Why Don’t We See Miracles Like the Apostles Did?

[MattTooFor]

I don't know if you misunderstand or are misrepresenting my words on purpose.

It's you I am talking about, not the disciples in Acts 2. The Bible teaches truth. But whatever words pop into MattTooFor's head whenever he reads Acts 2 are not necessarily from God.

You were talking about me? I had been talking about the disciples. How would I know you were talking about me? Well, OK so...you DO concede then, that the tongues-speakers' words were evangelistic in their effect? (Oh never mind.)

I recall this whole aspect of the debate got started because you didn't like me saying that if the "gift of tongues" were still in existence there should be hundreds and thousands of Charismatic/Pentecostal missionaries who have been able to evangelize to the far-flung corners of the globe, instantly speaking in all the languages and without having to go to any language institute.


I cited Acts 2...and so ever since then you have been arguing doggedly that "tongues" were not used in Acts 2 for evangelization and that there is no evidence that tongues-speakers of the the day were able to go about practicing their gift, preaching of "the mighty deeds of God" in foreign languages.


But if tongues-speakers WERE able to preach of "the mighty deeds of God" in foreign languages (which is stated point-blank in Acts 2, but which you refute without batting an eyelash)...then Charismatic and Pentecostal doctrines are in big trouble because...there are no "tongues-speakers" here in the modern-day who are able to go around the world, preaching the Gospel, "declaring the mighty deeds of God" in languages they have never learned.


If they were able to "declare the mighty deeds of God" in all the foreign languages in Acts 2...what would prevent this from happening today if the "gift of tongues" were actually still in existence?

If supposedly none of the gifts have ceased as Pentecostals argue...what has happened to this ability (gift) to "speak the mighty deeds of God" in foreign languages? It is gone, gone, gone.

 

[presidente]

You were talking about me? I had been talking about the disciples. How would I know you were talking about me?

Look at my post. Why would a comment of mine about not being every idea that pops into someone's head when they read the Bible be about what happened on the day of Pentecost? I went back and looked at the message after reading your comment. Maybe you misread. I'll assume you did that instead of intentionally misrepresenting me. We can all make mistakes.

Well, OK so...

you DO concede then, that the tongues-speakers' words were evangelistic in their effect?

In Acts 2, whether they were directly 'evangelizing' in tongues, I don't know. The Bible doesn't say. But it did draw the attention of people who heard the Gospel, so, overall, it worked toward evangelism.

Tongues as a sign to them that believe not has to do with those who believe not when they heard speaking in tongues, as we see in I Corinthians 12.

I recall this whole aspect of the debate got started because you didn't like me saying that if the "gift of tongues" were still in existence there should be hundreds and thousands of Charismatic/Pentecostal missionaries who have been able to evangelize to the far-flung corners of the globe, instantly speaking in all the languages and without having to go to any language institute.

The Bible does not support that idea. We don't know that the 120 understood what they were saying. I Corinthians 14 seems to indicate that those who spoke in tongues did not or did not necessarily understood what they said. If Paul prayed in tongues, his understanding was unfruitful. Paul instructed someone who spoke in an tongue to pray that he may interpret. I know a language besides English. I don't have to pray for an ability to interpret to be able to interpret. I can just do it. Say something in English, and unless it is just something super hard to translate, I can tell you how to say it in Indonesian (a way, maybe not the best way.)

Look at Paul's evangelist work. His understanding what was going on was kind of important to his ministry, wasn't it? Could he have done his ministry if he did not know what he was saying or what other people were saying?

I cited Acts 2...and so ever since then you have been arguing doggedly that "tongues" were not used in Acts 2 for evangelization and that there is no evidence that tongues-speakers of the the day were able to go about practicing their gift, preaching of "the mighty deeds of God" in foreign languages.

No. You are the one arguing, illogically I might add, that if someone is speaking about the 'mighty deeds of God' (your choice of translation), He must be preaching about the cross.

I could argue that they all absolutely had to be talking about Moses' snake eating the other snakes, and the plague of the gnats. Not he frogs, not the bloody Nile. It had to be the gnats. I could argue that this is what they were saying in tongues. But I have no proof of it. You have no proof of yours.

I should not teach as doctrine whatever idea that gets stuck in my head (e.g. that they had to be talking about the gnats at Pentecost) any more than you should teach as doctrine whatever idea gets stuck in your head (that the works they were speaking of had to be a presentation of the Gospel message).

Would I say that God could not have one person evangelize another through speaking in tongues? No. Would I say that one of those people, or more, who spoke in tongues in Pentecost in Acts 2, could not have been explaining about Jesus, the cross, and the resurrection? No. But I wouldn't say they were, either, because the Bible doesn't tell us.

What I see you doing is creating a doctrine out of what the Bible does NOT say and rejecting the doctrine taught in the Bible. If you insist that whenever someone speaks in tongues, other people have to be present to understand, or it is not the real thing, you contradict scripture. Why do I say that? Because in I Corinthians Paul, describing speaking in tongues in the context of the church, says that if any man speaks in tongues, no one understands him.

Your assertions contradict I Corinthians.

Paul is correcting the Corinthians, persuading them to interpret speaking in tongues in the proper order. But that does not mean that his statements about the nature of speaking in tongues are false.

Interpretation would not be required if the audience understood speaking in tongues.

In Acts 2, listeners present understand speaking in tongues in their own language. In I Corinthians 14, no one present understands speaking in tongues and it has to be interpreted if it is to edify the church. Both passages are about genuine speaking in tongues.


Why would there be a gift of interpretation of tongues (listed in I Corinthians 12) if your interpretation were correct?

But if tongues-speakers WERE able to preach of "the mighty deeds of God" in foreign languages (which is stated point-blank in Acts 2, but which you refute without batting an eyelash).

What translation uses the word 'preach'?

..then Charismatic and Pentecostal doctrines are in big trouble because...there are no "tongues-speakers" here in the modern-day who are able to go around the world, preaching the Gospel, "declaring the mighty deeds of God" in languages they have never learned.

Two problems with that:
1. Your premise is false. This does happen. On occasion, someone hears speaking in tongues in their own language. I know or have met three people that I can think of off the top of my head who experienced this.
2. Genuine speaking in tongues that functions in accordance with I Corinthians 14 is also valid.

If they were able to "declare the mighty deeds of God" in all the foreign languages in Acts 2...what would prevent this from happening today if the "gift of tongues" were actually still in existence?

Again, false premise. You assume it doesn't happen, when it does on occasion.

Speakers in tongues don't choose the language or the method. The Spirit gives the utterance. A speaker in tongues may choose to go to Timbuktu and speak in tongues and preach a message on salvation in Timbuktuan, but that doesn't mean he'll speak Timbuktuan or preach the message he had in mind. It doesn't work that way.

 

[fredoheaven]

which you can agree or not

gifts of the Spirit confirm the church unto the end, and the last gift is when you become like an anjel at the end, these two gifts are eachover gift of the Spirit
you answer me with a frivolous answer
1Corinthians 1:8
8 | who shall also confirm you unto the end, 'that ye be' unreproveable in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.
you don't understand what I say
but you answer me with a frivolous answer
how can someone who have never got any gifts of the Spirit get the gift of eternal life(like you say), it's complementary

Do you have been already see a miracle like Apostle did?
I have already seen it, and what I see give me a strong assurance to be saved at the end,

but if someone have never seen it, how can he be reassured to be saved

thank you for you suggestion

Yet, I haven’t seen one of those miracles like of the Apostles did. Having saved or having an eternal life requires no such miracles. It requires scriptures of truth. The miracles of many changed lives brought about by being born again is because of the Gospel preached resulted of one’s salvation. Those were the products but again as the OP entail, I haven’t seen one of them.

The gift of miracles during the apostolic times is the supernatural ability to perform these events outside and beyond the realms of nature. It is the ability to set aside for time the regular laws of nature.

Miracles abounds in the Old and New Testament, however, these miracles just like the Apostle did as the OP is all about are no longer with us today with the completion of the Bible.

Can God make miracles of today? Yes

Can God use someone like the Apostles did? No. why? Simply because we no longer have the Apostles of today but if there is, the Bible is clear, they are false apostles.

 

[presidente]

Uh-huh, and sometimes people wear earpieces in church when speaking, receiving suggestions from someone on the other end of the earpiece who is paying close attention to certain people in the congregation. The goal is manipulation.

There was a guy named Peter Popoff who would tell people details off their prayer cards. An skeptic caught his wife's voice reading prayer cards on a certain radio frequency. Even with the health and wealth churches that are into the 'prosperity gospel', I never heard of them inviting this guy. Some of the preachers are fringe even for these movements.

As far as gifts of the Spirit go, it's not reasonable to think that everyone who gets a detailed prophecy or word of knowledge has some kind of radio signal. Most meetings where these kinds of gifts operate don't have detailed prayer cards. I've seen detailed prophecies over people I knew, and no one there knew the details of their lives or careers and there were no prayer cards. Some prophecies and words of knowledge can be received by members of the congregation who don't have the financial incentives to use radio equipment or to hang around and spy on people to gather personal information over a period of years. And how would they get the information if they are prophesying about things you just thought? If you've got some equipment to pick up on that sort of thing, I'm sure there are world governments who'd like to buy it from you.

 

[fredoheaven]

I'm not sure what you mean. My only reference to 'miracles' in the post is that 'come behind in no spiritual gift' applies to various gifts including the working of miracles. That is a gift addressed later in the epistle, after all. Here is how the ESV renders I Corinthians 1:7.

so that you are not lacking in any gift, as you wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ,



I think you might have left out a word or phrase there that would have made that sentence or run-on a bit more intelligible.

Paul wanted them to come behind in no spiritual gift. That doesn't just mean one gift. Look at the ESV quote above if the KJV is a bit awkward for you. In the epistle, Paul encourages the believers to earnestly desire spiritual gifts, not just one gift.



Great verses. What point are you trying to make by quoting it that is related to the point you were making in the discussion?

I see you are coming from' come behind in no spiritual gift'. I'm in no way of adding what the inspired word. The gift of miracles is not the topic of I Corinthians 1. Is because there is a word gift, it's all about spiritual gift of miracles? Don't think so. Maybe you done a word study on this thing. Share it and glad to hear it!

 

[JustWhoIAm]

As far as gifts of the Spirit go, it's not reasonable to think that everyone who gets a detailed prophecy or word of knowledge has some kind of radio signal.

Of course not. Discernment is going to be key many times.

And how would they get the information if they are prophesying about things you just thought? If you've got some equipment to pick up on that sort of thing, I'm sure there are world governments who'd like to buy it from you.

Thought? I didn't say that, perhaps an individual who is being targeted as a threat is observed very closely. It happens, and yes, BTW, mind reading and thought implantation technologies exist (Direct Energy Weapons), not to mention the fact that certain governments have been known to employ methods from the occult as a means of surveillance and manipulation. Psychology is used many times as well.

Why? The 'church', backed by the antichrist, wants an extreme degree of control over what people believe and what they don't (I'm not saying all churches). The reasons vary from case to case I would imagine.

"For false messiahs and false prophets will rise up and perform signs and wonders so as to deceive, if possible, even God’s chosen ones." -Mark 13:22

 

[presidente]

I see you are coming from' come behind in no spiritual gift'. I'm in no way of adding what the inspired word. The gift of miracles is not the topic of I Corinthians 1. Is because there is a word gift, it's all about spiritual gift of miracles? Don't think so. Maybe you done a word study on this thing. Share it and glad to hear it!

Paul calls certain things 'charismata' in this epistle. There is a list in I Corinthians 12 and I Corinthians 14. In I Corinthians 12, there are at least nine things listed as 'charismata'. One of the charismata is 'the working of miracles.'

Paul wants his readers to come behind in no charismata. If he deals with some specific charismata in the book, it makes little sense to say, "No, he can't be talking about the charismata he mentions in the book. He must be talking about some other charisma he does not mention in this book."

He doesn't limit the spiritual gifts he does not want them to lack in. He says 'no spiritual gift' which includes them all.

 

[presidente]

Thought? I didn't say that, perhaps an individual who is being targeted as a threat is observed very closely. It happens, and yes, BTW, mind reading and thought implantation technologies exist (Direct Energy Weapons), not to mention the fact that certain governments have been known to employ methods from the occult as a means of surveillance and manipulation. Psychology is used many times as well.

Why? The 'church', backed by the antichrist, wants an extreme degree of control over what people believe and what they don't (I'm not saying all churches). The reasons vary from case to case I would imagine.

I would be surprised if government spies can actually read minds and implant specific thoughts with technology. But are you saying churches spy on people and use hi-tech equipment to control their minds? I'd imagine churches spying is very rare. If they buy expensive spy gear, is that before or after they scrape up the money to pay the light bill.

"For false messiahs and false prophets will rise up and perform signs and wonders so as to deceive, if possible, even God’s chosen ones." -Mark 13:22[/QUOTE]

 

[JustWhoIAm]

I would be surprised if government spies can actually read minds and implant specific thoughts with technology. But are you saying churches spy on people and use hi-tech equipment to control their minds? I'd imagine churches spying is very rare. If they buy expensive spy gear, is that before or after they scrape up the money to pay the light bill.

Exactly how much influence and money does the Vatican have?

"They can't do that! It's not possible!" RIGHT! That's exactly what they WANT the elect to think! That's why it's hard to tell the difference between true prophecy and false in certain situations during endtimes.

 

[presidente]

Exactly how much influence and money does the Vatican have?

"They can't do that! It's not possible!" RIGHT! That's exactly what they WANT the elect to think! That's why it's hard to tell the difference between true prophecy and false in certain situations during endtimes.

I am not really into conspiracy theories. Does this theory involve the Vatican lending spy gears to pastors of very tiny Pentecostal churches out in the country who can't always afford to pay his salary?

How does the spy gear and psy ops fit into end-times Bible prophecy?

 

[fredoheaven]

Paul calls certain things 'charismata' in this epistle. There is a list in I Corinthians 12 and I Corinthians 14. In I Corinthians 12, there are at least nine things listed as 'charismata'. One of the charismata is 'the working of miracles.'

Paul wants his readers to come behind in no charismata. If he deals with some specific charismata in the book, it makes little sense to say, "No, he can't be talking about the charismata he mentions in the book. He must be talking about some other charisma he does not mention in this book."

He doesn't limit the spiritual gifts he does not want them to lack in. He says 'no spiritual gift' which includes them all.

I fail to see it fit while the greek word charismata or charis or charisma means the spiritual gifts like miracles and the like as seen the whole chapter 1. Yes certain things about charismata but in 1 but are found in 1 Corinthians 12-14. I’ve hoped to expect you doing some word study of the word ‘gift’ but I failed to read it from your post.

Again, am in no way of adding the inspired word to fit my theological system.

God bless

 

[JustWhoIAm]

I am not really into conspiracy theories. Does this theory involve the Vatican lending spy gears to pastors of very tiny Pentecostal churches out in the country who can't always afford to pay his salary?

How does the spy gear and psy ops fit into end-times Bible prophecy?

I've been witness to things like this in my own life, but then again I personally have been a TI for most of that time. No I do not know exactly how psy ops work, but I am pretty sure that they don't need to be that close.

The faith of the chosen is a threat because... well... God has superpowers. He works through people many times to demonstrate his power. People think that causing the chosen to fall or be deceived is going to save them from what God is doing, as if a person is capable of telling God what to do (We're only vessels. It's HIS power).

 

[presidente]

I fail to see it fit while the greek word charismata or charis or charisma means the spiritual gifts like miracles and the like as seen the whole chapter 1. Yes certain things about charismata but in 1 but are found in 1 Corinthians 12-14. I’ve hoped to expect you doing some word study of the word ‘gift’ but I failed to read it from your post.

Again, am in no way of adding the inspired word to fit my theological system.

God bless

I've done word studies on charisma/charismata before. I don't have anything written up. Paul does refer to certain things as 'charismata' in chapter 12. I see his reference to charismata in chapter 1 as a reference to the topics he would discuss later in the epistle. I find that Paul's epistles have themes that run throughout them. If something is not a theme per se, he may mention a topic in one chapter, and hash it out later in another chapter. Some theologians call these 'long thoughts.'

Paul is making a positive statement about spiritual gifts here in the opening of the chapter. He will go into detail later in the book. He does try to encourage spiritual gifts in chapters 12-14, even as he corrects the misuse of them.

 

[fredoheaven]

I've done word studies on charisma/charismata before. I don't have anything written up. Paul does refer to certain things as 'charismata' in chapter 12. I see his reference to charismata in chapter 1 as a reference to the topics he would discuss later in the epistle. I find that Paul's epistles have themes that run throughout them. If something is not a theme per se, he may mention a topic in one chapter, and hash it out later in another chapter. Some theologians call these 'long thoughts.'

Paul is making a positive statement about spiritual gifts here in the opening of the chapter. He will go into detail later in the book. He does try to encourage spiritual gifts in chapters 12-14, even as he corrects the misuse of them.

So, as i see it this has nothing to do with the OP in mind. Spiritual gifts in general, we don't know what it is. just doing an assumption yet a certain it is based on the chapter speaks more of the gift of eternal life. That gift is bestowed if one believes the Gospel, unknown, hid but now revealed, uttered by the preaching of the it.

 

[presidente]

=

So, as i see it this has nothing to do with the OP in mind. Spiritual gifts in general, we don't know what it is.

If Paul wants the Corinthians to come behind in no spiritual gift, why would your interpretation exclude the actual lists of spiritual gifts he mentions in this epistle? That makes no sense.

just doing an assumption yet a certain it is based on the chapter speaks more of the gift of eternal life. That gift is bestowed if one believes the Gospel, unknown, hid but now revealed, uttered by the preaching of the it.

Paul says 'come behind in no spiritual gift', so his words are not limited to just one spiritual gift. Where does Paul call eternal life 'charisma' in this epistle?

It makes a lot more sense to read through the chapter and see themes he will develop later. Coming behind in no spiritual gift waiting for the coming of Jesus Christ is a theme he develops more fully in chapter 14-15. He introduces the topic of spiritual gifts naming gifts and explaining that each part of the body needs the gifts another part has. In chapter 13, he emphasizes the need of love and the role the gifts play, and mentions the coming of the perfect (c.f. 'the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ' in chapter 1.) Chapter 14 encourages the Corinthians to desire spiritual gifts (see 'come behind in no spiritual gift' in chapter 1). Chapter 15 touches on the issue of the return of Christ (again, 'the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ' in chapter 1.)

He goes on to mention other themes that show up throughout the epistle. He talks about divisions in the church in chapter 1. He addresses that in chapter 3 in more detail.

He mentions pride and wisdom and brings related topics up in later chapters, for example chapters 5 and 6.

 

[aldy]

Yet, I haven’t seen one of those miracles like of the Apostles did.

if I were you I shut up because your are ignorant, you haven't seen miracles, so why do you talk about it?
2Peter 3:16
16 | as also in all 'his' epistles, speaking in them of these things; wherein are some things hard to be understood, which the ignorant and unstedfast wrest, as 'they do' also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Having saved or having an eternal life requires no such miracles. It requires scriptures of truth. The miracles of many changed lives brought about by being born again is because of the Gospel preached resulted of one’s salvation. Those were the products but again as the OP entail, I haven’t seen one of them.

I understand what is your matter,
it is normal for a true christian to see miracle, unless he should do a deep self-analysis
John 14:12 - 14
12 | Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater 'works' than these shall he do; because I go unto the Father.
13 | And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
14 | If ye shall ask anything in my name, that will I do.

when Jesus went unto the Father, God give the another Comforter/Spirit of truth to everyone who is a true christian, it's the reason Jesus told that christian will do greater work
what are the work Jesus did???miracles,healing,...and so on
1John 2:6
6 | he that saith he abideth in him ought himself also to walk even as he walked.
Jesus said we will do greater than these, the reason you do not this is simply because you can not, and you don't know about this
John 14:16 - 17
16 | And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may be with you for ever,
17 | `even' the Spirit of truth: whom the world cannot receive; for it beholdeth him not, neither knoweth him: ye know him; for he abideth with you, and shall be in you.

even the servants of evil, false christians, false apostle do miracles,
the servants of God do better
Mark 9:23
23 | And Jesus said unto him, If thou canst! All things are possible to him that believeth.

if there is a false, there is a true
if you have never seen miracle, you are under the false christian, you are ignorant, so shut up
Mark 12:24
24 | Jesus said unto them, Is it not for this cause that ye err, that ye know not the scriptures, nor the power of God?

The gift of miracles during the apostolic times is the supernatural ability to perform these events outside and beyond the realms of nature. It is the ability to set aside for time the regular laws of nature.

Miracles abounds in the Old and New Testament, however, these miracles just like the Apostle did as the OP is all about are no longer with us today with the completion of the Bible.

Can God make miracles of today? Yes

Can God use someone like the Apostles did? No. why? Simply because we no longer have the Apostles of today but if there is, the Bible is clear, they are false apostles.

Mark 12:24
24 | Jesus said unto them, Is it not for this cause that ye err, that ye know not the scriptures, nor thepower of God?
if there are false, there are true,

if there is false apostles this day, it means there is also true Apostles--->1Corinthians 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you...
Ephesians 4:11 - 12
11 | And he gave some 'to be' apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 | for the perfecting of the saints, unto the work of ministering, unto the building up of the body of Christ:

Paul is not among the 12 Apostles but is called apostle
Romans 1:1
1 | Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called 'to be' an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,

Acts 14:14
14 | But when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of it, they rent their garments, and sprang forth among the multitude, crying out

so there is not only a false apostle this day but also a true apostle called to be it

the true church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets
Ephesians 2:19 - 20
19 | So then ye are no more strangers and sojourners, but ye are fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God,
20 | being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone;

 

[MattTooFor]

Look at my post. Why would a comment of mine about not being every idea that pops into someone's head when they read the Bible be about what happened on the day of Pentecost? I went back and looked at the message after reading your comment. Maybe you misread. I'll assume you did that instead of intentionally misrepresenting me. We can all make mistakes.

The problem is you're too busy being glib and flippant (as was the case here) and are thus creating your own confusion, unfortunately. You can "assume" any which way you want. I wasn't even looking for this "when they read the Bible" phrasing. I was attempting to have a serious discussion and completely missed that you had fashioned this jabbing little comment. But thanks for forgiving me for my 'mistakes' - lol.

In Acts 2, whether they were directly 'evangelizing' in tongues, I don't know.

All scripture is profitable...for instruction in righteousness. So yes, they were "directly evangelizing".

The Bible does not support that idea.

Actually, the Bible DOES support the idea of being able to "proclaim the mighty deeds of God" in foreign languages.

We don't know that the 120 understood what they were saying.

What difference does that make? They had the gift...and they proclaimed God's Word.

Look at Paul's evangelist work. His understanding what was going on was kind of important to his ministry, wasn't it? Could he have done his ministry if he did not know what he was saying or what other people were saying?

Who was proposing that Paul spoke in "tongues" all day long? However he may have cobbled together linguistic bridges to get through his day...he still was able to use the ability to speak in foreign languages so as to "proclaim the mighty deeds of God"...just as was done in Acts 2.

1Corinthians 14 seems to indicate that those who spoke in tongues did not or did not necessarily understood what they said. If Paul prayed in tongues, his understanding was unfruitful.

Where in the world is any actual argument?

You are the one arguing, illogically I might add, that if someone is speaking about the 'mighty deeds of God' (your choice of translation), He must be preaching about the cross.

Well no, actually it is logical and biblical (see Acts 2) to assume that people who were about the business of Christianity would (as you put it) "preach the cross".

I should not teach as doctrine whatever idea that gets stuck in my head (e.g. that they had to be talking about the gnats at Pentecost) any more than you should teach as doctrine whatever idea gets stuck in your head (that the works they were speaking of had to be a presentation of the Gospel message).

All I can really say is this is utterly ridiculous...and obnoxious. The context and the direct statements of Acts 2 absolutely indicate the disciples came out on the day of Pentecost with all guns blazing for the Gospel message..."proclaiming the mighty deeds of God".

What I see you doing is creating a doctrine out of what the Bible does NOT say and rejecting the doctrine taught in the Bible.

Well, you would need to substantiate that, wouldn't you? You haven't done that so far. I have simply observed that the disciples were evangelizing on the day of Pentecost, preaching the "mighty deeds of God", things that pertain to "righteousness" and salvation, and doing all of this in foreign languages.

 

[MattTooFor]

Your assertions contradict I Corinthians.

But I'm not "asserting" anything. I'm quoting scripture!

Paul is correcting the Corinthians, persuading them to interpret speaking in tongues in the proper order. But that does not mean that his statements about the nature of speaking in tongues are false.

Well...your whole 1Cor.14 (pardon my French) 'misadventure' is a different can of worms. Time permitting, I might weigh in.

What translation uses the word 'preach'?

That would be MY translation - lol. Just a reasonable word to use in describing the events in Acts 2.

Your premise is false. This does happen.

It's not a "premise". It's just a reasonable observation. It should be going on all over the world, every day of the week. Why wouldn't it? If this gift still existed, the millions of believers worldwide who had this gift would practice it routinely. Simple common sense.

And the fact that you think it is your place to tell me it happens, goes right to the crux of the problem for Charismatic/Pentecostal doctrines: Common sense observations from the Bible would indicate the sign gifts are meant to be confirmed with MY eyeballs...not from your secondhand story. Mama mia.

The fact you don't realize that, indicates you don't understand the whole point of these crediting, confirming miracles that were used as an evangelism tool in those early days. Back then, they didn't have to say "hey...12 years ago, 6000 miles away, an amazing miracle happened...and I heard this from a friend of a friend". You don't get it.

And here's the really nasty part of the problem:

If I as a non-Charismatic, run across someone who believes in this stuff, I don't present any threat to them. I don't hold anything against that person...other than maybe to feel sorry for them...because I've been in their position and I know many 'honest' Charismatics are downtrodden people.

But if you turn that around, how does Charismatic/Pentecostal leadership deal with people like me when I was hesitating at drinking the Pentecostal Kool-Aid and was aghast at the "Azusa Street"-style antics? There is ENORMOUS ongoing pressure from the various pastors and leaders in Pentecostalism and the Charismatics...to believe and accept the phony miracles...to get your "anointing" (and which if you don't, you're second-class)...and to BELIEVE the gibberish-spouting to be authentic, biblical "tongues".

And if one does NOT drink the Kool-Aid and does NOT believe in these pseudo-tongues, especially given your tremendous mishandling of Acts 2 and 1Cor.14...many people like yourself are compelled to view someone like me...as an unbeliever.

The equation is simple - "believers" believe in tongues...unbelievers do not believe in tongues. Just read 1Cor.14. It's right there in black and white. A non-Charismatic is an unbeliever, period. And where do unbelievers go when they die? They go to hell. These false doctrines are absolutely brutal.

That's not to mention the HUGE apostatizing effect created by the gibberish, the wailing, moaning, shrieking, shaking "Azusa Street"-style mayhem. You were saying you had never even heard of anyone going into apostasy as a result of these things. You must be kidding. Millions upon millions of people have tuned into the televised "church services" with these inappropriate antics, or watched on YouTube...and have sworn "I will never EVER darken the door of a church. Those people are crazy".

 

[presidente]

But I'm not "asserting" anything. I'm quoting scripture!

I don't have any problems with your quoting scripture.

The issue I pointed out is that Acts 2 does not say what they said in tongues other than that they were talking about the wonderous works of God. You assume what they said in tongues. Then you have the idea that if people aren't going around saying the same things you assume were spoken in tongues in Acts 2, that the gift does not exist.

From scripture, we only know of one time someone spoke in tongues and others understood what was spoken. That was in Acts 2. We don't know if anyone understood the languages in Acts 10 or Acts 19. In I Corinthians 14, we know that other people did NOT understand speaking in tongues, because Paul wrote, 'no man understandeth him'.

Tongues needed to be interpreted by a gift of the Spirit. It was possible to pray for the ability to interpret the tongue (I Corinthians 14:!3.)

It's not a "premise". It's just a reasonable observation. It should be going on all over the world, every day of the week. Why wouldn't it?

Since the content of what is spoken in tongues comes 'as the Spirit' gives 'them utterance', you should take that issue up with God. I suspect God was also involved in having people present who could understand the specific languages spoken.

There is nothing in Acts that indicates this type of Acts 2 situation, where people are present who hear and understand speaking in tongues, is the norm. In fact, it was normal enough for those present not to understand for Paul to write that when any man speaks in tongues 'no man understandeth him'.

Those are two different contexts. One is what was going on in Acts 2, a prayer meeting that turned into an evangelistic opportunity, while I Corinthians 14 describes speaking in tongues a church meeting.

Since we don't see the Acts 2 situation where others present understand speaking in tongues, and rather Paul says 'no man understandeth him' it is not all that unreasonable to think that the Acts 2 type situation may not be all that common, just from interpreting scripture. Of course, it's up to God. He can arrange that if He wishes.

What is your basis for accepting Acts 2's description of how speaking in tongues worked then, but not accepting I Corinthians 14's description of speaking in tongues?

I want you to be honest with me. Have you actually sat down and studied I Corinthians before arguing for a point of view on a forum like this? Have you figured out why, at least in your own belief system, why Paul quotes a verse about the people not hearing God when He spoke by men of other tongues and other lips before he says that tongues are for a sign to them that believe not.

Have you figured out why Paul concludes that, since tongues are for a sign to them that believe not, if an unbeliever hears all speak in tongues in a church meeting, that he will say 'ye are mad'?

There is ENORMOUS ongoing pressure from the various pastors and leaders in Pentecostalism and the Charismatics...to believe and accept the phony miracles...to get your "anointing" (and which if you don't, you're second-class)...and to BELIEVE the gibberish-spouting to be authentic, biblical "tongues".

I'm wondering what kind of church you went to. 'Get your anointing'? Were you hanging out at Benny Hinn crusades?

And if one does NOT drink the Kool-Aid and does NOT believe in these pseudo-tongues, especially given your tremendous mishandling of Acts 2 and 1Cor.14.

What have I read into Acts 2 that isn't there? I don't insist I know what they said beyond the 'wonderous works of God.' I'm not insisting they said something in particular, then basing doctrine on my assumption>

I Corinthians 14? You seem to act as if that passage doesn't exist.

..many people like yourself are compelled to view someone like me...as an unbeliever.

No, I don't think that. Honestly, I haven't been around Charismatics or Pentecostals who think that like or talk like that. I've spent about 33 years around Pentecostals and Charismatics and various other groups, and I just haven't heard this kind of talk, that someone who professes to be a Christian but has some unbelief when it comes to spiritual gifts is 'an unbeliever.'

It seems like a lot of the cessationists on the forum seem to have some trouble with issues related to a Christian struggling with unbelief. The idea that a follower of Jesus could be limited by doubt is pretty clear in the Bible, especially the Gospels... you know, Peter sinking for example, or certain of the apostles not being able to cast the boy out of the demon. I wonder if it has to do with cessationism training people not to think that passages like that are directly applicable to their lives.

This isn't you, but there is also this idea that some people have that if someone believes God does miracles, he is refusing to believe in God unless He does a miracle. It makes no sense in light of the fact that Jesus and the apostles did miracles and believed that God did miracles. It's the cessationists on the forum who seems to struggle with these ideas. I think it has to do with cessationism teaching them not to think deeply about texts related to faith and miracles and things of that nature. Barna did a study a while back that, according to a website, indicated that Charismatics knew the Bible better than other evangelicals. So maybe that has something to do with it. I got a chance to look a bit more in detail at another of his studies that showed that Pentecostals were at the top of the survey for actually believing in basic evangelical doctrines. They were more likely to believe with statements about Biblical faith than other evangelicals according to the survey, with Assemblies of God ranking at the top and 'Pentecostal' as second. The A/G is Pentecostal, but it's a big group so he must have parced that out for some reason.

The equation is simple - "believers" believe in tongues...unbelievers do not believe in tongues. Just read 1Cor.14. It's right there in black and white. A non-Charismatic is an unbeliever, period. And where do unbelievers go when they die? They go to hell. These false doctrines are absolutely brutal.

You are the one making up the doctrine. I wonder if you have some kind of spiritual blinder on when it comes to I Corinthians 14. I sure don't see that in the passage. Not just the unbeliever but also the ininstructed says 'ye are mad' when he hears speaking in tongues.

There are a relatively small percent, but still large in number, of Pentecostals who split off from the rest of the movement around 1918, I think, who are Oneness Pentecostals. Many of them believe that if you are saved you will speak in tongues. The last I read, that was about 5% of the Pentecostal movement. I don't think I've heard of any Charismatics saying you had to speak in tongues to be saved.

That's not to mention the HUGE apostatizing effect created by the gibberish, the wailing, moaning, shrieking, shaking "Azusa Street"-style mayhem. You were saying you had never even heard of anyone going into apostasy as a result of these things.

Can you name someone who went into apostasy over such things? I grew up in the Assemblies of God, for part of my childhood in the US. I've been to Pentecostal/Charismatic churches in Indonesia, also. I know there is speaking in tongues in some churches. The A/Gs I went to believed in interpreting tongues if they were spoken out in the assembly. I was one teen corrected gently for a tongue that wasn't interpreted. For the most part, tongues were followed by interpretation. I've seen some Charismatics tell everyone to pray in tongues at the same time. I don't agree with that practice, of course. I didn't see lots of moaning, wailing, and jerking in these churches. I know they did that in the 'Toronto Blessing' and so some of that first-hand, outside of Toronto. But that church isn't Toronto wasn't Pentecostal, and it did not stay in the Vineyard movement that long either. Some of the Pentecostal churches in the Southeast emphasize exhuberant worship. The Psalms instruct the congregation to shout, and some of the churches are into shouting, and want people to shout Hallelujah and things like that. There are Psalms for shouting, though, so I don't condemn that.

The real issue, though, is what the Bible teaches, not what religious movements do. The Bible teaches that manifestations of the Spirit, like words of knowledge, words of wisdom, faith, prophecy, tongues, and interpretation of tongues, are given to members of the body of Christ for the common good. I believe that. Do you?

 

[garee]

From scripture, we only know of one time someone spoke in tongues and others understood what was spoken. That was in Acts 2. We don't know if anyone understood the languages in Acts 10 or Acts 19. In I Corinthians 14, we know that other people did NOT understand speaking in tongues, because Paul wrote, 'no man understandeth him'.

Peter spoke in his native tongue, the gift of God interpreting was not of Peter. That would blaspheming the name by which we called.We are not have the faith of God, of Christ in respect to any person

Tongues is a sign to those who believe not.Prophecy for those who can believe. No such thing as a sign gift. Unless revealing the rebels is a gift to them.