Churches that Don't Allow Tongues and Prophecy in Meetings disobey Bible

[Nautilus]

As for all of these statements about Pentecostals, of which I am one, who do you think is truly going to listen to all this heretical nonsense/garbage about us? If I am not saved, How can I go toe-to-toe with any hater on here & use on average of twice as much scripture to back my beliefs than my opponents? If I'm doing that unsaved, what does that say about my opponents' commitment & salvation?

NOT MUCH!
​

Congratulations...... you guys that judged us just judged yourselves!

I love how the belief of somehow using more verses than your opponent wins an argument...anyone can quote verses for days its not that special of an ability.

 

[notuptome]

I love how the belief of somehow using more verses than your opponent wins an argument...anyone can quote verses for days its not that special of an ability.

Not to mention large red fonts.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[nathan3]

These threads should not get into name calling of churches and fellow Christians.Instead stay to
addressing what the Bible teaches about the subject.That will pretty much do the Judging on its own... No need to name call and resort to name calling and picking on other Christian churches .

Lets All study the scriptures themselves ; and thats it.

 

[presidente]

It is definite.
Big difference in what was happening in Corinth and what the Apostles were doing. The church at Corinth are being told to keep their nonsense to themselves because it serves no purpose.

1 Pursue love, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy. [SUP]2 [/SUP]For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the spirit. [SUP]3 [/SUP]On the other hand, the one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation.

The chapter is starts off by telling them to seek love and that their type of tongues does not show love.

Paul does not say tongues is unloving, but speaking in tongues without love is unprofitable. Verse one does not accuse them of anything in regard to love.

Verse 5 contradicts what you are saying.

[SUP]5 [/SUP]Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be built up.
(ESV)

If tongues served no purpose, then Paul would not want them all to speak with tongues. There is a long argument in the chapter persuading the Corinthians leading up to the instructions that if there is no interpreter, the speaker in tongues is to be silent in the church and speak to himself and to God. Paul is laying the groundwork for that understanding. Notice the phrase 'unless someone interprets.' With interpretation, tongues edifies the body. Paul does not say that the speaker in tongues who interprets is less than the one who prophesies. The one who prophesies is greater than he who only speaks in tongues.

Even if it is not interpreted, Paul does not say tongues serves no person. He says the person edifies himself, prays with his spirit, and he may 'give thanks well' in tongues. In chapter 12, we are told that the manifestations of the Spirit 'profit withal' and divers tongues is in the list of those manifestations.

He calls it speaking in mysteries.

mys·ter·y[SUP]1[/SUP]
ˈmist(ə)rē/
noun
noun: mystery; plural noun: mysteries
1.
something that is difficult or impossible to understand or explain.
"the mysteries of outer space"

You don't cite your sources (as with the ESV above), but this looks like an English definition. Do a Greek word study. Paul uses the same word used to refer to the mysteries related to the Gospel in other epistles. It doesn't mean something impossible to understand. You pick a definition of the English word that doesn't fit to support your case here.

He goes on to say that prophesying is more important because the church benefits.

[SUP]4 [/SUP]He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church. [SUP]5 [/SUP]I wish you all spoke with tongues, but even more that you prophesied; for[SUP][a][/SUP] he who prophesies is greater than he who speaks with tongues, unless indeed he interprets, that the church may receive edification.

He just got through saying that the tongues they were speaking here could not be understood so by telling them to interpret, it's not possible that they do so.

It's not the main point, but if Paul mentions interpretation, it is possible they used the gift sometimes, but weren't consistent in the order of how they did things.

He's telling them to keep quiet unless they know what they are saying because it serves no purpose.

He does not say that. Someone else is also allowed to interpret.

It feels strange watching you try to explain this passage if you don't actually believe in obeying it. It has more meaning if you are serious enough about it to say it should be followed.

He said he who speaks with tongues edifies himself. He is obviously taking the focus off of tongues for the church at Corinth.

Edifying is not necessarily a bad thing. Paul wants the church to be edified, and in the context of this passage, that is a good thing. David encouraged himself in the Lord. Paul's writings on praying with his spirit in the chapter are not negative. He says of the one who blesses with the Spirit that he gives thanks well, so he says positive things about speaking in tongues. It just doesn't benefit the church if it is not interpreted.

Galatians 5
19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Paul does not call speaking in tongues selfish ambition. You seem to be reading your prejudice against speaking in tongues into I Corinthians 14. And who is responsible for dissension, the one who stands firm for actually obeying what the Bible says about church order, or the one who comes up with excuses for not doing it?

[SUP]6 [/SUP]Now, brothers,[SUP][a][/SUP] if I come to you speaking in tongues, how will I benefit you unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching?


Read that carefully. Have you considered that these things may be the content of the interpretation?

It's again being stressed that if no one can understand you, you are serving no purpose.


Again, you overstate your case. Edifying yourself is beneficial. Paul's explanation of it discusses his spirit praying. While discussing speaking in tongues, he says that he will pray with the spirit and pray with the understanding. Why would he say that if praying in tongues served no purpose. [SUP]

7 [/SUP]If even lifeless instruments, such as the flute or the harp, do not give distinct notes, how will anyone know what is played? [SUP]8 [/SUP]And if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle? [SUP]9 [/SUP]So with yourselves, if with your tongue you utter speech that is not intelligible, how will anyone know what is said? For you will be speaking into the air. [SUP]10 [/SUP]There are doubtless many different languages in the world, and none is without meaning, [SUP]11 [/SUP]but if I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me. [SUP]12 [/SUP]So with yourselves, since you are eager for manifestations of the Spirit, strive to excel in building up the church.


Again, the point is made that what they are doing at Corinth is not what they need to be doing, because it serves no purpose. It does nothing for the church. They are being told to keep quiet with their nonsense.

Stick with what the verses say and the context of the argument. The argument is that 'the other is not edified.' As far as they are concerned, you are just making noise.

[SUP]13 [/SUP]Therefore, one who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret. [SUP]14 [/SUP]For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful. [SUP]15 [/SUP]What am I to do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will pray with my mind also; I will sing praise with my spirit, but I will sing with my mind also. [SUP]16 [/SUP]Otherwise, if you give thanks with your spirit, how can anyone in the position of an outsider[SUP][b][/SUP] say “Amen” to your thanksgiving when he does not know what you are saying? [SUP]17 [/SUP]For you may be giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not being built up. [SUP]18 [/SUP]I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. [SUP]19 [/SUP]Nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue.


And yet again, this is very self-explanatory. It's being stressed how what the church at Corinth is doing serves absolutely no purpose.

Here he does not say that speaking in tongues serves no purpose. If it did not why would he say "I will praise with my spirit. Why would he speak in tongues more than all of them. His point is that tongues do not edify others without interpretation. In regard to the rest of the church, it does nothing for them... unless it is interpreted. The issue is addressing the church in tongues without interpretation is not beneficial, not that tongues is unneeded. It needs it's companion gift to edify others.

They are being told to keep quiet. They were probably doing the same nonsense that we see today which also serves absolutely no purpose.

No, Paul is telling them if they speak in tongues, they are to interpret it. Regarding tongues and interpretation in verse 26, Paul says "Let everything be done unto edifying." He does not say not to let it be done.

[SUP]20[/SUP]Brothers, do not be children in your thinking. Be infants in evil, but in your thinking be mature. [SUP]21 [/SUP]In the Law it is written, “By people of strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners will I speak to this people, and even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord.” [SUP]22 [/SUP]Thus tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is a sign[SUP][c][/SUP] not for unbelievers but for believers. [SUP]23 [/SUP]If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your minds? [SUP]24 [/SUP]But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, [SUP]25 [/SUP]the secrets of his heart are disclosed, and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you.

This is getting repetitive now. The church at Corinth is being told NOT to speak in tongues. It's not the same tongues that Peter was speaking in Acts because when he spoke them everyone understood. When the church is Corinth speaks them, no one understands.

No, the Corinthians are warned of the effects of tongues on unbelievers. Prophecy is presented as superior, at least superior to tongues without interpretation. We are on the same page about that. But nowhere does he say your comments that tongues serve no purpose. He does not tell them not to speak in tongues. He is building his case for the instructions in verse 27-28 about interpretation.

Why would the Spirit give a gift that serve no purpose and then have Paul teach us in chapter 12 that it is among the gifts that 'profit withal.' Since God cannot lie, what you say cannot be true. I accept the verses. I don't accept your commentary on them. You overstate your case.

 

[presidente]

wait....around 3:50 he mentions an english plumber who has raised more than 10 people from the dead.
do we know who the guy is?

I caught the beginning of the video. I don't endorse what Joseph Prince said. My guess based on what you wrote is that he is talking about Smith Wigglesworth. The accounts of the numbers raised from the dead could be as high as 18 or 20 or so. It's less than were attributed to Patrick of Ireland, though. But that was much further back in time.

 

[Stephen63]

My, my aren't we a bit testy. You should rejoice at the opportunity to testify of how Christ has saved you by His grace.

I'm not testy. I'm just sick and tired of people who think they are God's gift to judge all the Pentecostals, like it's their divine calling.

So are you saying you can lose your salvation if you do not do works?

That's a setup question. The children of disobedience are not His.

Such an accusatory tone. 1 Cor 14:22 is where Paul makes it clear that tongues are not for believers but unbelievers.

You said this:

Scriptural requirements for tongues in the church according to 1 Cor. Unsaved Jews must be present. Tongues are not for those who know the Lord but for those who are unsaved.

Don't avoid the question. Explain that with scripture.

 

[Stephen63]

I love how the belief of somehow using more verses than your opponent wins an argument...anyone can quote verses for days its not that special of an ability.

You missed the point. They call a christian a sinner when that "sinner" knows more of the Bible than they do. They make themselves look stupid.

 

[ForthAngel]

[SUP]5 [/SUP]Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be built up.
(ESV)

You're wrong man. He tells them throughout the whole chapter not to do it. The tongues he desired them to speak are real tongues, not what they were doing. They obviously weren't interpreting just like today. It's the same problem. He was not encouraging tongues at all. He was telling them to keep quiet throughout the entire chapter. The tongues at Corinth contradict the tongues in Acts in so many ways. Paul was telling them not to practice whatever it is they were doing and calling tongues.

Definite foreign languages used
Acts 2:6
Unknown tongues used
1 Corinthians 14:2,4

The Holy Spirit interprets
Acts 2:6-8
Human beings interpret
1 Corinthians 14:13

Only apostles talked in tongues
Acts 1:26
Everyone talked in tongues
1 Corinthians 14:23,26

Edified others
Acts 2:11
Edified themselves
1 Corinthians 14:4, 14:23

A mighty rushing wind evident
Acts 2:2
No mighty rushing wind at Corinth

Cloven tongues of fire
Acts 2:3
No cloven tongues at Corinth

All done decently and in order
Acts 2
All done disorderly
1 Corinthians 14:33

Something was wrong with the tongues at Corinth. It wasn't the same thing, nor was it being encouraged.

 

[presidente]

At the time of the Apostles the majority of believers were Jewish. Today the majority of believers are Gentile.

So what does that have to do with the issue? There are maybe 250,000 people in the Messianic movement, some of which are evangelical believers. There are also many people you might identify as 'Gentile' Christian who are actually of Jewish heritage in other churches.

Point being that many Pentacostals with whom I have discussed this subject believe they can lose their salvation if they fail to maintain sufficient good works.

I haven't encountered people who think that way about good works. Sin maybe, but not good works. There is also quite a range of beliefs on the matter in these movements. There are Charismatics who are like Baptists when it comes to this issue.

You seem to think assurance of salvation is required for salvation,
I John 3
[SUP]19 [/SUP]This is how we know that we belong to the truth and how we set our hearts at rest in his presence: [SUP]20 [/SUP]If our hearts condemn us, we know that God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything. [SUP]21 [/SUP]Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God
(NIV)

This is another topic for another thread if you want to go into it in depth, though.

Many Evangelicals have espoused a similar belief so they are in the same circumstance. We are saved by grace a gift of God received by faith. We are created in Christ to good works but there is no salvitic benefit to good works. They are a result of salvation not a cause of salvation.

Would you agree with me that we are not saved by hearing messages addressed to believers from behind a pulpit?

Tongues are a sign gift. Paul restates this in 1 Cor and Jesus rebuked the Jews for seeking a sign instead of receiving Him as their Messiah despite the miracles He demonstrated to affirm His authority.. Signs are for Jews not Gentiles.

Signs are for Gentiles, too. I suspect you are reading 'only' into some passage where it does not exist.

Acts 15
[SUP]12 [/SUP]The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them.
(NIV)

Usually in these discussions, it is the cessationists who demand a sign. Continualists already believe in them. Demanding a sign from God before you will believe Him is a bad attitude of the heart. It is not wrong to believe that God does signs since the Bible shows us that He does.

The apostles asked God to do signs and wonders.

Acts 4
[SUP]30 [/SUP]Stretch out your hand to heal and perform signs and wonders through the name of your holy servant Jesus.

Do you think they were bad?

Further tongues are for unbelievers not believers. 1 Cor 14:22

That's sloppy reading or sloppy remembering. It doesn't say that tongues are for unbelievers. It says tongues are a sign for unbelievers.

[SUP]22 [/SUP]Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is not for unbelievers but for believers.
(NIV)

Edification results from prophesying or forth telling of the word of God. There is no edification in tongues.

False. Speaking in tongues edifies the speaker. If the tongue is interpreted, it edifies the church.

[SUP]4 [/SUP]He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.

[SUP]5 [/SUP]I would that ye all spake with tongues but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

[SUP]12 [/SUP]Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.

[SUP]13 [/SUP]Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpretp.

You cannot appropriate gifts intended for Jews and give them to the Gentiles.

You cannot take the gifts for all the saints and make them only for the Jews. Abraham heard God before he was circumcised. I Corinthians 12 starts off talking about how the readers were led about by dumb idols, but then instructs them in the gifts of the Spirit that manifest in saints who are a part of the body of Christ. That doesn't sound like he is addressing only the Gentiles. Divers tongues is in the list.

Besides it is through 'men of other tongues and other lips' that God speaks to 'this people.' In the shorter term fulfillment, the Israelites were taken into captivity by Aramaic speakers, and/or Judah was taken into captivity by Aramaic or Akkadian speakers.

Joel's prophecy will be fulfilled in the Jews not in the Gentiles.

'All flesh' includes Gentile flesh.

Peter said in Acts 2.

[SUP]38 [/SUP]Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
[SUP]39 [/SUP]For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.


Did God choose only to call the Jews? Did he not also call the Gentiles?

Acts 10
[SUP]43 [/SUP]To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

[SUP]44 [/SUP]While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
[SUP]45 [/SUP]And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

[SUP]46 [/SUP]For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
[SUP]47 [/SUP]Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

 

[presidente]

You're wrong man. He tells them throughout the whole chapter not to do it.

Have you really read the chapter through carefully. I know it is possible for people to read the text of scripture and not perceive. Pray for understanding first, and then read.

Paul does not say not to do it. He said, "I would that ye all spake with tongues", "I speak with tongues more than ye all." He says "Forbid not to speak with tongues." If Paul were telling them not to speak with tongues, then he would be contradicting himself when he says forbid not to speak with tongues. There are some limitations on tongues. Verses 27 and 28 allow for speaking in tongues in church if there is an interpreter, but otherwise for the speaker in tongues to keep silence in the church.

Does he emphasize the importance of prophecy more than tongues? Yes.

The tongues he desired them to speak are real tongues, not what they were doing.

What translation are you using? I Corinthians says absolutely nothing about fake or false tongues. What verse do you see that in? The Corinthians have a real gift and they are likely using it wrongly. Paul gives instructions on how to use the gift rightly. If spoken to the church, tongues should be interpreted. If there is no interpreter, the speaker must keep silent and speak to himself and to God. Paul builds up his argument leading up to this, showing that speaking in tongues without interpretation only builds up the speaker, but does nothing for the rest of the church. It needs interpretation, otherwise it does not benefit others. If you search through commentaries and ancient sermons, you can find people who have no experience with tongues or are diligent students of the text who see these same things?

Specifically, where do you get this idea that the Corinthians weren't using the real gift?

They obviously weren't interpreting just like today. It's the same problem.

I'd agree with you that they probably had the same or similar problem to what we have today in some churches. There are churches where someone speaks in tongues, and another interprets today. There are churches which actively teach that. I think AOG Bible College students are taught that, or at least used to be back when I went to an AOG. That's the biggest Pentecostal denomination. There are also churches where they tell everyone to speak in tongues at the same time. That is a problem, I agree. But it doesn't necessarily mean their tongues are false any more than it means the Corinthians are.

And you can say that churches that use tongues disorderly contrary to the passage are disobedient just as churches that do not allow tongues in an orderly manner as the passage commands.

As far as whether they are doing the same thing or not, I don't know. It could be the Corinthians took turns speaking in tongues without interpretation one by one rather than en masse. Maybe they did both. I can't tell for sure from the passage.

He was not encouraging tongues at all. He was telling them to keep quiet throughout the entire chapter.

Specifically, where do you see this? Better yet, start by explaining I Corinthians 14:26-28. Why does Paul specifically allow tongues with interpretation if his point is to try to stop them from speaking in tongues altogether? The arguments about tongues lead up to those commandments of the Lord on the proper order for tongues in church.

The tongues at Corinth contradict the tongues in Acts in so many ways. Paul was telling them not to practice whatever it is they were doing and calling tongues.

You got this idea stuck in your head that Acts is right and Corinthians is wrong. There are two things going on in Acts. One is the Spirit arranged for people to speak in foreign languages. The other is that the languages He gave happened to be the same ones the people present knew.

That wasn't happening in Corinth. The Corinthians were speaking in foreign languages by the Spirit, but no one present understood. Probably, that was the norm for tongues, at least in assemblies of the saints. (Keep in mind Acts is more of an evangelistic context rather than a church meeting, at least what happened when the onlookers witnessed the tongues.)

Listen, if what you were saying were true, why would the gift of interpretation of tongues need to exist? If the Spirit giving people the ability to speak in languages is only legit if other people there can understand, why would a gift need to exist to interpret the language?

God just does not always see to it that those present understand.

Definite foreign languages used
Acts 2:6
Unknown tongues used
1 Corinthians 14:2,4

Unknown is in italics. It's something the KJV translators added because they thought it made the text make more sense. They probably saw in the context that the languages were unknown to speaker and hearer and wanted to put a word in to show that or to show that this was a supernatural manifestation. I'm guessing here, not reading KJV translator's personal notes. The Corinthians were speaking languages. The difference is who God had present when they were doing so. God putting someone in the midst who knows the language is not a part of the gift of tongues. It is not inherent in the meaning of the phrase 'speaking in other languages'.

If you speak in other languages naturally, does the fact that you speak guarantee that someone will be present who understands? I could speak in a foreign language naturally. I could say right here, "Hola, como estas." I just did. No Mexicans or Columbians magically appeared. No Castellanos popped into the room suddenly. When someone speaks in tongues by the Spirit, there is no guarantee that God will bring someone who speaks that language into his presence every time. In fact it's not the norm. Paul says, "No man understandeth him" and it is quite like that in 'all the churches of the saints' when people spoke in tongues no one was generally there that understood.

Acts 10 does not mention people present to understand when the Gentiles spoke in other languages. Neither does Acts 19 when the followers of John the Baptist spoke in tongues.

The Holy Spirit interprets
Acts 2:6-8

You are assuming the Spirit interpreted instead of just having people present who understood. The Bible says they disciples spoke in tongues and it says the people heard them speak in their own languages. So why assume a miracle of the ear there? If they heard them speak in their own languages, then was it not in their own languages that they spoke? They did not say we heard the sounds of their own languages though they did not speak in them. They said they heard them speak in their own languages.

Human beings interpret
1 Corinthians 14:13

Why would Paul tell a human being to 'pray that he made interpret' if a human being interpreting by a manifestation of the Spirit was not a real gift? Do you think the gift of interpretation is fake, too? Why would Paul tell people to pray for fake gifts and exercise a fake gift himself?

Only apostles talked in tongues
Acts 1:26

The passage says 'they were all.' The larger group had 120. Grammatically, the idea that this must refer to the apostles just doesn't stick. There were about 18 languages there, and you would have there be 12 speakers.

Everyone talked in tongues
1 Corinthians 14:23,26

Verse 23 is a scenario.

But the Corinthians came behind in no spiritual gift, in spite of their shortcomings. I am not sure that 'every one of you hath a' means that each person had each thing in the list or if everyone had at least one. But that's a good point, and one that I suppose an initial evidence adherent could use. I'm not one. But it is interesting that in Acts, we read about the apostles healing and doing miracles. A few chapters in, two of the men chosen to feed widows do miracles. Then we read about prophets in the Jerusalem church. By the time you get to I Corinthians 12, Jews and Gentiles in Corinth are exercising those manifestation of the Spirit, the Joel prophecy being fulfilled.

A mighty rushing wind evident
Acts 2:2
No mighty rushing wind at Corinth

Cloven tongues of fire
Acts 2:3
No cloven tongues at Corinth

Neither the wind nor fire are mentioned in Acts 10 or 19 accounts. There were accounts of people seeing fire at the Azusa Street Revival, though, including people outside who called the fire department.

All done decently and in order
Acts 2
All done disorderly
1 Corinthians 14:33

Did Acts 2 really follow the order laid out in I Corinthians? It wasn't a church meeting, IMO, or not in the same way. It was an evangelistic encounter.

Something was wrong with the tongues at Corinth. It wasn't the same thing, nor was it being encouraged.

I Corinthians is scripture, too, just as much as Acts is.

 

[presidente]

Because our first example of miraculous tongues from acts states that the disciples were speaking their native language and all heard them in their own native languages.

You are mistaken.

[SUP]4 [/SUP]And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

 

[presidente]

Taking that verse a bit further. Jesus limits it to one group of people and they are those who truly believe they are saved and can do all those signs and wonders. Jesus never says they could NOT do those things. The sad part is they never understand the source of those signs and wonders,they believe they are from God but they NEVER were.

Which verse? Who are 'they' in your quote?

The Bible (the debated portion of Mark) says 'these signs shall follow them that believe.' Jesus said, "He that believeth in Me, the works that I do, shall he do also".

I Corinthians 12 tells us about manifestations of the Spirit in the body of Christ.

Taking all this together, if someone does a miracle or speaks in tongues, we should not use that as a basis for being extra suspicious of that person. The Bible shows us that the Spirit will empower believers to do such things. Now, that doesn't mean all alleged miracles are from God or that all workers of signs are godly.

We should also remember what Jesus said about miracle workers in Mark 9.

[SUP]38 [/SUP]And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.
[SUP]39 [/SUP]But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.
[SUP]40 [/SUP]For he that is not against us is on our part.

 

[SarahM777]

Which verse? Who are 'they' in your quote?

The Bible (the debated portion of Mark) says 'these signs shall follow them that believe.' Jesus said, "He that believeth in Me, the works that I do, shall he do also".

I Corinthians 12 tells us about manifestations of the Spirit in the body of Christ.

Taking all this together, if someone does a miracle or speaks in tongues, we should not use that as a basis for being extra suspicious of that person. The Bible shows us that the Spirit will empower believers to do such things. Now, that doesn't mean all alleged miracles are from God or that all workers of signs are godly.

We should also remember what Jesus said about miracle workers in Mark 9.

[SUP]38 [/SUP]And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.
[SUP]39 [/SUP]But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.
[SUP]40 [/SUP]For he that is not against us is on our part.

UMM The verse just above that,here it is again

Perhaps the problem is the one that is at the heart of the matter that never seems to get answered. IS THIS STUFF FROM THE LORD OR NOT? If it's not it's witchcraft,divination and idolatry. How hard is that to understand? How hard is it to understand the Israel was destroyed because of it and Judah was sent into captivity? Did God kid around with that stuff or did He take it very very seriously?

And once again is this stuff truly from the Lord or not? That is the main issue which you never seem to want to deal with. You can't keep letting it slide by because one's soul is at stake here.

Is Jesus kidding around here?

Matthew 7

21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.22Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

Why does He make so plain that those very people CAN PROPHESY,CAST OUT DEMONS AND DO MIRACLES?

The question that NEEDS TO BE ANSWERED IS WHO IS THE SOURCE of this stuff?

Again it goes to the heart of the matter who is the source of these signs? How much clearer does Jesus have to be to say that NOT ALL THAT DO THESE THINGS ARE HIS? They believe they are His but He does not see them as being His.
We are to TEST where this is coming from. How hard is that to understand?

 

[presidente]

Again it goes to the heart of the matter who is the source of these signs? How much clearer does Jesus have to be to say that NOT ALL THAT DO THESE THINGS ARE HIS? They believe they are His but He does not see them as being His.
We are to TEST where this is coming from. How hard is that to understand?

I think we are in agreement that we should test and discern. I'd also like to point out, though, that Jesus was a great miracle-worker himself. A few chapters later, He would send forth the apostles to preach, heal, and perform miracles. In chapter 23, He says He was sending prophets, wise men, and scribes.

So while not all who do miracles or claim to are right with God, doing miracles as not a sign that someone is right with God. Not that you said that, but some people see it that way.

 

[SarahM777]

I think we are in agreement that we should test and discern. I'd also like to point out, though, that Jesus was a great miracle-worker himself. A few chapters later, He would send forth the apostles to preach, heal, and perform miracles. In chapter 23, He says He was sending prophets, wise men, and scribes.

So while not all who do miracles or claim to are right with God, doing miracles as not a sign that someone is right with God. Not that you said that, but some people see it that way.

So once again it goes back to the question who or what is the source the tongues and signs and wonders these days? Are these truly from God and can someone show that it is from God or are what we are seeing is NOT from God? That is the question that needs to be answered.

 

[presidente]

So once again it goes back to the question who or what is the source the tongues and signs and wonders these days? Are these truly from God and can someone show that it is from God or are what we are seeing is NOT from God? That is the question that needs to be answered.

Whether miracles are from God 'these days' is not the question. The test of false prophets Jesus gave is that 'ye shall know them by their fruits.' He does not say that ye shall know them by the time period in which they prophesy. In the first century, there were true and false prophets and true and false teachers. Sometimes the false teachers would try to infiltrate the true church. If you see one person doing miracles and prophesying is a false prophet, that doesn't make everyone doing miracles and prophesying a false prophet. That wasn't the case in the first century and it is not the case today.

 

[SarahM777]

Whether miracles are from God 'these days' is not the question. The test of false prophets Jesus gave is that 'ye shall know them by their fruits.' He does not say that ye shall know them by the time period in which they prophesy. In the first century, there were true and false prophets and true and false teachers. Sometimes the false teachers would try to infiltrate the true church. If you see one person doing miracles and prophesying is a false prophet, that doesn't make everyone doing miracles and prophesying a false prophet. That wasn't the case in the first century and it is not the case today.

So if some of it is from God who are the ones that are doing these things? You can't find in the Bible where the disciples or Jesus ever did the miracles in a closet. Pentecost was in front of THOUSANDS of people,Jesus fed over 35,000 people,Peter was at the temple when he commanded the man in Jesus name to get up and walk. In front of believers,unbelievers,skeptics and a whole host of other people. So that bodes the question can any of this be verified that it is from God?

 

[SarahM777]

I think we are in agreement that we should test and discern. I'd also like to point out, though, that Jesus was a great miracle-worker himself. A few chapters later, He would send forth the apostles to preach, heal, and perform miracles. In chapter 23, He says He was sending prophets, wise men, and scribes.

So while not all who do miracles or claim to are right with God, doing miracles as not a sign that someone is right with God. Not that you said that, but some people see it that way.

And that also bodes a question that needs to be answered. What is the evidences that one is right with God? In the day in day out shouldn't certain things be there?

If one truly has the Holy Spirit and one is confronted with wrong doing shouldn't one of the evidences be conviction of the wrong doing and repentance? If that is not there can one if they are honest with themselves say they have the Holy Spirit? Can one say they have the Holy Spirit if one does NOT have love,joy,peace patience,goodness, kindness, gentleness, faithfulness and self control in ever increasing measure can they say they have the evidence of the Holy Spirit? If these things are not there are they telling you the truth that they truly have the Holy Spirit or are they fooling themselves? And what did Jesus and John say was the evidence that one belongs to Jesus and the Father?

The evidence that one right with God is not in tongues,doing miracles,casting out demons,etc etc. Remember Exodus. The magicians could do wonders also. God has those those things in the Bible for a reason. We are to test these things to know the source because these things can be done but it does not always mean it's from God.

And that leads to the $64,000 question,what is it that people are really seeking? It's a question one needs to ask themselves. Is one truly seeking the Holy,Righteous,One true God of heaven and earth,or is one seeking the stuff He can give us? God has never been and never will be a Santa Claus. It was one of the big errors that many that left Jesus. They wanted the things He could give them and not Him. Can one ask themselves that and be honest with themselves? It goes to the heart.

 

[SarahM777]

You missed the point. They call a christian a sinner when that "sinner" knows more of the Bible than they do. They make themselves look stupid.

Be careful there Stephen a lot of atheists and Muslims know the Bible better then a whole lot of Christians. (Especially American Christians)
Don't forget the Pharisees MEMORIZED Genesis,Exodus,Leviticus,Numbers and Deuteronomy. How many Christians do you know have even memorized one? Just because one knows the words does not in and of itself prove anything.

 

[notuptome]

I'm not testy. I'm just sick and tired of people who think they are God's gift to judge all the Pentecostals, like it's their divine calling.

You judge yourself as do I by the scriptures.

That's a setup question. The children of disobedience are not His.

It's a probing question to understand your concept of what it is to be saved. The unsaved man can not understand the scriptures beyond his need to be saved.[/quote]

You said this:

Don't avoid the question. Explain that with scripture.

Tongues are a sign gift. Signs are for Jews not Gentiles. Tongues are for unbelievers not believers. God is not in the tongues if there are no unbelieving Jews present. In every situation where tongues are evidenced in scripture there were unbelieving Jews present even when Gentiles were speaking.

For the cause of Christ
Roger