Tongues are a sign for those who have “no faith”
Tongues are also for the body of Christ, one of the manifestations of the Spirit 'to profit withal.' Read I Corinthians 12, too.
The sign is a fulfillment of 'and yet for all that, ye shall not hear Me'. That verse being fulfilled is a sign. And the unbeliever or uninstructed one who hears all speak with tongues in church, in Paul's scenario, says 'ye are mad.'
1Co 14:22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, "not to them that believe", but to them that believe not: (no faith) but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.( have faith)
Great verse. We should actually look at the verses around it to see the point Paul makes, not rip it out of context. When an unbeliever hears speaking in tongues and says, ye are mad, this sign is fulfilled, 'and yet for all that, ye will not hear Me.' When an unbeliever hears the secrets of his heart prophesied, he says, 'God is truly among you'. At least in the scenario Paul presents.
One of the sad things about your belief in 'no new prophecy' is that you basically shut out this operation of the gift of prophecy. If people cannot hear prophecies about the specific secrets of their own hearts, since their own personal details are not listed in scripture, how is this supposed to happen? But the gift of prophecy still functions, and sometimes specific facts about individual's life are mentioned in the prophecy, facts the one prophesying couldn't naturally know. I've seen this quite a bit.
No such thing as a sign gift.
First of all, straw man argument. Who is arguing for sign gifts? Secondly, you've probably got your own peculiar definition of 'sign gift' like you seem to have with some of the other words and phrases found in the Bible.
The Jews as do the Charismatics today both require an outward sign before they would believe.
I read this stuff, and I think you are just confused. Either that, or you just aren't careful about not slandering. The Charismatic movement is so vast and diverse, there are probably plenty of people in it, who didn't come to faith until they saw a healing, a miracle, or heard a prophecy that told the secrets of their heart. But once someone gets saved, they don't stay at that level.
But once someone is already a Christian, he doesn't have to see a sign or a miracle to get saved again. That doesn't make sense.
There were people in Biblical times who would only believe after they saw miracles, signs, etc. Thomas refused to believe in the resurrection until he put his fingers into the holes in Jesus' hand and his hand into the hole in His side. Do you think the other apostles should have shunned or rebuked him for the rest of his life? No. He missed out on a blessing. And we should accept the brothers who came to Christ through miracles just as we accept those who came to Christ only through hearing the word. Just as we should accept first century Christians who came to Christ through miracles and supernatural happenings.
And of course, the irony is, once someone is already a Christian, it is the cessationists who typically refuse to believe God still does miracles through individuals like scripture teaches in I Corinthians 12 and elsewhere, unless they see them for themselves. Whilst the Charismatics would be more likely to believe God does these things without seeing.
Luke 17:20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
I'm not sure what doctrine you are reading into the underlined and bolded phrases. I don't know if I'd understand if you explained it to me. Maybe it's a struggle with a second language, but it's hard to decipher what you write, especially since you seem to read ideas into Biblical phrases that clearly aren't there.
But let us just be clear. The Man who said this was a miracle worker and healer who did great signs and wonders. So this phrase is not contrary to doing miracles, healing, or signs and wonders. Some people came to faith after witnessing the miracles, and Christ said, "Except ye see, signs and wonders, ye shall not believe"... and did signs and wonders. So this verse is not contrary to the fact that some people do become Christians after seeing it confirmed with signs and wonders.
If whatever point you think you can make from the verse you quoted contradicts those facts, your point is wrong.
Taking an experience and using that as a source of faith by a work we could do is not a biblical teaching.
I suspect that sentence is a combination of struggling with the English language and theological confusion. The sentence does not make much sense. If you want to communicate, you need to rethink how you are doing it.
The Bible contains certain teachings on spiritual gifts. I believe those teachings. Many people have gotten into healing ministry after reading about healing in the Bible and believing God.
Yes not contrary to faith of Christ ,of God who by faith changed the specific gravity of the water so that Peter did not sink. Attributing that work of faith to Peter would be to blaspheme the holy name we called by..
Jesus told the apostles to heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils. Acts says Paul healed people. This type of terminology is consistent with the terminology in the New Testament. But we also know that it was not by their own power or holiness that they did these things. God was working through them. A word for 'spiritual gifts' in Greek, 'charismatic' is related to the word for grace. Gifts are given according to God's grace. God's grace works through spiritual gifts.
By the way, you don't know the miracle was done by God changing the specific gravity of water. We could speculate that angels were holding him up, or that Peter was made lighter, or any other of a number of explanations.
Where do you see that occurring?
I see the apostles praying for God to stretch forth His hand to do signs and wonders for the sake of Jesus in Acts 4, the very same place I pointed you to in a previous message. Do I have to type in all caps?
I think this is one of the problems with your posts. Maybe you aren't that familiar with certain passages in the New Testament, but still want to make up your own decrees and pronouncements about spiritual ideas.
The apostles prayed for God to do signs and wonders. It is likely they wanted God to do these things through their ministries. From the text, it seems likely that is how the prayer was answered, though it may also have been answered also through God doing signs and wonders through other believers.
If the apostles would ask for a sign they would not be walking by the faith of Christ.(the unseen eternal )
Yet another false statement that does not stand up to the light of scripture. The apostles asked Jesus for the sign of His coming and of the end of the age. He told them a number of things, and even specifically called one a 'sign.'
I have pointed this out to you many times. You should know it by now? Why don't you learn and stop making such pronouncements which, again, contradict the teaching of scripture. Why do you think you have the authority to make these pronouncements about spiritual things? Why don't you just stick with the Bible?
Christ said it is an evil generation (natural man) that does seek after a sign before they would believe. This makes the word of God prophecy, without effect.
You added to Christ's words something that He did not say in the first sentence. Your second sentence there doesn't make much sense after that first sentence.
Jesus said an evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign, and no sign would be given unto it but the sign of the prophet Jonah. They were likely demanding the test of a prophet type sign based on Deuteronomy. Jesus did other kinds of signs and wonders.
Signs are for those who believe not (no faith coming from God)
And the apostles, and for whoever else God wants signs to be for. You have no authority to limit signs as for being for unbelievers only.
Garee offered..It the same with some of these sign gifts denominations.
Presidente responded...How about speaking God's word instead of these man-made pronouncements of yours that contradict the Bible.
Show me how what I offered contradicts the Bible?
I pointed it out. You try to make signs for unbelievers only, when the apostles asked Jesus for a sign.
We walk by faith (unseen) not after our own fleshly experiences as that seen .Experience is not the validator of unseen truths .God’s alone word is.
It is truly sad when people do not believe the Bible because they haven't seen something written in the Bible for themselves. This is also true of spiritual gifts.
You have already made the faith of Christ without effect by denying the law below.
1Co 14:22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe
Don't tell lies about me. I believe that verse. You need to read the verses before and after it and understand it in context. I see a pattern of your reading all kinds of weird meanings into Biblical words and phrases, ideas that don't line up with other scripture. And there is a communication gap, so it is not even clear what you are think you are proving when you quote some verses.
They had the faith of Christ not of there own selves lest they boast. in vain
1Co 14:22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them "that believe", but to them "that believe not
: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.
Who is the one who doesn't hear that God 'speaks' through speaking in tongues in this conversation? In whom is the sign fulfilled? Who is the one who responds to this topic with unbelief?
Speaking in tongues is not ONLY for a sign. Don't read in the word 'ONLY' where it is not written. Divers tongues is also given to individuals in the body 'for the common good'. It builds up the one who speaks it. With interpretation it edifies others.
Self-edification through speaking in tongues is good, which we know because Paul says in that context, "I would that ye all spake with tongues.' But edifying others with prophecy is better, because Paul wrote, 'but rather that ye prophesy.' The Bible makes more sense when we read whole sentences rather than just phrases, and follow the flow of ideas rather than taking verses out of context and using them contrary to the way they are used in the tex
2Corinthians 5:7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight:...After ones own experiences (self righteous )
Your comments are full of your own ideas not justified by the text. You equate walking by sight with walking 'after ones own experiences'. I don't see where the Bible presents experience as a bad thing. Tasting and seeing that the Lord is gracious is something you experience.
Romans 5 says,
3 And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience;4 And patience, experience; and experience, hope:
5 And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.
I don't see where the Bible associates experience with self-righteousness.
Anyway, you make up a bunch of junk and throw it in as commentary around Bible verses, and throw Biblical phrases around in confused ways.
Having the faith of Christ ,the faith of God in respect to oneself, is to Blaspheme the holy name he call us by.
You might want to rephrase that. That doesn't make sense to me, and I doubt most English speakers will know what you are trying to say by 'having...the faith of Christ in respect to oneself...' Having the faith of Christ is a good thing. I don't know what you mean by 'in respect to oneself.' That seems like a meaningless filler phrase, like you are just repeating the one that has the faith of Christ is the individual who has the faith of Christ. Having faith is not blaspheming. I don't know if the confusion here is just a language issue, or if it is a mental or spiritual issue.
