GingerBeer
Cool and refreshing with a kick!
- Mar 26, 2017
- 3,511
- 1,348
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Upvote
0
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.
But your opinion is incorrect.The topic is
The cessationist says that tongues is not valid unless it is an intelligable language.
Iv pointed out that the scriptires plainly says otherwise.
That's the topic
The scripture is fully correctBut your opinion is incorrect.
repeating an incorrect interpretation will not make it correct.The scripture is fully correct
Im agreeing with it.
....from the Op.
This claim that if it is not an intelligible language its not tongues of the holy spirit is Fully refuted BY SCRIPTURE well Before cessationists made the claim.
Its simply this.. In his explanations and instructions around the topic of tongues and prophecy Paul makes an astounding statement.
....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..... 1 Corinth 14 v2..
Now i have left the parenthesis In on purpose. They are not in the greek but added -for transliteration .
But what IS in the greek i will now HIGHLIGHT in bold red.
.....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....
....
Just saying "your opinion is incorrect " does not make the point iv presented incorrect it's just you voicing your opinion .
The scripture however DOES SAY what it says
I agree with the scripture. Iv added nothing to.it and removed nothing from it.
Ambiguity and misdirection.repeating an incorrect interpretation will not make it correct.
1 Corinthians 14:2 For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to human beings but to God, for no one listens; he utters mysteries in spirit.
One commentator writes
Although it is not indicated consistently in some translations, the distinction between the singular tongue and the plural tongues is foundational to the proper interpretation of this chapter. Paul seems to use the singular to distinguish the counterfeit gift of pagan gibberish and the plural to indicate the genuine gift of a foreign language (see note on 1Co 14:2). It was perhaps in recognition of that, that the King James Version (KJV) translators added consistently the word "unknown" before every singular form (see 1Co 14:2, 1Co 14:4, 1Co 14:13-14, 1Co 14:19, 1Co 14:27). The implications of that distinction will be noted as appropriate. Against the backdrop of carnality and counterfeit ecstatic speech learned from the experience of the pagans, Paul covers three basic issues with regard to speaking in languages by the gift of the Holy Spirit:
(1) its position, inferior to prophecy (1Co 14:1-19);
(2) its purpose, a sign to unbelievers, not believers (1Co 14:20-25); and
(3) its procedure, systematic, limited, and orderly (1Co 14:26-40).
1 Corinthians 14:2
he who speaks in a tongue. This is singular (see previous note; cf. 1Co 14:4, 1Co 14:13-14, 1Co 14:19, 1Co 14:27), indicating that it refers to the false gibberish of the counterfeit pagan ecstatic speech. The singular is used because gibberish can't be plural; there are not various kinds of non-language. There are, however, various languages; hence when speaking of the true gift of language, Paul uses the plural to make the distinction (1Co 14:6, 1Co 14:18, 1Co 14:22-23, 1Co 14:29). The only exception is in verses 1Co 14:27, 28 (see note there), where it refers to a single person speaking a single genuine language.
does not speak to men but to God. This is better translated, "to a god." The Greek text has no definite article (see similar translation in Act 17:23, "an unknown god"). Their gibberish was worship of pagan deities. The Bible records no incident of any believer ever speaking to God in any other than normal human language.
no one understands him; … in the spirit he speaks mysteries. The carnal Corinthians using the counterfeit ecstatic speech of paganism were not interested in being understood, but in making a dramatic display. The spirit by which they spoke was not the Holy Spirit, but their own human spirit or some demon; and the mysteries they declared were the type associated with the pagan mystery religions, which was espoused to be the depths that only the initiated few were privileged to know and understand. Those mysteries were totally unlike the ones mentioned in Scripture (e.g., Mat 13:11; Eph 3:9), which are divine revelations of truths previously hidden (see notes on 1Co 12:7; Eph 3:4-6).
Yes that is one type of the diversities of tongues.Some years back a friend of mine's mother-in-law, a Puerto Rican woman, visited during a worship service at our church. During the service, and in a perfectly orderly way, she stood up and spoke a message from the Lord to our congregation in perfect English. I learned afterward that her English language skills were limited limited to basics like "Hello, Goodbye, and Thank you." That is a perfect example of how God uses messages in tongues today.
Scoffers will always scoff. That is their "ministry."
Waving hands and decrying what a commentator writes doesn't make your opinion true. All it does is raise a question - why does he dismiss what the commentator writes without showing why it is wrong?Ambiguity and misdirection.
I never interpreted the scripture
I stated what it says as it says it.
It is necessary to do so.
I heard a true story about a family that had a curse on their home and family and asked the church for help. So the pastor got all 400 people in his church to go to that house and occupy every room in the house and pray in tongues for one hour without stopping. As a result the whole family got saved and healed, many people in the church got healed, backsliders came back to the Lord, and a large number of the unsaved community around the church turned to Christ.
Not long after that, the family got a knock on the door and there was a stranger who told them that she was considering suicide by driving her car into the side of a motorway overpass, when she saw a light in the distance and so she drove to the light and that was the house. She was invited in, led to the Lord and completely healed of her depression and suicidal thoughts. After that over a hundred people knocked at their door requiring ministry and they got it.
So, you saying that tongues does not have any effect seems a bit wet to me in the of true stories like that.
I have come to the belief that those who do not embrace the gifts of the Spirit, including the gift of tongues are rejecting the Holy Spirit and insulting Him. He is God and He has given gifts to the church and the Scripture says that the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. Therefore God the Holy Spirit has not withdrawn His gifts from the church in accordance with His promise.
So a person who is dictating to God the Holy Spirit in how He should move through people with His gifts, including tongues, is insulting God, and rejecting Jesus who sent the Holy Spirit with His gifts to the church to support the great commission until Jesus comes again.
If you reject the gift of tongues which has been given by Jesus when He sent the Holy Spirit to indwell believers and empower them to build up the church, then you are rejecting something that is part of the endowment of the Spirit. A person doesn't have to speak in tongues to embrace the Spirit and His gifts, but to say that a gift that God the Holy Spirit has given to the church is mere babble, then you are insulting the Holy Spirit and Jesus who sent Him.
What about the Scripture: "The gifts and calling of God are without repentance"? Doesn't that mean that when God gives gifts, He doesn't take them back? So, if God the Holy Spirit is involved with a church, and God the Holy Spirit does not take His gifts back, then how come the gifts ceased? Do you think that God the Holy Spirit walked away from the church and took His gifts with Him? What would make Him do that?
Perhaps church members were dropping their standards of holiness and accepting pagan ideas into the church. If a church become full of heresy and paganism, do you think God the Holy Spirit, being the absolute Holy Spirit who He is, would want to stick around while there is unconfessed sin, unholiness and paganism in the church?
That doctrine is based on half an obscure verse which most good commentators believe is what happens after the Second Coming of Christ.
It says that prophecy will pass away. If Paul is including the preaching of God's Word in church as an important part of his definition of prophecy, then it means that the preaching of the Word of God in all churches is in vain, and the Holy Spirit has never spoken through it since the time you say that prophecy has passed away.
But the reality is that the Holy Spirit has regularly been involved in the preaching of the Word of God, so in Paul's definition prophecy did not pass away from the church at all!
My definition of prophecy is just as sound as anyone's because Paul said that prophecy edified the church and that has to include the preaching and teaching of God's Word in the church meetings. So there is half of the obscure verse that falls away from your assertion that the gifts have ceased after Paul wrote 1 Corinthians. To say that, you would have to say that there has and is no preaching of God's Word in the churches today, because it has ceased.
But the preaching of God's word has not ceased, so the view that the prophecy as well as tongues, mentioned in the exact same verse has not ceased, otherwise one part of the verse contradicts the other!
What you are doing here is providing an example of false tongues, used out of the proper context and not used to pray and worship God. So, it is quite true that a linguist would not make sense of it, because it is, used in this way, gibberish, because it is not inspired by the Holy Spirit.
In fact, to do this is an absolute insult to the Holy Spirit and to Jesus who sent the Holy Spirit to the church.
Just curious but would you say the Word of God is perfect?Never ceases to astound me that when a peice of text says. "The sky is blue and the grass is green " some one has to come along and say.. Well.. Actually thats not what it means.
That's the carnal mind for you.
What i love about our heavenly father is
He just says what he means.
Its the devil that lied
The problem for these people who are trying to examine tongues linguistically is that tongues is a spiritual gift and is spiritually discerned by genuinely converted, Spirit-filled believers. Linguistic evaluation belongs to the soulish realm and therefore is not even remotely in the ball park to evaluate something spiritual that comes through the Holy Spirit. It is the same as a secular scientist saying that God is not real because he cannot gain empirical proof through the five senses. Or the Russian astronaut who orbited the earth in the 1960s and said that there is no God because he couldn't see Him out there in space!
We have been down this road quite a number of times before. So out respect for you, I won't make any contentious comments.It is not insulting the Holy Spirit if today's so called gifts are not in fact genuine gifts. It is defending the Holy Spirit from those who are counterfeiting his gifts. Rather it is they who are insulting the Holy Spirit.
Today's tongues does not match the biblical description of tongues.
Today's prophecy does not match the biblical description of prophecy.
Today's apostles do not match the biblical description of apostles.
I don't think that there are a lot of Scriptures in favour of Cessationism. Most Cessationists depend on 1 Corinthians 13:10 for their view. I was always taught that no reliable doctrine can be founded on just one verse of Scripture; furthermore, the verse itself is not clear, but obscure about exactly when tongues and prophecy should cease. There is much more implied in Scripture that the gifts came with the Holy Spirit and are to bless believers right through the church age from Pentecost until the Second Coming. If God has said that His gifts and calling are without repentance, then why would He give such powerful and valuable gifts and then take them back? It is a principle of God's Word that His promises are without repentance. He never annuls a promise that He has given. The Scripture says that the promises of God are yes and amen to all those who believe.
So it is right against the nature of God to make a promise, give spiritual tools to the church, and then take them back again and deny the use of the tools for every other believer after the Apostolic Age.
I previous discussion with you and others, I did say that I believe that tongues spoke in contradiction to Paul's teaching could be from the flesh instead of the Spirit. There have been instances of tongues spoken by demonized folk and the nature and sound of those tongues has been distinctively different from that spoken by genuine believers. So I certainly would not so naive to believe that all tongues spoken are genuine.You are assuming that today's so called tongues are genuine tongues. They are not. They do not match the biblical description. Where in scripture does it say tongues is a non-human language?
As I said, the 50% statistic of nominal Christians in churches includes Charismatic churches; so it is no surprise that there is the false mixed in with the true. It is significant that the false often obscures the true and is more prominent.The gifts referred to in Romans 11:29 are not referring to spiritual gifts. They are nowhere in the context. It is referring to the various privileges that God had given to Israel.
Your argument here is flawed. There is just as much sin and disobedience in charismatic churches who claim to speak in tongues than those that don't - more so in fact. So that cannot be used as an argument for why tongues ceased or are not present in churches today.
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?