A Distinction Between Tongues

If that were the case, why will the nation be restored to salvation due to the fulness of the Gentiles coming in?

If rejecting Christ were the same as speaking blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, then how could Paul have been forgiven? Didn't he reject Christ and the Gospel?

It is up to the Lord what 'level' of miracles he grants.

Paul was the first member of the Body of Christ. He was saved under the dispensation of grace, which has no more unforgivable sin

1 Timothy 1
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

16 Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.

He was saved to signal to all Jews, and now Gentiles, that there is a new grace dispensation in the midst of the darkest hour in Acts, the stoning of Stephen.

Yes, so we are saying to you that, the level of miracles in terms of "signs and wonders" are no longer present now.

But come the Tribulation, the world will be seeing them again, Rev 11

3 And I will appoint my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for 1,260 days, clothed in sackcloth.” 4 They are “the two olive trees” and the two lampstands, and “they stand before the Lord of the earth.”[a] 5 If anyone tries to harm them, fire comes from their mouths and devours their enemies. This is how anyone who wants to harm them must die. 6 They have power to shut up the heavens so that it will not rain during the time they are prophesying; and they have power to turn the waters into blood and to strike the earth with every kind of plague as often as they want.

During this time, no one who claims to do miracles can present these type of miracles. These are the Acts type of miracles that we are talking about.

They will be activated only in the future.

To make it easier for you to understand, the nation has already rejected the Son in the 4 Gospels, they nailed him on the cross.

But that is still forgivable because there was still the Holy Spirit to be sent to give the nation a final chance to accept the Gospel of the Kingdom.

The Holy Spirit was poured out to Israel at Pentecost from Acts 2.

But the nation still chose to stone Stephen. That marked the final rejection of the final member of the Godhead, the Trinity. Israel rejected God the Father in the OT, they rejected God the Son in the 4 Gospels, now they have signaled their rejection of the Holy Spirit in Acts 7.

Its all clear once you realized this was sequence the NT was written.

Just so you will understand, blaspheming the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven.

Matthew 12
31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

If rejecting Jesus and stoning Stephen were the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, then Paul's sins could not have been forgiven. That contradicts what he wrote in scripture. Also, if the whole nation were guilty of the unforgivable sin, then Paul evangelizing Jewish people in the synagogues later would have been in vain.

Rejection is not the unforgivable sin. What were the blasphemous words that the nation of Israel spoke against the Holy Spirit. I know there is some collective guilt for certain things in the Old Testament, for allowing sin in the camp and thing like that. But how can blasphemy be a collective sin if the nation doesn't speak the blasphemy? I'm not saying Jews didn't blaspheme. Paul blasphemed. But speaking a word against the Son of Man is forgivable.

Look in Matthew 12. They were saying that the Spirit by which Jesus cast out demons was Beelzebub. We may not say such things about the Holy Spirit.

I think it is clearer that this is not the case if we look up 'blasphemy' in the dictionary or look at the alternate wording Jesus used-- speaketh a word against Him.

And Jews can be saved, too, through faith in Christ. That would not be the case if they had all committed the unpardonable sin, would it?

You are making stuff up now. That is not consistent with what Jesus said. He said there would be no forgiveness in 'the age to come.' I don't see how the use of 'age' in the New Testament would be consistent with the idea that the coming age happened at the ascension. I see that as happening at the return of Christ.

But even if post-ascension were 'the age to come' and we are in it now, Jesus said that sin would not be forgiven in 'the age to come' either, so I don't see how you have a point.

There is no logical or linguistic connection to the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit here. And why would a new age start after the stoning of Stephen? Your just reading ideas into scripture that aren't really even hinted at.

I didn't read about the apostles shutting up the heavens and calling down fire in the gospels or Acts. Jesus corrected James and John for wanting to call down fire on the Samaritans. But the cup may not have been full at that time.

As far as the idea that no one will do apostolic-style signs and wonders in modern times, there is no Biblical support for that idea at all, and there have been plenty of accounts throughout history of Christians-- sometimes missionaries-- performing some pretty spectacular miracles.

Okay I see you understand the book of Acts differently, which is understandable. Cheers.

Btw, the age to come that Jesus was saying, refers to the Tribulation, where if a believer takes the mark of the beast, he won't be forgiven. (Rev 14:11-12)

I can see you don't classify signs and wonders as different from the current "miracles" we see today. Okay, we can agree to disagree.

Does it make sense to say 'this age nor in the age to come' to mean that there will be ages between the present one and the age to come you speak of? That seems rather counter-intuitive and requires basing doctrine on wild speculation.

I do not see a detailed break down of what each type of supernatural act is. There is a Greek word that is translated as either 'sign' or 'miracle.' I would imagine wonders make people wonder.

But I think it is presumptions to declare that God will not do the types of things He did in the past if He has not revealed that He will not.

He actually did, thru Paul in 1 Corinthians 13 and 14. But if you want to reject that, you can assume its talking about the 2nd coming of Jesus when it comes to the term "perfect".

Either way, its not something that is critical to salvation so we can have different views on this, cheers.

Think of the grace dispensation period, that is now, as an interruption to the OT divine timetable.

Recall Peter quoted Joel in Acts 2, he view the Tribulation as beginning at Acts 2. Based on the timetable, once Israel did their final rejection of the Holy Spirit by stoning Stephen, the Tribulation was suppose to begin immediately.

But God the Father interrupted that timetable with the grace dispensation which was a mystery hidden in him, from the foundation of the world (Ephesians 3:9).

Scripture is full of evidence that the Jews need signs and wonders to prove that you are from God. Here are some examples

Luke 11:16, John 2:18, John 4:48, John 6:30, 1 Corinthians 1:22.

First of all, there is nothing in that passage about signs and wonders ceasing. It is strange that you would assume that since the topic is not even discussed in that passage. The passage should be interpreted consistent with I Corinthians 1:7 So that ye come behind in no spiritual gift, waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Paul also associated being perfect with his own resurrection in Philippians and Paul's understanding when he wrote I Corinthians will be like a child's in comparison to his understanding after the perfect comes, according to I Corinthians 13.

How does this prove your point? Acts 15:12 tells us that Paul and Barnabas told of the signs and wonders they did among the Gentiles. Paul did signs and wonders from Jerusalem to Illyricum.

How could it be 'supposed to begin immediately' if the Father had a different plan? Supposed to be according to whom?

We live in the last days. Peter lived in the last days, too. We are in the same time period. If you base your doctrine on some kind of dispensational chart, that chart wasn't originally in the Bible. The apostles did not draw it and draw in all your categories.

You must understand the the present grace dispensation we are living in now, was a mystery hidden in God until the ascended Christ reveal to Paul.

It was not to be found in the OT anywhere. So naturally Peter and the others were not aware of it during Acts 2.

Yes the signs and wonders were to convince the Jews that Paul was a legitimate apostle, equal to the other 12, and his new gospel of grace was similarly authenticated by God. Recall Acts 15:12

12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.

Signs and wonders were critical in the decision at the end of Acts 15, that the gospel of the uncircumcision, preached to the gentiles, was as legitimate as the gospel of the circumcision.