car is not broken. The one with understanding is the what to do, the one without understanding is the what not to do. It's not rocket surgery.
When Charismatics and Pentecostals both send their missionaries to school to learn the languages of the countries that they are evangelizing through missionary work in, that says it all. If there were ever a place where you could use languages in the most practical manner, where there is a practical need, it's there, yet you don't. Do you know why? Because the confusion of languages from Babylon can only be undone one time. Rose, my TV has the gift of languages. And that same TV has the gift of interpretation through the closed captions. It's been undone. Babylon is reversed. On our phones we can speak into them and get that in any other language we want.
Thank you for your engagement but I thought I'd post to give others the opportunity to read and consider other perspectives and prayerfully weigh for themselves, whilst considering the entire corpus of Scripture.
Dave, I doubt a verse-by-verse would be fruitful as I don't believe you'd be able to suspend your bias. You constantly refer to MacArthur. I'd rather you do your own exegesis. Start by acknowledging your presuppositions, consider the historical, cultural, and literary contexts. Figure out what it meant for the original recipients, uncover the timeless principles, consider if these align with the rest of Scripture and then apply it to us. Commentaries are the last step in exegesis, after you've sat with the Spirit and done your work. They're merely counsel to determine where you agree, disagree and why. For those looking for different perspectives by great NT theologians. I suggest commentary by Gordon Fee or Lucy Peppiat or Craig Keener etc. Maybe even NT Wright who I recently discovered also speaks in tongues.
Every Pentecostal Charismatic puts experience before Scripture. I just wish that you'd at least admit it. That's why, in the end, a verse by verse will not bear fruit. I knew that before I started this thread. This is for the few who know what they are seeing and hearing in their church isn't right, but they don't know enough about Scripture to stand up to it. I'm just giving them a head start.
Have a good day Rose.
