Tongues Again???
- Thread starter 88
- Start date
-
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.
I have a simple suggestion for you, to make your posts easier to follow, using that format you came up with. Reading through your post above, I was having great difficulty figuring out who was speaking on each of those lines even though you had the names there, but not in bold. Adding the two colors to the BOLD NAMES, made it even easier for me to follow.
Just a suggestions, keep up the good work.
I see want is confusing you, Tongues is a SIGN and not a Gift. There are no Signs mingled amongst the gifts listed in Rom 12 list of Gifts. Whereas the Corinthians were confusing the Signs as Gifts, leading them to fall for counterfeit signs. You have confused them as being the same thing too, apparently. The Miracle Signs were for the APOSTLES, it SAYS SO. The Gifts were for the Church. They are NOT THE SAME THING. Yes there were Apostles (not of the 12), in Corinth. One who had actually seen the Resurrected Christ, was eligible for the position of Apostle, and the twelve were called Super Apostles. The fact that there were Apostles living in Corinth and speaking to Jews, made it important to have the Miracle SIGNS present for a while, which INCLUDE TONGUES with unbelieving JEWS hearing in their own dialektos.
A lot of Church Members in Corinth were not Jews, and used to be involved in the primary Corinthian Religion, the Worship of Apollo, where they had learned to speak in tongues there too, but NO ONE was hearing them in their own dialektos, because they were just Ecstatic Utterances. They became Christians, and apparently said, OH WE CAN DO THAT TOO. HENCE THE CONFUSION of Charismatic style of ectstatic tongues was imported into the Church. If I have correctly identified on the map, where the Corinthian Church was meeting, (via Acts 18, Historians, and Archaeologists); the Church at Corinth was meeting LESS THEN TWO BLOCKS from the two largest Worship of APOLLO Centers in the City; and a third small one was 4 blocks away.
SIGNS were a TOOL for the Apostles to Confirm the N.T., and to reach unbelieving JEWS, and they were PROOF OF APOSTLESHIP, and therefore, Tongues not intended for other Believers:
Acts 1:22 (HCSB)
[SUP]22 [/SUP] beginning from the baptism of John until the day He was taken up from us—from among these, it is necessary that one become a witness with us of His resurrection.”
2 Corinthians 12:11-12 (HCSB)
[SUP]11 [/SUP] I have become a fool; you forced it on me. I should have been endorsed by you, since I am not in any way inferior to the “super-apostles,” even though I am nothing.
[SUP]12 [/SUP] The signs of an apostle were performed with great endurance among you—not only signs but also wonders and miracles.
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 (ESV)
[SUP]22 [/SUP] Thus tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is a sign not for unbelievers but for believers.
Even Paul could not Heal Timothy later on, because the Time for Confirming SIGNS, came to an end. In fact Paul just told Timothy to:
1 Timothy 5:23 (NRSV)
[SUP]23 [/SUP] No longer drink only water, but take a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments.
That is a common household remedy, therefore it is evidence that Paul's ability to do the Sign of Miraculous Healings had already come to an end.
VCO wrote,
Can a gift be a sign? Look at the words 'gift', 'gifts' and 'give'.
This Philip was one of the seven chosen by the church and appointed by the apostles to feed the widows.
Acts 8
6 And the crowds with one accord paid attention to what was being said by Philip when they heard him and saw the signs that he did. (ESV)
He was NOT one of the 12. But he performed signs.
See also the signs Stephen did.
Jesus called casting out demons in His name a sign/miracle after the disciples had rebuked those who followed not with them for casting out demons in His name. So even before the crucifixion, there were people other than the apostles doing signs in his name.
I think I see what is going on here with VCO. He quotes verses that he reads his ideas into, and thinks he is proving his case. Actually, he is eisegeting ideas into the text.
Why do cessationist arguments rely on such things as reading 'only' into texts where it is not written (that only apostles could perform signs), pr reading false dichotomies into the text (e.g. that a gift can't be a sign.)
No it doesn't.
garee is saying signs are for unbelievers. VCO is saying they are for the apostles. The Bible never says signs are only for unbelievers. I can show examples that disprove that. I have showed examples that disprove the theory that only apostles do signs.
Doesn't anyone get out a Strong's concordance or run their references using online resources before making these pronouncements. SMH.
No, the Bible never calls the Twelve the super apostles. 'Super apostles' shows up in II Corinthians 10 where Paul deals with the issue of false apostles. 'Super apostles' seems to be sarcasm, for lack of a better term.
And one had to have seen the risen Christ, and, according to Peter, have been with the other eleven from the baptism of John to be one of the 12. We don't know if other apostles like Barnabas ever saw the risen Christ. It wasn't listed as an requirement for anything except replacing Judas as one of the twelve, not for being in the wider category of apostles.
The Gifts were for the Church. They are NOT THE SAME THING. Yes there were Apostles (not of the 12), in Corinth. One who had actually seen the Resurrected Christ, was eligible for the position of Apostle, and the twelve were called Super Apostles.
2 Corinthians 12:11-12 (HCSB)
11 I have become a fool; you forced it on me. I should have been endorsed by you, since I am not in any way inferior to the “super-apostles,” even though I am nothing.
12 The signs of an apostle were performed with great endurance among you—not only signs but also wonders and miracles.
About 'super apostles', it helps to read the context. Paul isn't writing about the twelve in these chapters.
Verse 12 does not say that only apostles perform signs. A more straightforward translations says that the signs of an apostle were performed among you with signs, wonders....
I've read different explanations for why signs is mentioned twice there. One author suggested that the signs of an apostle were the sufferings described in the passage. I've also heard the explanation that there are especially spectacular signs that apostles may have done, beyond what other believers did.
Whatever the case, we see other people doing signs in scripture. Certain prophets in the Old Testament gave signs. Gabriel gave a sign. The angel who spoke to the shepherds gave a sign. Jesus did signs. The men casting out demons in Jesus' name that the apostles told to stop before Jesus corrected the disciples for saying that, performed a sign (casting out demons in Jesus' name.) And Philip the evangelist, one of the seven, performed signs. Stephen, one of the seven, performed wonders and signs according to Acts 6:8.
In Galatians, Paul wrote of an infirmity he had that had something to do with his spending time with the Galatians earlier. He believed they would have plucked out their own eyes and given them to him. He may have had an eye ailment. The first missionary journey churches that weren't on Cyprus were probably the 'Galatia' churches, but he was in Galatia at least by Acts 16, which mentions his going to the province.
So Paul had a sickness early on, before he did the great miracles in Ephesus and before all the sick brought to him were healed on Malta, which occurs late in Acts.
If Paul didn't just instantly heal himself early on in his ministry, that isn't proof that the time of signs and come to an end. He did even greater signs and miracles later, extraordinary ones, by the grace of God. Paul telling Timothy to drink some wine for his stomach's sake is not evidence of Paul not being able to do signs.
The reasons someone would read the idea into II Corinthians 12 that only apostles could do signs are 1) He really wants signs to only be for the apostles for some reason, and 2) He hasn't studied the issue out in the Bible.
The reason someone would read the verse about a little wine for the stomach's sake and interpret it to mean signs had ended is because he really wants to believe that. It is not a legitimate conclusion from the text.
VCO has me on ignore after I went through scripture and pointed out other mistakes in his posts. Feel free to point out the contradictions between his posts and what scripture says that I have pointed out here.
So full of error and mistakes. Let's break this down.
Can a gift be a sign? Look at the words 'gift', 'gifts' and 'give'.
Tongues is a gift. Paul also says that tongues are for a sign to them that believe not. The Bible never says a gift can't be a sign. The Bible never says that signs were only for apostles or only done by apostles.
This Philip was one of the seven chosen by the church and appointed by the apostles to feed the widows.
Acts 8
6 And the crowds with one accord paid attention to what was being said by Philip when they heard him and saw the signs that he did. (ESV)
He was NOT one of the 12. But he performed signs.
See also the signs Stephen did.
Jesus called casting out demons in His name a sign/miracle after the disciples had rebuked those who followed not with them for casting out demons in His name. So even before the crucifixion, there were people other than the apostles doing signs in his name.
I think I see what is going on here with VCO. He quotes verses that he reads his ideas into, and thinks he is proving his case. Actually, he is eisegeting ideas into the text.
Why do cessationist arguments rely on such things as reading 'only' into texts where it is not written (that only apostles could perform signs), pr reading false dichotomies into the text (e.g. that a gift can't be a sign.)
No it doesn't.
garee is saying signs are for unbelievers. VCO is saying they are for the apostles. The Bible never says signs are only for unbelievers. I can show examples that disprove that. I have showed examples that disprove the theory that only apostles do signs.
Doesn't anyone get out a Strong's concordance or run their references using online resources before making these pronouncements. SMH.
No, the Bible never calls the Twelve the super apostles. 'Super apostles' shows up in II Corinthians 10 where Paul deals with the issue of false apostles. 'Super apostles' seems to be sarcasm, for lack of a better term.
And one had to have seen the risen Christ, and, according to Peter, have been with the other eleven from the baptism of John to be one of the 12. We don't know if other apostles like Barnabas ever saw the risen Christ. It wasn't listed as an requirement for anything except replacing Judas as one of the twelve, not for being in the wider category of apostles.
The Gifts were for the Church. They are NOT THE SAME THING. Yes there were Apostles (not of the 12), in Corinth. One who had actually seen the Resurrected Christ, was eligible for the position of Apostle, and the twelve were called Super Apostles.
2 Corinthians 12:11-12 (HCSB)
11 I have become a fool; you forced it on me. I should have been endorsed by you, since I am not in any way inferior to the “super-apostles,” even though I am nothing.
12 The signs of an apostle were performed with great endurance among you—not only signs but also wonders and miracles.
About 'super apostles', it helps to read the context. Paul isn't writing about the twelve in these chapters.
Verse 12 does not say that only apostles perform signs. A more straightforward translations says that the signs of an apostle were performed among you with signs, wonders....
I've read different explanations for why signs is mentioned twice there. One author suggested that the signs of an apostle were the sufferings described in the passage. I've also heard the explanation that there are especially spectacular signs that apostles may have done, beyond what other believers did.
Whatever the case, we see other people doing signs in scripture. Certain prophets in the Old Testament gave signs. Gabriel gave a sign. The angel who spoke to the shepherds gave a sign. Jesus did signs. The men casting out demons in Jesus' name that the apostles told to stop before Jesus corrected the disciples for saying that, performed a sign (casting out demons in Jesus' name.) And Philip the evangelist, one of the seven, performed signs. Stephen, one of the seven, performed wonders and signs according to Acts 6:8.
Lame argument.
In Galatians, Paul wrote of an infirmity he had that had something to do with his spending time with the Galatians earlier. He believed they would have plucked out their own eyes and given them to him. He may have had an eye ailment. The first missionary journey churches that weren't on Cyprus were probably the 'Galatia' churches, but he was in Galatia at least by Acts 16, which mentions his going to the province.
So Paul had a sickness early on, before he did the great miracles in Ephesus and before all the sick brought to him were healed on Malta, which occurs late in Acts.
If Paul didn't just instantly heal himself early on in his ministry, that isn't proof that the time of signs and come to an end. He did even greater signs and miracles later, extraordinary ones, by the grace of God. Paul telling Timothy to drink some wine for his stomach's sake is not evidence of Paul not being able to do signs.
The reasons someone would read the idea into II Corinthians 12 that only apostles could do signs are 1) He really wants signs to only be for the apostles for some reason, and 2) He hasn't studied the issue out in the Bible.
The reason someone would read the verse about a little wine for the stomach's sake and interpret it to mean signs had ended is because he really wants to believe that. It is not a legitimate conclusion from the text.
VCO has me on ignore after I went through scripture and pointed out other mistakes in his posts. Feel free to point out the contradictions between his posts and what scripture says that I have pointed out here.
Last edited:
VCO wrote,
This is a liberal approach to scripture, the type that relies on a low view of scripture. I Corinthians never hints at fake tongues in the church. If we learned about mythology and world history in high school, we know the ancient Greeks had temples to those false gods. The presence of Apollos temples in Corinth doesn't prove the fake speaking in tongues theory. Has anyone shown VCO the link to the website that first century Plutarch argued that the oracle of Apollo at Delphi could speak in straight forward language and did not have to speak in poetry? Where is the evidence for gibberish? A Christian described her prophecies as 'madness.' There were legends about people not being able to decipher it, but we are talking about either poetry or prose in the first century, and way back when Herodotus wrote that it was a certain meter of poetry.
This is theory, but it does not line up with scripture. How about if we look at actual specific verses on the subject, like the list of gifts/manifestations of the Spirit given to members of the body for the common good. Tongues is in that list. We see in I Corinthians 14 that tongues and interpretation edify the body. Why doesn't VCO deal with the specifics that contradict his viewpoint? Is this intellectually honest? Is there some intellectual self-deception? Has he just not read any replies? Has he ever sat down and read I Corinthians, instead of just picking out a verse here or there?
This is a liberal approach to scripture, the type that relies on a low view of scripture. I Corinthians never hints at fake tongues in the church. If we learned about mythology and world history in high school, we know the ancient Greeks had temples to those false gods. The presence of Apollos temples in Corinth doesn't prove the fake speaking in tongues theory. Has anyone shown VCO the link to the website that first century Plutarch argued that the oracle of Apollo at Delphi could speak in straight forward language and did not have to speak in poetry? Where is the evidence for gibberish? A Christian described her prophecies as 'madness.' There were legends about people not being able to decipher it, but we are talking about either poetry or prose in the first century, and way back when Herodotus wrote that it was a certain meter of poetry.
This is theory, but it does not line up with scripture. How about if we look at actual specific verses on the subject, like the list of gifts/manifestations of the Spirit given to members of the body for the common good. Tongues is in that list. We see in I Corinthians 14 that tongues and interpretation edify the body. Why doesn't VCO deal with the specifics that contradict his viewpoint? Is this intellectually honest? Is there some intellectual self-deception? Has he just not read any replies? Has he ever sat down and read I Corinthians, instead of just picking out a verse here or there?
I left out some quote marks. The part about tongues being a gift and not a sign are VCO's words, not mine. Divers tongues are a gift. Tongues are for a sign, too. There is no contradiction there.
Personally, I don't think anyone can understand until they experience Holy Spirit. He is not just words on paper.
Hi presidente, I agree with you regarding tongues as gift and as sign. As gift we find in 1.cor. 12+14; As sign we find it at least in Acts, 2,8,10 and 19 to show to the jews that it comes what Joel said (Joel 2) and to show that gentiles, samaritians and the followers of John the baptist are also benefit with the gospel. Because through the speaking in tongues they could see that it is the same baptism with the Holy Spirit as it was on pentecost.
what about the miracles and healings: from the scripture in acts I can only read healings and miracles in connections with the apostels and second in "mission situation" and the people came to them!
Yes, it is right that we find gifts like healing and doing miracles in the gift list in 1. Corinthians. But dont ask me why this must stopped after the apostolic time in the church.
F.e. in acts we read that all who came to the apostels where healed. Today and in the churchhisory we have no example for that. If this would be today too, i expect the same result, otherwise it would be a weak witness for the Lord!
Do you can tell me any healing meeting where everybody who came for healing was healed?
Healing in the church I see as task from the eldest of the church, according James 5.
In missionsituation, where the gospel is preached we hear that the Lord is doing miracles and give healings. But also not always. Its according the Lord wants. We have simply to note, that we live not in the apostolic time. And the most christians who claim to be christians are only nominell christians. (I can speak for germany, where are maximum 2% are count born again).
I'm a little slow on the uptake at times, but eventually the Lord will catch me up as to what is going on here.
So am posting these doctrines..
~DISTINCTIVE DOCTRINES TAUGHT BY STANDARD FULL PRETERISM
(under construction)
So am posting these doctrines..
~DISTINCTIVE DOCTRINES TAUGHT BY STANDARD FULL PRETERISM
- All Bible Prophecy was Fulfilled By AD70
- Atonement Incomplete at Cross ; Complete at AD70
- The Supernatural Power of Evil Ended in AD70
- The Spirit of Antichrist was Destroyed in AD70
- "The Consummation of the Ages" Came in AD70
- "The Millennium" is in the Past, From AD30 to AD70
- Nothing to be Resurrected From in Post AD70 World ; Hades Destroyed
- The Christian Age Began in AD70 ; Earth Will Never End
- "The Day of the Lord" was Israel's Destruction ending in AD70
- The "Second Coming" of Jesus Christ Took Place in AD70-ish
- The Great Judgment took place in AD70 ; No Future Judgment
- The Law, Death, Sin, Devil, Hades, etc. Utterly Defeated in AD70
- "The Resurrection" of the Dead and Living is Past, Having Taken Place in AD70
- The Context of the Entire Bible is Pre-AD70 ; Not Written To Post AD70 World
(under construction)
- Baptism was for Pre-AD70 Era (Cessationism)
- The Lord's Prayer was for Pre-AD70 Era (Cessationism)
- The Lord's Supper was for Pre-AD70 Era (Cessationism)
- The Holy Spirit's Paraclete Work Ceased in AD70 (Cessationism)
- The Consummation in AD70 Caused Church Offices to Cease (Cessationism)
- The Resurrection in AD70 Changed the "Constitutional Principle" of Marriage (Noyesism)
- Israel and Humanity Delivered into Ultimate Liberty in AD70 (TransmillennialismTM)
- The Judgment in AD70 Reconciled All of Mankind to God ; All Saved (Preterist Universalism)
- Adam's Sin No Longer Imputed in Post AD70 World ; No Need to be Born Again (Preterist Universalism)
- When Jesus Delivered the Kingdom to the Father in AD70, He Ceased Being The Intermediary (Pantelism/Comprehensive Grace?)
- The Book of Genesis is an Apocalypse; is About Creation of First Covenant Man, not First Historical Man (Covenantal Preterism)
Presidente:This is theory, but it does not line up with scripture. How about if we look at actual specific verses on the subject, like the list of gifts/manifestations of the Spirit given to members of the body for the common good. Tongues is in that list. We see in I Corinthians 14 that tongues and interpretation edify the body. Why doesn't VCO deal with the specifics that contradict his viewpoint? Is this intellectually honest? Is there some intellectual self-deception? Has he just not read any replies? Has he ever sat down and read I Corinthians, instead of just picking out a verse here or there?
Wolf: Of course we can not deny 1. Cor. 14, no question! And i believe it was so!
I dont know the origin of the charismatics in detail, but the beginning of pentecostal movement. Before this
movement arose in 1901 speaking in tongues was no big deal. We found it in sects like mormons, Irvingians (later new
apostolic church) We found it also in heratical movements (like Montanists) from the 2nd century and later. But we
cant find this as practise in any church.
And then a doctrine arose which teached an expierince which the bible not taught! 2nd baptism and as proof for that
speaking in tongues.
From this time on we find the so called "sign gifts" again in the church. The origin movement from azusa Street
derivates in many denominations and partly also with different doctrines. And in between through the charismatic
movements much more doctrines and teachings came till today. But i would say the spirit behind is the same. And all
are created doctrines which are not based on the scripture.
Them I should trust?
Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
Perhaps you can explain it to Jesus as it appears He has it wrong.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Just noticed your flag. Somethings I don't look at close enough. Disregard the question please.
