Why did Paul talk about tongue speaking only in 1 Corinthians?

[Guojing]

I've heard people speaking in tongues.

To confirm, for your own personal experience of hearing people speaking in tongues, you could not tell it was an actual foreign language?

I've also read accounts of where someone has spoken in tongues during worship, and a newcomer to the church has said "that's my language; God is speaking to me in my language."

But for such cases of tongues being actual foreign languages, you did not experience it directly, but rather reading from a third party account?

 

[Der Alte]

The context for Matthew 10:14 is when Jesus sent out the 12 disciples to go into the towns and villages to announce the good news of the kingdom of God. The actual verse therefore refers to what the disciples should do if the people of a certain town refused to hear the good news. It has nothing to do with the discussion on this thread, and it certainly has nothing to do with me not deciding to enter into a discussion about something which is so minor it is not worth discussing. So to quote a Scripture verse like this out of context to make it mean something else, is misusing God's word.

I certainly appreciate this misinformed interpretation. While the vs, addressed a specific incident it most certainly is applicable to other similar situations.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

So to confirm, with the words that I have bolded above, are you answering my question with a yes?

What would be your answer to my questions? Answering with another question is no answer at all.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I certainly appreciate this misinformed interpretation. While the vs, addressed a specific incident it most certainly is applicable to other similar situations.

It is actually not. The disciples went out according to the Lord's direct instructions. Therefore they were directly representing Him. Therefore for the people to reject them, they were rejecting the Lord Himself. Therefore, the verse can apply only to those who are directly representing the Lord.

 

[Guojing]

What would be your answer to my questions? Answering with another question is no answer at all.

Well, if you follow the last post of mine which you replied to, you were the one who answered my question with a question first. Seems you cannot see in yourself what you see in others, which is classic projection.

I was extending grace to you by allowing you to confirm your answer with me. But I can be gracious to you again here, instead of replying tit for tat.

My answer is no, from long time ago to you, is that Paul could only be referring to Jewish unbelievers in that verse. If you don't recall, this was my explanation.

This I don't understand from you.

You agree that Paul said tongues are for a sign for unbelievers.
You agree that Paul said unbelieving Jews seek after signs.

If you believe the above 2 premises to be true, don't you have to conclude that, when Paul said tongues are for a sign to unbelievers in 1 Cor 14, Paul cannot be referring to anyone other than unbelieving Jews?

Furthermore, Isaiah 28:11-12, where Paul drew his conclusion about tongues as a sign for unbelievers, could only refer to National Israel.

You agreed with me about that bolded conclusion and even congratulated me for being able to change your mind.

You will see that a miracle has taken place. After careful reflection, I concede that you are right about tongues being a sign to the Jews. This is the first time in five years on the forum that I have actually conceded a point which I have been convinced by another member as being correct. Well done!

Now, are you changing your mind again? That was my question

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Well, if you follow the last post of mine which you replied to, you were the one who answered my question with a question first. Seems you cannot see in yourself what you see in others, which is classic projection.

I was extending grace to you by allowing you to confirm your answer with me. But I can be gracious to you again here, instead of replying tit for tat.

My answer is no, from long time ago to you, is that Paul could only be referring to Jewish believers in that verse. If you don't recall, this was my explanation.



You agreed with me about this and even congratulated me for being able to change your mind.



Now, are you changing your mind again? That was my question

Let's get this straight. YOU believe that tongues is a sign for the Jews. and all your effort over the couple of years that you have been asking the same question to people on the tongues threads, is to get people to agree with YOU, and until anyone agrees with you, they will get repeat after repeat of the same question. So, just because YOU believe that tongues is a sign to the Jews doesn't mean that I have to believe it, and you are wasting your time and effort trying, through all these questions, to convert me to what you choose to believe.

 

[Guojing]

So, just because YOU believe that tongues is a sign to the Jews doesn't mean that I have to believe it, and you are wasting your time and effort trying, through all these questions, to convert me to what you choose to believe.

So, thru this, I can now conclude that, you would rather forget that you ever congratulated me for changing your mind about this before.

No wonder you chose to change your nick in this forum.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Here is my definitive document for debating on this thread"

 

[Strong in Him]

To confirm, for your own personal experience of hearing people speaking in tongues, you could not tell it was an actual foreign language?

It sounded like a language; I don't believe they were making it up, or speaking rubbish to "impress".

But for such cases of tongues being actual foreign languages, you did not experience it directly, but rather reading from a third party account?

Several accounts; which I trust, as I have no reason to believe that my Christian friends, nor Christian authors, were lying.
Just as I would accept historical accounts of Christian revivals and so on - I didn't need to be there.

 

[Guojing]

Several accounts; which I trust, as I have no reason to believe that my Christian friends, nor Christian authors, were lying.
Just as I would accept historical accounts of Christian revivals and so on - I didn't need to be there.

Thanks, could it be possible that your Christian friends who claim to have heard that, reasoned in the same way as you, that to them, it also

sounded like a language; I don't believe they were making it up, or speaking rubbish to "impress".

 

[Guojing]

Here is my definitive document for debating on this thread"

Actually you are the one making the false claim that I need "people to agree with me".

I don't. That is never my intention in participating in Christian discussions over the Internet.

But I do expect people to at least have the honesty/courage to state that they have changed their mind, that they used to agree, but now they disagree. I have said this to you before.

Instead, what I noticed about you is that you are not even willing to acknowledge that change of mind.

 

[Strong in Him]

Thanks, could it be possible that your Christian friends who claim to have heard that, reasoned in the same way as you, that to them, it also

Could it be also that it was, in fact, a real language?
Could it be that the testimony in a book by a Christian Bible teacher, which stated that someone spoke in tongues in his church, and a non Christian who was visiting and who recognised her native language being spoken, was perfectly true?

 

[Guojing]

Could it be also that it was, in fact, a real language?
Could it be that the testimony in a book by a Christian Bible teacher, which stated that someone spoke in tongues in his church, and a non Christian who was visiting and who recognised her native language being spoken, was perfectly true?

Yes, of course I agree with you it could be.

So, at the very least, both of us agree that "speaking in tongues" must be speaking in actual foreign languages (that are unlearnt).

That is a common stand of ours.

 

[Der Alte]

It is actually not. The disciples went out according to the Lord's direct instructions. Therefore they were directly representing Him. Therefore for the people to reject them, they were rejecting the Lord Himself. Therefore, the verse can apply only to those who are directly representing the Lord.

Have you ever heard of the great commission?

Matthew 28:18-20
(18) And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
(19) Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
(20) Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.​

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Actually you are the one making the false claim that I need "people to agree with me".

I don't. That is never my intention in participating in Christian discussions over the Internet.

But I do expect people to at least have the honesty/courage to state that they have changed their mind, that they used to agree, but now they disagree. I have said this to you before.

Instead, what I noticed about you is that you are not even willing to acknowledge that change of mind.

It was actually a joke, nothing more.

 

[Receivedgrace]

Paul doesn't define what "the perfect" actually is, so it is open to conjecture. So to define "the perfect" as the complete canon of Scripture could very well be putting words into Paul's mouth that were not there. So we have no evidence to prove that "the perfect" being the complete canon of Scripture is actually the word of God, and quite possibly could be Cessationist theory trumping God's Word.

Putting words into Paul's mouth that are not there is a deception and is twisting God's Word to make it mean something that Paul never defined in the first place. So I wonder who is actually being deceived?

Paul doesn't define what "the perfect" actually is, so it is open to conjecture. So to define "the perfect" as the complete canon of Scripture could very well be putting words into Paul's mouth that were not there. So we have no evidence to prove that "the perfect" being the complete canon of Scripture is actually the word of God, and quite possibly could be Cessationist theory trumping God's Word.

Putting words into Paul's mouth that are not there is a deception and is twisting God's Word to make it mean something that Paul never defined in the first place. So I wonder who is actually being deceived?

Gods word gives the answer to those who are able to understand. 1 Cor 13:11-12 show that the perfect is the NT scriptures. Not all are willing to understand this truth. Jesus said it would be so when He addressed His disciples. Mat 13:10-16

There seems to be far less conjecture about the perfect than would be required to support your position. The perfect is not as the common English might lead some to contend but rather the perfect is the completion of that which was at that time still being delivered to the new church.

The Holy Spirit never acts in opposition to the word of God.

Babel was judgment from God not blessing. 1st century Jews would have been very familiar with this truth. They would also have know that speaking with stammering tongues was a reference to the languages of the captors that carried Israel into captivity.

There is in fact much scripture that teaches tongues are not for today.

 

[Receivedgrace]

Here is my definitive document for debating on this thread"
View attachment 332653

Not doubt a treasured volume from the charismatic theological library.

 

[Guojing]

1st century Jews would have been very familiar with this truth. They would also have know that speaking with stammering tongues was a reference to the languages of the captors that carried Israel into captivity.

Amen.

Paul made it clear in his conclusion that tongues are a sign for unbelievers in 1 Corinthians 14:22.

And in the context of Isaiah 28:11-12, which Paul used to reach that conclusion, tongues, or hearing foreign languages being spoken, is a sign for unbelieving Jews that God is going to judge them for their unbelief.

It was the same under the Law when they were taken captive by gentile nations. (Deuteronomy 28:49, Jeremiah 5:15, Isaiah 33:19)

It was the same in Acts 2:6-11, when Peter pronounced from the book of Joel that the day of the Lord is coming (Acts 2:20)

It was the same in Acts 10, when Peter and the other Jewish believers were astonished that God is now saving gentiles without Israel, signaling the diminishing of the nation in the eyes of God (Acts 10:45-46, Acts 11:17, Acts 15:7-9).

To conclude, tongues in scripture are always:

• Actual foreign languages and
• A sign of judgement to unbelieving Israel.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Gods word gives the answer to those who are able to understand. 1 Cor 13:11-12 show that the perfect is the NT scriptures. Not all are willing to understand this truth. Jesus said it would be so when He addressed His disciples. Mat 13:10-16

There seems to be far less conjecture about the perfect than would be required to support your position. The perfect is not as the common English might lead some to contend but rather the perfect is the completion of that which was at that time still being delivered to the new church.

The Holy Spirit never acts in opposition to the word of God.

Babel was judgment from God not blessing. 1st century Jews would have been very familiar with this truth. They would also have know that speaking with stammering tongues was a reference to the languages of the captors that carried Israel into captivity.

There is in fact much scripture that teaches tongues are not for today.

Let's see a few quotes. We have already dealt with 1 Corinthians 13:8-10 so you don't have to include that one. What we need to see is a direct statement from Paul to say that the gift of tongues is limited to the Apostolic Age. Unless you can produce a definite quote that says that, there is no way that you can prove that the gift of tongues is not available for today. I am not saying that what we see on Youtube are the genuine example of the same gift of tongues that Paul taught in 1 Corinthians 14. I would see that the vast majority of what we see is fabrication through the flesh because they contradict Paul's teaching.

Now having said that, taking random verses out of context will not prove anything. If Paul meant that the gift of tongues is temporary, just for the Apostolic Age and just a sign gift to support the establishment of the Church, then he would say so in clear statements to that effect. Talking about the tower of Babel is irrelevant, because Babel was all about man's pride and wanting to set up of monument for themselves. The division of languages was God's way of getting mankind to be distributed throughout the world instead of being limited to one place. The meaning of the world "Bab-El" is not "babble". It is the place name that became Babylon, which stands for the seat of paganism. So to link it with the common Charismatic "babble" of uninterpreted tongues shows ignorance in the meaning of Biblical words and place names.

So, let's be having you. Show me where Paul says expressly that the gift of tongues is due to cease at the establishment of the Church and the end of the Apostolic Age. Then what you are saying might have some merit.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Not doubt a treasured volume from the charismatic theological library.

It was a joke. Means nothing other than to get a laugh.