Tongues Again???

[fredoheaven]

Those aren't the only gifts that edify. Teaching also edifies. Paul treats teaching and prophesying as separate gifts. Those who prophesy operate in a revelatory gift. Teachers often explain what was revealed through revelation in the past. The gifts of the Spirit work through people. The Holy Spirit works through people, through the gifts of the Spirit, to edify others.

Where do Teachings come from? It comes from the words of God or the Bible. To prophesy is to interpret the words of God, while I believe “to prophesy” has twofold meaning of predicting and interpreting, foretell and forth tell but the context in 1 Corinthians fits for the “interpretation” of the words of God rather than “predicting” future events as this concern the edification of the church.

 

[VCO]

Paul said, "Forbid not to speak with tongues" (I Corinthians 14:39) and "I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all" (I Corinthians 14:8).

AND JUST HOW DID PAUL DO IT ? Just like the rest of the Apostles, with unbelieving Jews hearing their own native dialect clearly spoken, even with the CORRECT native accent {dialektos}. How do I know? Because the rest of the Apostles and the other Disciples would not have have accepted anything less:


2 Corinthians 12:12 (NKJV)
[SUP]12 [/SUP] Truly the signs of an apostle were accomplished among you with all perseverance, in signs and wonders and mighty deeds.


NOTICE even Paul said they were SIGNS OF AN APOSTLE, and not signs of a Believer. That is the biggest reason why WE DO NOT BELIEVE THE CHARISMATIC SIGNS are anything more than imitations of the GENUINE SIGNS OF AN APOSTLE.

Acts 2:5-11 (HCSB)
[SUP]5 [/SUP] There were Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men from every nation under heaven.
[SUP]6 [/SUP] When this sound occurred, a crowd came together and was confused because each one heard them speaking in his own language.
[SUP]7 [/SUP] And they were astounded and amazed, saying, “Look, aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans?
[SUP]8 [/SUP] How is it that each of us can hear in our own native language?
[SUP]9 [/SUP] Parthians, Medes, Elamites; those who live in Mesopotamia, in Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia,
[SUP]10 [/SUP] Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes,
[SUP]11 [/SUP] Cretans and Arabs—we hear them speaking the magnificent acts of God in our own languages.”

Acts 2:8 (GWT)
[SUP]8 [/SUP] Why do we hear them speaking in our native dialects?

1 Corinthians 1:22 (KJV)
[SUP]22 [/SUP] For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

Mark 16:20 (HCSB)
[SUP]20 [/SUP] And they went out and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the word by the accompanying signs.

1 Corinthians 14:22 (GWT)
[SUP]22 [/SUP] So the gift of speaking in other languages is a sign for unbelievers, not for believers. The gift of speaking what God had revealed is a sign for believers, not for unbelievers.


You are trying to make the Sciptures fit your Experience, instead of Testing your Experience with the Scriptures, and then discerning if your Experience matches what the Scriptures actually SAY.

 

[presidente]

AND JUST HOW DID PAUL DO IT ? Just like the rest of the Apostles, with unbelieving Jews hearing their own native dialect clearly spoken, even with the CORRECT native accent {dialektos}. How do I know? Because the rest of the Apostles and the other Disciples would not have have accepted anything less:

2 Corinthians 12:12 (NKJV)
[SUP]12 [/SUP] Truly the signs of an apostle were accomplished among you with all perseverance, in signs and wonders and mighty deeds.


NOTICE even Paul said they were SIGNS OF AN APOSTLE, and not signs of a Believer. That is the biggest reason why WE DO NOT BELIEVE THE CHARISMATIC SIGNS are anything more than imitations of the GENUINE SIGNS OF AN APOSTLE.

This doesn't make sense. How is this an argument against modern spiritual gifts? One interpretation of these passages is that apostles tended to do bigger signs than the regular folks in I Corinthians 12. I'm not saying I buy it, but these are the types of verses that those who make such arguments might make. I believe Jack Deere reported in one of his books that the author John White made a similar argument.

Lots of scriptures in that last quote. I read them and I read where Paul says to imitate him as he imitated Christ. Those verses should cause us to desire to do miracles, to evangelize like the apostles did. How can someone read them and come away with a negative attitude about spiritual gifts operating in the body of Christ today? It doesn't make sense to me.

1 Corinthians 14:22 (GWT)
[SUP]22 [/SUP] So the gift of speaking in other languages is a sign for unbelievers, not for believers. The gift of speaking what God had revealed is a sign for believers, not for unbelievers.


You are trying to make the Sciptures fit your Experience, instead of Testing your Experience with the Scriptures, and then discerning if your Experience matches what the Scriptures actually SAY.

How about the problem of choosing a translation of scripture to fit your theology. I'm not seeing where any of these scriptures teach that God won't give signs, wonders, and gifts of the Spirit today. But I do notice that your translation translates what translators usually render 'prophesies' as 'the gift of what God had revealed', which is sloppy to say the least. Prophecy is revealed. Why 'had revealed'? A revelation might come on the spot to 'one sitting by' in Paul's more detailed instructions on prophesying several verses later.

I don't think I'd ever even heard of this translation before VCO's posts. Why use something loose like that, when so few people are even using it?

 

[fredoheaven]

Excerpts from the book I read by Jeffrey Khoo:

Charismatics often use 1 Corinthians 14:39 against those who prohibit tongues-speaking today. The question we want to ask is: Have charismatics understood this Pauline injunction correctly? It is vital in
Bible interpretation that we take into careful consideration the historical context of a passage. If we do not, then we run the risk of doing things that the Lord no longer requires us to do. For example, the Old Testament has many commandments concerning animal sacrifices. Do we offer such sacrifices in the church today? If not, why not? Aren’t these sacrificial laws applicable also to God’s people today?

The historical context is important in helping us understand why there is a difference between Old Testament and New Testament practices. The ritualistic requirements of the Old Testament were
specifically given to the nation of Israel, and are not applicable to the Church in the New Testament. This is so simply because the Church is not Israel. The Church is not a national but a spiritual body of Christ.
Moreoever, Christ has put an end to all the Old Testament sacrifices by His one-time Sacrifice on the cross. God’s administration of the Old Testament period is quite different from that of the New Testament. If we fail to see this, we run the risk of misunderstanding and misapplying God’s Word.

Hence, we should view Paul’s commandment, “Forbid not to speak in tongues,” in the same way, that is, in the light of its historical context.

It was in AD 55 that Paul wrote this. At that time the gift of tongues was not rendered inoperative since it still served its purpose (cf, 1 Cor 14:21-22). So tongues should not be prohibited at that time.Also, Paul might have been afraid that the Corinthians would go to an extreme by putting a total stop to legitimate tongues-speaking. He had just spoken strongly against the confusion of tongues-speaking in the church, and might have anticipated a radical reaction on the part of the Corinthians. To protect those who truly had the gift, the command, “forbid not to speak in tongues,” was given. This injunction was applicable only to the apostolic period when the gift of tongues was still valid. We are no longer living in apostolic days. The ecclesiastical conditions of today are quite different from those in Paul’s day. Paul in 1Corinthians 13:8 said that tongues will cease, and they have indeed ceased a long time ago.

Jeffrey Khoo
Charismaticism Q & A
FEBCP pp39-40

 

[presidente]

Where do Teachings come from? It comes from the words of God or the Bible. To prophesy is to interpret the words of God, while I believe “to prophesy” has twofold meaning of predicting and interpreting, foretell and forth tell but the context in 1 Corinthians fits for the “interpretation” of the words of God rather than “predicting” future events as this concern the edification of the church.

Where do you get your definition for 'prophesy' and why is it different here from in the rest of the Bible? Peter described prophesying in the Old Testament as 'holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.' That's how prophesying works. The Spirit moves someone to speak (or sing, or play musical instruments, or maybe even do some kind of sign act like burning hair or wearing a buried belt.) The New Testament uses the same words for 'prophet' and 'prophesy' to refer to New Testament versions of it as it uses for Old Testament versions of it. Why treat it as a separate thing?

Prophets in the Old Testament often spoke in the first person on behalf of God, beginning their messages with 'Thus saith the Lord.' We have a clear example of prophecy from a New Testament prophet recorded in scripture. The prophet Agabus' prophecy began with 'Thus saith the Holy Ghost'.

In I Corinthians 14, prophesying is revelatory in nature. It says if a revelation comes to one sitting by, let the first hold his peace. For ye may all prophesy one by one....

 

[fredoheaven]

Where do you get your definition for 'prophesy' and why is it different here from in the rest of the Bible? Peter described prophesying in the Old Testament as 'holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.' That's how prophesying works. The Spirit moves someone to speak (or sing, or play musical instruments, or maybe even do some kind of sign act like burning hair or wearing a buried belt.) The New Testament uses the same words for 'prophet' and 'prophesy' to refer to New Testament versions of it as it uses for Old Testament versions of it. Why treat it as a separate thing?

Prophets in the Old Testament often spoke in the first person on behalf of God, beginning their messages with 'Thus saith the Lord.' We have a clear example of prophecy from a New Testament prophet recorded in scripture. The prophet Agabus' prophecy began with 'Thus saith the Holy Ghost'.

In I Corinthians 14, prophesying is revelatory in nature. It says if a revelation comes to one sitting by, let the first hold his peace. For ye may all prophesy one by one....

Oops! Prophecy as used by Peter refers to the written scriptures though has been spoken in the old time by the prophets as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Notice, how written prophecy works, it includes interpretation as to what has been revealed in the old times. So when one prophesy, he indeed interprets the words of God not only as to foretell. However, the gift of foretelling has long been gone since the death of the Apostles. Anyway, since we are talking and taking ourselves during the Apostolic age, then it is implicit that prophecy whether foretell or forth tell, prediction or interpreting has been in operation, where you mention Prophet Agabus as a prime example.

But Corinth believers is different. They wanted self- edification more than anything else as this is something abusive in desiring spiritual “gifts”. Preaching the words of God is vital to church growth as Paul is saying. Personal gratification especially of gift of tongue is not what Paul really meant in his letters to the Corinth. It is to “prophesy”.

God bless

 

[presidente]

You quoted Charismatic Q&A:

Charismatics often use 1 Corinthians 14:39 against those who prohibit tongues-speaking today. The question we want to ask is: Have charismatics understood this Pauline injunction correctly? It is vital in
Bible interpretation that we take into careful consideration the historical context of a passage. If we do not, then we run the risk of doing things that the Lord no longer requires us to do. For example, the Old Testament has many commandments concerning animal sacrifices. Do we offer such sacrifices in the church today? If not, why not? Aren’t these sacrificial laws applicable also to God’s people today?

Offering a sacrifice in the church building is against Old Testament law, too, unless your church building is built right on a certain part of the temple while the temple is still standing. Unbelieving Jews who follow Judaism don't offer sacrifices there because they temple is not there.

When the temple was standing, Christians might have offered sacrifices. Some of those priests who were obedient to the faith might have. Paul went into the temple to pay the expenses of some men who had a Nazarite vow on them. They might have offered a sacrifice. Paul might have also been getting his own hair he started growing in Cencrea off in the temple, since he had made a vow.

The historical context is important in helping us understand why there is a difference between Old Testament and New Testament practices. The ritualistic requirements of the Old Testament were
specifically given to the nation of Israel, and are not applicable to the Church in the New Testament. This is so simply because the Church is not Israel. The Church is not a national but a spiritual body of Christ.
Moreoever, Christ has put an end to all the Old Testament sacrifices by His one-time Sacrifice on the cross. God’s administration of the Old Testament period is quite different from that of the New Testament. If we fail to see this, we run the risk of misunderstanding and misapplying God’s Word.

This is a sticky argument for the reasons I mentioned. But if you are going to take a dispensational approach, you shouldn't be able to just pull dispensations out of the air without any scripture to back them up, and just make up rules for each dispensation. Where does the Bible teach that we are no longer in the last days as described in Acts 2?

Hence, we should view Paul’s commandment, “Forbid not to speak in tongues,” in the same way, that is, in the light of its historical context.

Yes, written to a church in the same age we live in now, the age before Jesus comes back. At the beginning of this letter in which Paul addresses gifts, Paul writes,

"So that ye come behind in no spiritual gift, waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Given he said that, why would we expect the very spiritual gifts Paul would write about to cease before Jesus' return?

It was in AD 55 that Paul wrote this. At that time the gift of tongues was not rendered inoperative since it still served its purpose (cf, 1 Cor 14:21-22).

That's a strange choice of verse to use to argue this gift is not operative. There are still unbelievers and uninstructed people. And for those who try to make a point from Isaiah other than the one Paul made, there are still unbelieving Jews around, too.

So tongues should not be prohibited at that time.Also, Paul might have been afraid that the Corinthians would go to an extreme by putting a total stop to legitimate tongues-speaking. He had just spoken strongly against the confusion of tongues-speaking in the church, and might have anticipated a radical reaction on the part of the Corinthians. To protect those who truly had the gift, the command, “forbid not to speak in tongues,” was given.

There are still Christians who react to strongly against speaking in tongues and the scripture still speaks to them.

This injunction was applicable only to the apostolic period when the gift of tongues was still valid. We are no longer living in apostolic days. The ecclesiastical conditions of today are quite different from those in Paul’s day. Paul in 1Corinthians 13:8 said that tongues will cease, and they have indeed ceased a long time ago.

When the perfect comes, Paul's speech, thoughts, and understanding will be like an adult's, while before it comes, his speech knowledge and understanding is like a child's. Do you think your understanding of spiritual things is so much greater than the author's through whom the New Testament was written that they are like children by comparison to you in their understanding?

 

[presidente]

2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Notice, how written prophecy works, it includes interpretation as to what has been revealed in the old times. So when one prophesy, he indeed interprets the words of God not only as to foretell. However, the gift of foretelling has long been gone since the death of the Apostles.

You assume that prophesying means, or used to mean 'foretelling.' While looking at meanings of morphemes is helpful in understanding words. lexicographers (who write dictionaries) are more concerned with usage. The questions are how are words used and what do they mean to the users of those words?

Can you show me an example of Greek literature where a 'prophecy' referred to something other than a message (or other kind of communication) alledgedly from God or a god, the Spirit or spirits. Christian prophesying occurs when the Spirit moves a believer to say (or otherwise communicate) something.

Prophesying can be foretelling, and many prophecies were. The soldiers who beat Jesus may have spoken Greek. They said 'Prophesy to us, Christ, who is the one having struck You". They did not tell Him to predict who would hit them. In the Old Testament, prophesying is whatever God wants to say. It can be about the future, the present, or the past. Some prophecies are about the future. It doesn't have to be about the future to be prophesying. That is not the identifying characteristic of true prophesying. Genuine prophesying is communicating a message that is given by God, as carried along by the Holy Spirit.

God is not limited by your theology. If the Holy Spirit wants to give someone a message about the future, he may do so. I quoted Irenaeus a while back about how he wrote of prophesying, foreknowledge, tongues, and raising the dead among the brethren in his day, around 200 AD. I guess no one had told him and the church he was a part of that these gifts had ceased at that time, so they just kept functioning in them.

But Corinth believers is different. They wanted self- edification more than anything else as this is something abusive in desiring spiritual “gifts”.

I Corinthians does not say that they wanted self-edification more than anything else. You seem to be reading into the text. Some of them may have been extremely enthusiastic about tongues, and they may not have thought along the lines of Paul's argument that each individual who spoke in tongues without interpretation was only edifying himself.

Preaching the words of God is vital to church growth as Paul is saying. Personal gratification especially of gift of tongue is not what Paul really meant in his letters to the Corinth. It is to “prophesy”.

In most contexts in the New Testament, 'preaching' refers to activity that goes on outside the church, when the Gospel is proclaimed to unbelievers. The KJV uses 'preach' on one occasion to refer to a word from which we get the English 'dialogue' which is elsewhere also translated as 'disputed' or 'taught.' But generally the three Greek words translated 'preach' are generally used to refer to something done toward those who do not believe, and are generally used to refer to an activity that occurs outside of church.

One word translated preach is related to the English word for 'evangelism.' Evangelists are listed as a separate ministry from prophets in Ephesians 4. So are pastors and teachers. Teachers and prophets are different ministries in I Corinthians 12. Prophesying, teaching, and exhortation are different gifts in Romans 12. They are not all the same thing.

 

[presidente]

Good one for history where Christians were burned and tortured because they “…earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” Jude 1:3 that this faith has nothing to do with the exercise of the speaking of tongue.

The idea that prophesying or speaking in tongues died with the apostles is not part of the faith once delivered to the saints.

 

[VCO]

Excerpts from the book I read by Jeffrey Khoo:

Charismatics often use 1 Corinthians 14:39 against those who prohibit tongues-speaking today. The question we want to ask is: Have charismatics understood this Pauline injunction correctly? It is vital in
Bible interpretation that we take into careful consideration the historical context of a passage. If we do not, then we run the risk of doing things that the Lord no longer requires us to do. For example, the Old Testament has many commandments concerning animal sacrifices. Do we offer such sacrifices in the church today? If not, why not? Aren’t these sacrificial laws applicable also to God’s people today?

The historical context is important in helping us understand why there is a difference between Old Testament and New Testament practices. The ritualistic requirements of the Old Testament were
specifically given to the nation of Israel, and are not applicable to the Church in the New Testament. This is so simply because the Church is not Israel. The Church is not a national but a spiritual body of Christ.
Moreoever, Christ has put an end to all the Old Testament sacrifices by His one-time Sacrifice on the cross. God’s administration of the Old Testament period is quite different from that of the New Testament. If we fail to see this, we run the risk of misunderstanding and misapplying God’s Word.

Hence, we should view Paul’s commandment, “Forbid not to speak in tongues,” in the same way, that is, in the light of its historical context.

It was in AD 55 that Paul wrote this. At that time the gift of tongues was not rendered inoperative since it still served its purpose (cf, 1 Cor 14:21-22). So tongues should not be prohibited at that time.Also, Paul might have been afraid that the Corinthians would go to an extreme by putting a total stop to legitimate tongues-speaking. He had just spoken strongly against the confusion of tongues-speaking in the church, and might have anticipated a radical reaction on the part of the Corinthians. To protect those who truly had the gift, the command, “forbid not to speak in tongues,” was given. This injunction was applicable only to the apostolic period when the gift of tongues was still valid. We are no longer living in apostolic days. The ecclesiastical conditions of today are quite different from those in Paul’s day. Paul in 1Corinthians 13:8 said that tongues will cease, and they have indeed ceased a long time ago.

Jeffrey Khoo
Charismaticism Q & A
FEBCP pp39-40

Amen Brother!

That reminds me of my Sister-inlaw several years ago. She got hooked into the biggest Charismatic Church is her area, and soon was bragging up her pastor over and over again, every time we were around her. One day in the conversation she bragged "Well we are just a modern day Corinthian Church."; as she beamed with pride. I told her that may be true, but that was NOT something to be proud of, because they were the Church with the MOST PROBLEMS of any in the New Testament. Then one day the Pastor she had bragged up so much, left town unexpectedly. It was then discovered, he was guilty of misuse of Church Funds. A few weeks later it became known that the Music Director was involved in a homosexual relationship. Plus there plenty of divisions and clicks in the Church. YEP, they certainly were a Modern Day Corinthian Church.

 

[notuptome]

So you consider me an unbeliever because I actually believe what the New Testament teaches on a subject, a teaching you reject?

A true witness of the Spirit is not what leads a man to reject what the Spirit has revealed. You post foolishness.

I know there are many other gifts besides speaking in tongues, the topic of this thread. I have often pointed out the importance of prophecy, a gift Paul certain emphasized and taught believers to covet. You said that people seek prophecy because of a lack of faith. Paul says he that prophesies, to let him do so according to the proportion of faith. Paul says one thing, and you say another. You are so prejudiced against spiritual gifts that you contradict scripture.

Judging people as lacking faith for obeying the Bible is a bad thing.

You just don't care to understand so you cannot get to wisdom. The phrase fried a little hard on one side refers to being overly concerned about one thing to the exclusion of all others.

Three gifts ended according to 1 Cor 13:8.

1Co 12:31 But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.

What do you have against the more excellent way?

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[presidente]

You just don't care to understand so you cannot get to wisdom.

Your the one contradicting scripture.

The phrase fried a little hard on one side refers to being overly concerned about one thing to the exclusion of all others.

On this forum, you seem obsessed with arguing away three gifts of the Spirit. Is that your focus in life, or is that jus the topic of conversation?

Three gifts ended according to 1 Cor 13:8.

That which is in part WILL be done away according to the passage. I Corinthians 1:7 says to the Corinthian church and all Christians, 'So that ye come behind in no spiritual gift, waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.' If it were up to you, you'd do away with three of those gifts before Jesus comes back.

But it is notuptoyou.

1Co 12:31 But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.

What do you have against the more excellent way?

Let's pursue the more excellent way. But let's not create a false dichotomy. It's not gifts versus love. It's using gifts in love.

 

[notuptome]

Your the one contradicting scripture.



On this forum, you seem obsessed with arguing away three gifts of the Spirit. Is that your focus in life, or is that jus the topic of conversation?



That which is in part WILL be done away according to the passage. I Corinthians 1:7 says to the Corinthian church and all Christians, 'So that ye come behind in no spiritual gift, waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.' If it were up to you, you'd do away with three of those gifts before Jesus comes back.

But it is notuptoyou.



Let's pursue the more excellent way. But let's not create a false dichotomy. It's not gifts versus love. It's using gifts in love.

Well if the bible was limited to just three chapters in First Corinthians you would be in good shape.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[stonesoffire]

1Co 1:10　 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that


ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.　

Sounds to me like today. Denominations, following men.

1Co 1:17　 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.　

1Co 2:1　 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.　
1Co 2:2　 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.　
1Co 2:3　 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.　
1Co 2:4　 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:　
1Co 2:5　 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.　

Paul preached the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, and Holy Spirit through Paul shows the power of God through signs and wonders.

If no one was walking today in this power...I would agree that these things are over. But, is not the case no matter how much you all disagree. This is Gods works, not mans.

That's the point of the baptism of Holy Spirit. To show men that God has spoken...and continues to speak from Heaven through His Son.

 

[wolfwint]

~Isa 28:11　 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.　
Isa 28:12　 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is
the refreshing: yet they would not hear.

~
Heb 4:1　 Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us
of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.


Heb 4:10　 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.

How else can one do the works of God? Not just tongues, but all the gifts. I'm convinced one begins with language of Spirit. The new creation man is Spiritual, in the image of God.


　

　

Hi stonesoffire, where is it said that all christians have the gift of speaking in tongues? This is not said from the verses you quote.

 

[VCO]

You just don't care to understand so you cannot get to wisdom. The phrase fried a little hard on one side refers to being overly concerned about one thing to the exclusion of all others.

Three gifts ended according to 1 Cor 13:8.

1Co 12:31 But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.

What do you have against the more excellent way?

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Or could it it be that some are so busy trying to justify using their spiritual toys, that they need to put away their toys, in order to grow up spiritually?


1 Corinthians 13:11 (NKJV)
[SUP]11 [/SUP] When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

 

[Cee]

What if 1 Co 13:8 was about love, not the perfect canon of Scripture, like the context shows? Because if it's about Scripture, well then knowledge would have ceased, but we sure celebrate that today.

What if the Spirit of God is still alive and moving like He did in the Biblical times? This isn't even about tongues, that's not Paul's focus, his focus is love which prophesies to one another. But how many actually believe they can even hear His voice for themselves? Scripture itself teaches that those who are LEAD by the Spirit are sons of God. What if God doesn't want to just be in His book, but He wants to invade your life? Will you limit Him? Is it you who are Lord or Him? Maybe He wants to offend your natural mind because He wants you to believe He is actually really God. And you're not.

Even if you never speak in tongues, be open to the Spirit of God leading you. Christ Himself was lead by Him. And we are the Body of Christ. We have the same Spirit in us and He is our Teacher. Don't limit the Spirit of God in your life because religious tradition teaches it out of fear. You are not lead by fear, but by His love. Read His Scripture, but let His writings lead you to His heart and the reality of Him in your life.

 

[Cee]

Or could it it be that some are so busy trying to justify using their spiritual toys, that they need to put away their toys, in order to grow up spiritually?


1 Corinthians 13:11 (NKJV)
[SUP]11 [/SUP] When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

That's exactly what Paul is taking about, but he doesn't say put away your spiritual toys, he says grow up in love and then use spiritual gifts in love. That's why we seek prophesy, not just tongues.

1 Corinthians 14:1 ESV
Pursue love, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy.

 

[garee]

The incident at Pentecost was twofold. Hearing men declare the word of God (prophecy) in other languages confirmed the unbelief of the apostate Jew . Prophecy for those who heard to the salvation of their soul .God is no longer brining any new prophecy to confirm He was the witness. What we had in part up until the last verse in Revelation today we have the whole . There is no such thing a sign gifts .Signs are for those who believe not prophecy .It’s what the apostate Jew required a sign before they would believe. the cross their stumbling block. And God does not accept the witness of men .

 

[garee]

What if 1 Co 13:8 was about love, not the perfect canon of Scripture, like the context shows? Because if it's about Scripture, well then knowledge would have ceased, but we sure celebrate that today

Amen Yes we do .

I think that knowledge was new. No new prophecy, no new knowledge. To prophecy is simply to declare the existing word of God, the gospel of our salvation .We are not to go above that which is written and sealed till the end of time.
Why would a person need more that what he has revealed? Is there something missing by which we could know God more adequately?