'Speaking in Tongues', true vs false.

[Hopeful]

Paul clearly said they would cease when they accomplished their purpose, that purpose being bringing about the completed (perfect) NT which occurred by the end of the first century. From Acts 8 we read an Apostle could lay his hands upon another person and pass on an apostolic gift to that person but that person could not pass it on to another. Therefore when the last Apostle died there was no one left to pass these gifts on. When the last of those died whom the Apostles laid hands upon those gifts ceased exactly as Paul said they would.
None of the verses you cite says anyone today is baptized with the Holy Spirit much less possess a miraculous indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Again, when I have personally confronted these self-proclaimed miracle workers they would not (could not) perform a miraculous signs. Just offered excuses.

Where did Paul say "when they accomplish their purpose"?
And where does the bible say they can't pass the gift from one Spirit filled believer to a new believer?

 

[Hopeful]

There is nothing miraculous in Rom 8:26.

Rom 8:24-26 "For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it. Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God."

Just as patience helps the Christian in times of difficulties "likewise" the Spirit also helps in difficult times. Jesus taught disciples how to pray nor is Paul saying the Christian does not know what to pray for, but in difficult troubling times the Christian may not know the precise words needed. Therefore the Spirit makes intercession to convey the Christian's desires to God. The Spirit is not praying for the Christian but the Spirit knows what is in the heart of the Christian (1 Cor 2:10) and God knows what is in the mind of the Spirit. So through the mind of the Spirit God knows what troubles and difficulties the Christian is having. There is nothing miraculous being done here by the Christian.

You seem to infer you know what the Spirit is doing, despite the scripture's actual wording.
I don't agree with you.

 

[Hopeful]

The Apostles were eyewitnesses of Christ and their inspired words they spoke were also witnesses along with the miraculous signs given them were also a witness Heb 2:2-4. All the Apostles died some 2000 years ago, none today with inspiration or miraculous abilities.

The plural pronoun "they" of Mk 16:17 refers back to 'the eleven" of v14. The 'they' and 'them' of Mk 16:17-20 refers to the Apostles note especially in verses 19-20 the plural pronouns refer to the Apostles.

Actually, it refers to verse 16..."He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."
"...And these signs shall follow them that believe..."

 

[tdidymas]

OK. Please show us from the scriptures the difference between "biblical" tongues and
"modern" tongues.

I've already explained that here: https://christianforums.net/Fellows...g-in-tongues-true-vs-false.79801/post-1582555 and elsewhere.

But I think you want a prooftext that you wish to refute, which is the lazy way of debating an issue. I explain the context of the scripture which is where the real meat of meaning is. Most people who don't know the word enough to explain its context use prooftexts, and then they don't explain what they believe the meaning is, but they just make assumptions, and then expect everyone who reads their post accept their assumptions.

I've said before (and again) that Acts 2 sets the precedence of what kind of tongues Biblical tongues is. Every time something is mentioned in the NT by the apostles, it is the typical and reasonable assumption that it's the same meaning and experience as the original thing. Anyone who does not consider this rule of interpretation ends up in the wrong.
TD

 

[tdidymas]

TD,

I suggest you do some more reading in the early church fathers. St. Augustine didn't agree with your view regarding the miraculous. See my research: St. Augustine: The leading Church Father who dared to change his mind about divine healing

Oz

Oz, your response is a typical false judgment and misunderstanding, since you have assumed that I am a total cessationist (all miracles ceased) - you would not have sent that link if you had known what I believe. You did not read what I wrote carefully and in context of the conversation. So, here is how your response is a misunderstanding:

I'm simply saying that modern tongues is not the same as what is described in the NT. Biblical tongues were obvious miracles, and modern tongues are not. If they were, it would have been proven many times over in the past 100 years. So, when you imagine that because I don't think modern tongues is miraculous, therefore I am a cessationist, that is a false judgment based on stereotyping.

Remember Charles Parham who is considered the founder of modern Pentecostalism? He first believed that modern tongues were known human languages, so many of his followers went to foreign countries convinced they could use their tongues to preach to natives. Here is a statement from Faupel, D. William. GLOSSOLALIA AS FOREIGN LANGUAGE:AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EARLY TWENTIETH-CENTURY PENTECOSTAL CLAIM: "In the years following the Azusa Street revival Pentecostals who went to the mission field found that they were unable to speak in the language of the local inhabitants at will when they spoke in tongues in strange lands." After they came back home and reported the failures, they began to reinterpret scripture rather than question their experience. It wasn't merely the experience that was their error, it was their refusal to examine it carefully.
TD

 

[tdidymas]

TD,

This is factually untrue.

I suggest you go searching in the early church fathers to determine if miracles (including the gift of tongues) continued. Here's a starter:

Irenaeus (ca. AD 130-202) was a pupil of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the apostle John. He wrote in his book "Against Heresies", Book V, ch 6.1.: "In like manner we do also hear many brethren in the Church, who possess prophetic gifts, and who through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages, and bring to light for the general benefit the hidden things of men, and declare the mysteries of God, whom also the apostle terms spiritual, they being spiritual because they partake of the Spirit, and not because their flesh has been stripped off and taken away, and because they have become purely spiritual."

Chrysostom (ca. AD 347-407), Archbishop of Constantinople, wrote:


In the early writings of St Augustine (AD 354-430), Bishop of Hippo, he wrote:

However, in his later ministry he had a change of heart with regard to his understanding of Scripture and its manifestation in his time. Later in his writings, in The City of God, he had a chapter titled, 'That All the Miracles Which are Done by Means of the Martyrs in the Name of Christ Testify to that Faith Which the Martyrs Had in Christ' (Book XXII, ch 9). Here he documents the miracles happening in his day. In the same Book he stated, 'For men whom they knew to be acquainted with only one, or at most two languages, they marvelled to hear speaking in the tongues of all nations' (Book XXII, ch 5)....


Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, one of the four great fathers of the Latin Church and considered the greatest of them all: "We still do what the apostles did when they laid hands on the Samaritans and called down the Holy Spirit on them in the laying-on of hands. It is expected that converts should speak with new tongues."

I will ditto my previous response here:

'Speaking in Tongues', true vs false.

Paul clearly said they would cease when they accomplished their purpose, that purpose being bringing about the completed (perfect) NT which occurred by the end of the first century. From Acts 8 we read an Apostle could lay his hands upon another person and pass on an apostolic gift to that...

christianforums.net

You misunderstood what I wrote.
TD

 

[JLB]

I've already explained that here: https://christianforums.net/Fellows...g-in-tongues-true-vs-false.79801/post-1582555 and elsewhere.

But I think you want a prooftext that you wish to refute, which is the lazy way of debating an issue. I explain the context of the scripture which is where the real meat of meaning is. Most people who don't know the word enough to explain its context use prooftexts, and then they don't explain what they believe the meaning is, but they just make assumptions, and then expect everyone who reads their post accept their assumptions.

I've said before (and again) that Acts 2 sets the precedence of what kind of tongues Biblical tongues is. Every time something is mentioned in the NT by the apostles, it is the typical and reasonable assumption that it's the same meaning and experience as the original thing. Anyone who does not consider this rule of interpretation ends up in the wrong.
TD

All I see is your opinion.

Please show the actual scriptures that differentiate between “biblical tongues” and “modern tongues”.



JLB

 

[OzSpen]

Paul clearly said they would cease when they accomplished their purpose, that purpose being bringing about the completed (perfect) NT which occurred by the end of the first century.

Ernest,

Where in Scripture does it state that 'the completed (perfect)' referred to the completion of the NT?

Oz

 

[Hopeful]

I've already explained that here: https://christianforums.net/Fellows...g-in-tongues-true-vs-false.79801/post-1582555 and elsewhere.

But I think you want a prooftext that you wish to refute, which is the lazy way of debating an issue. I explain the context of the scripture which is where the real meat of meaning is. Most people who don't know the word enough to explain its context use prooftexts, and then they don't explain what they believe the meaning is, but they just make assumptions, and then expect everyone who reads their post accept their assumptions.

I've said before (and again) that Acts 2 sets the precedence of what kind of tongues Biblical tongues is. Every time something is mentioned in the NT by the apostles, it is the typical and reasonable assumption that it's the same meaning and experience as the original thing. Anyone who does not consider this rule of interpretation ends up in the wrong.
TD

That was a fine explanation of the original speaking in tongues with foreign language, but it omits prayer in tongues entirely.
They are two differing manifestations of the Holy Ghost.

 

[tdidymas]

That was a fine explanation of the original speaking in tongues with foreign language, but it omits prayer in tongues entirely.
They are two differing manifestations of the Holy Ghost.

Your two differing manifestations idea doesn't justify modern day tongues that doesn't have a message in it. Prayer is communication with God, which the apostles did in the NT, but modern "tongues" is not verbal communication. At best it is like a toddler who desires to participate in adult conversation, but can't talk yet, so he pretends to say something. So the only thing communicated is a desire. But then a bawling baby also communicates desire. When the Spirit helps our weakness in groanings that can't be spoken, it's talking about spiritual desire, not tongues, and certainly not modern day babble.
TD

 

[tdidymas]

All I see is your opinion.

Please show the actual scriptures that differentiate between “biblical tongues” and “modern tongues”.



JLB

You're grasping at straws, since no writer of scripture foresaw the counterfeit of 2000 years in the future. The reason you only see opinion is because you're not familiar with scripture enough to see that what I'm saying is true. There is a proper way to interpret it (in context) and an improper way. At least you ought to closely examine what I am saying with the scripture and see if it fits. If you think it doesn't, you should explain how. Except I suggest doing it without an agenda to make the scripture fit your experience.
TD

 

[JLB]

The reason you only see opinion is because you're not familiar with scripture enough to see that what I'm saying is true.

I guess you got me.

Your just to knowledgeable in the scripture.




JLB

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

I speak in tongues.
Can I play?

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Ernest,

Where in Scripture does it state that 'the completed (perfect)' referred to the completion of the NT?

Oz

1 Cor 13 and Eph 4. I posted about these two texts in post #113.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Actually, it refers to verse 16..."He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."
"...And these signs shall follow them that believe..."

The 'he' of verse 16 is singular. The PLURAL pronoun "them" in v17 refers back to the nearest PLURAL antecedent "the eleven" of v14.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

You seem to infer you know what the Spirit is doing, despite the scripture's actual wording.
I don't agree with you.

My point was, as the verse says, that the Spirit makes intercession for the Christian when the Christian prays. Nothing miraculously taking place.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Where did Paul say "when they accomplish their purpose"?
And where does the bible say they can't pass the gift from one Spirit filled believer to a new believer?

in 1 Cor 13:10 the 'in part' was the piece by piece revelation of the NT done by signs. Then when the "in part" is perfect-made whole (which NT was perfected/completed by the end of the first century) then the piece by piece revelation by signs was 'done away'.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

I've been a member in the Assemblies of God Pentecostal group for well over 55 years, and over that time span, I can STILL count on the fingers of both hands (with fingers left over) the times that a TONGUE was spoken as a message in a service (many hundreds of occurrences), and there was NO interpretation given. In quite a few cases I was the one burdened by the Holy Spirit to give the interpretation. SO your bold pontification simply isn't according to the facts.

Oh - and Speaking in tongues isn't in any way "Ecstatic". There's no "Emotion" involved in it at all. The Holy Spirit simply sends words into your mind and you Speak them - exactly the same as "Interpretation", or "Prophesy".

1 Cor 14 the tongues Paul speaking about was like the tongues spoken by the Apostles in Acts 2 which was known earthly languages. Paul's point is that when a tongue (earthly language) is spoken it must be understood by the hearer else the tongue speaker is speaking to the air, is as a barbarian to the hearer, no edification can take place. If the tongue being spoken cannot be interpreted then the tongue speaker is COMMANDED to keep silent 1 Cor 14:28. Those that claim to speak in "tongues" often times do with no interpretation given which is in direct violation of what Paul said. I personally have NEVER seen one who was claiming to speaking in tongues on a public platform have interpreters.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

I already gave the full context in post #202 and 203 so really no need to go over all of that. Self proclaim is just that, being self/self righteous, separate from the workings of the indwelling Holy Spirit. We receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit through the Spiritual rebirth, John 3:5-7.

It is Dispensationalist, Cessationism and Reformers like John Calvin that brought about this view that speaking in tongues, prophecy and healing ceased with the Apostolic Age.

Pentecostal and the Charismatic movement heightens the emotionalism being more important than the gifts themselves.

This is what Paul was trying to teach the Corinthian Church (that is a teaching for all of us) that the greatest of all these gifts is love. What is in part are all these Spiritual gifts that will cease when Christ returns, but love will never cease. This is the whole teaching of 1 Corinthians 12, 13 and 14 teaching the Corinthian Church that these gifts are important to the body of Christ, but to put more emphasis on the greatest which is love.

Paul NEVER said the gifts would cease when Christ returns. But from 1 Cor 13 and Eph 4 (see my post #113) when the piece by piece revelation of the NT done by signs was perfected/completed then the in part revelation dine by signs would be done away. The NT was completed by the end of the first century.
Acts 8:14-17 the Aposltes could lay their hands upon another and pass to that person an Apostolic sign (2 Cor 12:12) but that person could not pass it on. When the last Apostle died some 2000 years ago no one was left to pass on these signs. And when the last person whom an Apostle passed a sign to died (some 2000 years ago) then the signs ceased, ended exactly as Paul said.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Ernest,

I see 2 issues with your line of reasoning:

1. You quote extensively from Mark 16:9ff. These verses are not in the earliest Greek MSS, so are excluded from many NTs.
2. You are forgetting Jesus' instructions: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father' (John 14:12 ESV).

Did Jesus perform miraculous works while on earth? Of course. On the word of Jesus' authority, those who believe in him will not only do the works that he did. They will do 'greater works'. What are they?

Oz

--Other, not me, brought up Mark 16 as "proof' believers today have those signs. I point out the "them" of v17 refers to the Apostles.
--the last 12 verses of Mark 16 are just as genuine as other NT verses. There are those that attack the genuiness of MK 16:16 because they do not like that it teaches the necessity of water baptism in being saved.
--Jesus is not saying men would perform miracles as He did as in raising the dead for NO ONE today can raise the dead. The greater works refers to the work of saving souls by taking the gospel to a lost world.

"By this the Lord does not mean the disciples shall perform greater miracles, but that they shall produce moral and spiritual revolutions which are intrinsically more divinely wonderful than miracles. For instance, at his death Jesus had converted about five hundred disciples (1 Corinthians 15:6), but at Pentecost the apostles converted three thousand in one day (Acts 2:41). The converts of Paul also greatly outnumbered those of Christ's own ministry."
'Bible Commentaries, The FourFold Gospel' McGarvey.