Why have the Sign Gifts Ended

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Major

Active member
Dec 12, 2020
885
183
43
And by so doing, cessationists forbid them.


Honestly, I think you're contorting Scripture to justify your position. Peter's quotation was clearly an explanation that what they were witnessing was a fulfillment of the prophecy, for Peter said, "This is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel". Had he been speaking of a yet-future event, he would not have used a near indicative that is an obviously reference to the disciples' speaking in tongues in the hearing of the people.

I disagree with the foretaste view. Jesus said repeatedly that the Kingdom was then present. We as believers have been transferred from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of light. We just don't experience the fullness of it in this life.


I disagree. I believe that the rest of Joel's prophecy referred to the end of the age, 70 AD. With regard to 1 Cor. 13:8, as others have mentioned on this thread, we do not yet know as we are known, and we do not yet see clearly rather than in a poor mirror.

I would caution you against using such phrases as "by any logical thought process"; that's a fallacy called poisoning the well, which makes discussion impossible because you have ruled out any consideration of alternatives. I can respect someone who disagrees, but not someone who dismisses.


The edification of the assembly is greater, but that does not make the edification of the individual meaningless. There is no possible way you can rightly interpret Paul's message to mean "Just don't speak in tongues".
You said............
"I disagree. I believe that the rest of Joel's prophecy referred to the end of the age, 70 AD. With regard to 1 Cor. 13:8, as others have mentioned on this thread, we do not yet know as we are known, and we do not yet see clearly rather than in a poor mirror. "

And right there is the reason why your posts and comments are so far from the norm of Biblical understanding.

You are a "Preterist".

I am not calling you anything but many others have correctly said that Preterism makes a liar out of the Author of the Bible; therefore, preterist is a false doctrine at best and has even been labeled a heretical doctrine by many.

Preterist denies the resurrection of the body. Scripture teaches the resurrection of the body and that is the exact reason why so many people are at odds with what you post.
 

Major

Active member
Dec 12, 2020
885
183
43
I agree tongues it seems are an issue everyone seems to draw themselves to when the sign gifts are much more than just tongues. Look at other things than just tongues like prophecy and see if anyone can tell how long or if ever the Chinese or Russians will take to realize that Edward Snowden is pretending to have defected with a lot of information when he delivered a lot of misinformation instead.
Do you ever wonder why people are drawn to the Tongues gifts instead of "Raising the Dead" when in fact both of those gifts are gien in the very same sentence of the Scriptures?????

Easy......Tongues can be easily faked but raising the dead can not. So then, lets do what we can fake!
 
Feb 28, 2016
11,311
2,972
113
our advice is, -
don't speak what you 'think' is Truth, unless The Holy Spirit is your Guide...
 

iamsoandso

Senior Member
Oct 6, 2011
8,048
1,609
113
Do you ever wonder why people are drawn to the Tongues gifts instead of "Raising the Dead" when in fact both of those gifts are gien in the very same sentence of the Scriptures?????

Easy......Tongues can be easily faked but raising the dead can not. So then, lets do what we can fake!

The Gospel, preaching the Gospel to those who are dead without Christ is raising the dead?
 
S

Scribe

Guest
Not in any way whatsoever. Just a simple straight forward question based on the context of Mark 16:14.

Mark 16:14.........
"Afterward he appeared unto the ELEVEN as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. 15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. 17And these signs shall follow them that believe;

The "THEM" in verse #17 is the ANTICEDANT of the ELEVEN in verse 14,

That is Greek Grammar and is not open for translation or interpretation, it simple it what it is.

Now then....the question still stands and is valid to ask.

WHICH ONE OF THE ELEVEN WERE "YOU'?????
Them that believe. :)
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,160
1,787
113
Not in any way whatsoever. Just a simple straight forward question based on the context of Mark 16:14.

Mark 16:14.........
"Afterward he appeared unto the ELEVEN as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. 15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. 17And these signs shall follow them that believe;

The "THEM" in verse #17 is the ANTICEDANT of the ELEVEN in verse 14,

That is Greek Grammar and is not open for translation or interpretation, it simple it what it is.

Now then....the question still stands and is valid to ask.

WHICH ONE OF THE ELEVEN WERE "YOU'?????
I read a comment on Facebook recently that a first year Greek student should know that the article/pronoun there modifies the participle. 'Them' modifies believing.

If your approach were correct then in John 11:25, 'he that believeth in me' only refers to Jesus, and the disciples were the ones who went with Judaism yo arrest Jesus referred to in Acts 1.

Be suspicious of anyone who claims the Greek unequivocally proves their interpretation of a passage when other highly educated commentators and translators disagree. The earliest commentary on the passage I am aware of is Apostolic Constitutions, which some date to the 400s and it is inconsistent with the idea that the passage is just about the 11 doing miracles.
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,160
1,787
113
This article on participle refutes the assertions of @Major about Mark 16:17. Look at the part about Heb. 10:37 for an example.
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,160
1,787
113
Actually the gift of Tongues was about HEARING and not speaking at all.

People speak in tongues today who simply do not know what the Bible says and do it because someone said to do it.

"And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God." -Acts 2:7-11

Notice the phrase in Acts 2:11, "our tongues."
This interpretation is a bit convoluted. They said 'we do hear them speak in our tongues...' It does NOT say, 'We heard the sounds of our tongues coming out of their mouths, but they weren't speaking them...like in a dubbed Kung Fu movie."

This interpretation here is not unique to you. There was a St. Gregory in the 4th century who took in that way, and another St. Gregory in the 4th century who took it to mean they spoke foreign languages. A straightforward interpretation is that they heard them speak in the languages they were speaking. It says earlier that they spoke in tongues/languages. Why would the language the disciples spoke in be different from the one the audience heard? That's an unnecessarily convoluted interpretation.

The crowds heard the Apostles preach in their own native tongues, not some unknown heavenly jibber jabber. There was NEVER any heavenly languages spoken that no one understood and required an interpreter. There is a drastic difference between Biblical tongues and the heretical speaking in tongues of the Assemblies of God churches.

The "speaking in tongues" which the Assemblies of God and the Pentecostals foolishly practice are UNKNOWN tongues, not anything found on earth.
You do not know what you are talking about. This is a straw man argument. I spent several years in the Assemblies of God in the 1980's and I've spent months in A/Gs in the US and elsewhere from time to time as I've moved around the world. I've never heard someone in the Assemblies of God say that tongues are 'heavenly languages.' The idea of someone speaking in a human languages 'in tongues' is consistent with A/G belief as far as I can ascertain. Historically, Pentecostals believe that tongues are languages.

Now, Pentecostals in my experience would allow for the possibility that a tongue might fit into the 'tongues of angels' category since Paul suggests it might be possible.

When I was young Charles Greenoway was one of the missions denominational officials who was working while there was great missions growth in the movement. He had a testimony about someone preaching to the people 'in tongues'. I heard it in a church in one state, and then in another church when he went to visit a church there. I also heard an A/G preacher tell a testimony of someone hearing tongues in their own language and confirming the interpretation in their own language as accurate.

Also, if you look up the history of the early Pentecostal movement, there are a number of testimonies like this. Agnes Ozman spoke in tongues in 1901, and she wrote that some Bohemian brothers confirmed she spoke in Bohemian (now called Czech.) __The Apostolic Faith__, the newsletter of the Azusa Street Revival printed testimonies from all over the world, and some of them were about people recognizing 'tongues' as their own language. I can think of three people who testified to this happening at the Azusa Street meetings during the revival. Vinson Synan did some video interviews of people who were there as children and one of them said they spoke in real languages and part of what drew the crowd was people hearing their own languages, Japanese, etc., in tongues at the revival. I have met personally three people at least who testify to the fact that they have either heard their own language spoken 'in tongues' or someone else identified the language they spoke as one they knew. One of the Azusa Street testimonies by Val Dez involved a Russian understanding the message in Russian and verifying the interpretation.

There are some people out there who apparently think tongues are 'tongues of angels', maybe a spiritual code language that only God understands. I think some of the WOFers and maybe some other Charismatics think that. Maybe... maybe you could find someone who goes to an Assemblies of God or Pentecostal church who thinks that, but I can't name a preacher who preaches that or a member of one of those churches who does.

And 'unknown' is in italics in the KJV. My guess is A/G members and other Pentecostals are about as likely to know that as other evangelicals. I have never heard 'unknown' play into the doctrine on speaking in tongues. The tongue is unknown to those present, as it obvious in the context of I Corinthians 14, and therefore must be interpreted. Maybe that's why the KJV translators used it, or to indicate that this was a supernatural type of tongue rather than a natural one.

Supposedly, those unknown tongues can only be interpreted by ONE spirit-filled member of the congregation. The Apostle Paul speaks common sense to us Corinthians 14:19...
Stuff like this makes me wonder if you have carefully read the whole chapter you are quoting from. In verse 28 Paul says to let one interpret. I've never heard any teaching in the A/G or any other Pentecostal church that only one person in the congregation would ever be able to interpret tongues, if that is what you mean. But in my experience in the A/G, only one person would interpret a given tongue, and I cannot recall two people doing the interpreting in one service if two people gave a message in tongues.


"Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue."
You need to read that with the verse before it and the whole chapter. Write before these words, he wrote, "I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:"

Reading the verses before that, he was praying in tongues, by which one can give thanks well, but the other is not edified. Paul spoke in tongues a lot, but in the church he preferred to speak with tongues that he may instruct others. This is part of Paul's argument about speaking in tongues that lead up to his instructions requiring speaking in tongues ____in the context of the assembly______ to be interpreted to edify others.

Now does your church allow obedience to what Paul taught in this passage? May someone speak in tongues and may someone interpret.

Paul goes on to call his instructions for the assembly 'commandments of the Lord' in verse 37. This seems to be an appeal to the idea that these commandments reflect universal church practice: "What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?" (v. 36)
 

notuptome

Senior Member
May 17, 2013
15,050
2,538
113
I have no idea. I was just posting that for the description of the grammar at the opening part.
Without a doctrinal statement you have no idea how his interpretation of Greek grammar may or may not be biased.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,160
1,787
113
Without a doctrinal statement you have no idea how his interpretation of Greek grammar may or may not be biased.
On such a basic issue? Plenty of pagans spoke Greek back in the day, too. Do you ask your mechanic for a doctrinal statement?
 

iamsoandso

Senior Member
Oct 6, 2011
8,048
1,609
113
I would never let a Calvinist work on my car!

Yep I keep seeing the commercial on TV for "if your computer goes out or the check engine light comes on and it can cost thousands of dollars in repairs!!!",,,lol Then again though there's those of us who can fix this ourselves and we know that the ECM is like a hundred dollars, takes about an hour to get the three or four screws out and back in. The CEL you can access and it will flash a code on the dash and most fixes are less than 100 bucks. Man do they make a killing off those who don't know much about cars.
 
S

Scribe

Guest
Yep I keep seeing the commercial on TV for "if your computer goes out or the check engine light comes on and it can cost thousands of dollars in repairs!!!",,,lol Then again though there's those of us who can fix this ourselves and we know that the ECM is like a hundred dollars, takes about an hour to get the three or four screws out and back in. The CEL you can access and it will flash a code on the dash and most fixes are less than 100 bucks. Man do they make a killing off those who don't know much about cars.
"Ah but it was fore ordained" says the reformist mechanic
 

iamsoandso

Senior Member
Oct 6, 2011
8,048
1,609
113
"Ah but it was fore ordained" says the reformist mechanic
lol,,just wait till you get old. I always worked on all of my own cars "until I got too old" the last few times I went to one garage and then to the next trying to find an "good honest mechanic" that wont cheat my wife when I die but so far I've had to re-do/fix everything they did. I hope everyone's not this way and maybe I should have began looking sooner for this but it sure makes a difference to them what they say if they realize I could fix it verses if I don't act like I know anything.
 

calibob

Sinner saved by grace
May 29, 2018
8,268
5,516
113
Anaheim, Cali.
I would never let a Calvinist work on my car!
They wouldn't. If it were supposed to be fixed, it would be fixed already; Nothing ever breaks down unless it was supposed to from the very beginning. If it broke down it's YOUR FAULT!