Goal or Gateway ? Empowering of the Holy Spirit

A sign to the unbeliever because that the unbeliever will not believe but they will have no excuse.

You missed the point. (1) Tongues were a sign to unbelieving Jews, (2) speaking in tongues was to be limited to two or three only, (3) there would be no tongues unless there was an interpreter, (4) women were forbidden to speak in tongues, and (5) Paul would rather that they prophesied than spoke in tongues, since he would rather speak 5 intelligible words of prophecy than 10,000 words in tongues. All of this is clearly spelled out.

1) Please explain what sign to an unbelieving Jew even means. Not following you on that one.
He said it was a sign to the unbeliever and I think of when Jesus sent his disciples to heal and to say that the Kingdom of God has come nigh unto thee. Some would still not believe but it would be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that town. Tongues was prophesied but for all that they will not believe. So it is a sign to the unbeliever as a testimony that the prophesy proved that what God said came to pass but they still did not believe and will have no excuse on the day of judgment. Then he gives and example of prophesy and says an UNBELIEVER comes into the assembly and by the manifestation of the gift of prophesy has the secrets of his heart exposed and BELIEVES that God is in you of a truth. Now he was an UNBELIEVER and yet prophesy was used to cause him to BELIEVE. When people say that prophesy is for believers and tongues are for unbelievers they usually are confused as to what Paul was saying and as a result they say things that make no sense. So what do you mean Tongues are a sign for the unbelieving Jew?

2,3) I Agree with the interpretation that he told them to speak in tongues in the assembly taking turns two or three and only with the interpretation (Holy Spirit Gift of interpretation not a bilingual translator)

4) Women were not forbidden to speak in tongues. As a matter of fact he said FORBID NOT to speak in tongues. The statement that women were to be silent in the church was a direct connection to their asking questions out of order and they were told IN THAT CONTEXT to be silent in the church and ask their husbands at home.

5) Yes Paul said he would that they ALL spoke in tongues but that he would RATHER they prophesy. He explained how prophesy would edify others and tongues would edify oneself and only edify others when there was an interpreter therefore in the church it is better to prophesy unless there is an interpreter in which case tongues with an interpreter is also edifying others. It is clearly spelled out I agree.

He also said Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.

Maybe one day we can focus on this prophesy that he said we should covet. Are we still supposed to be coveting this gift? Do we ask God for it? What does it look like in the New Testament church?

1 Corinthians was not written to Jews. Where the idea that Tongues are a sign only to unbelieving Jews is not contextual. Speaking tongues is not limited to only two or three please read the full test in chapter 14. The idea that there will be no tongues without an interpreter is taking out of Context what Chapter 14 in 1cor really says. Women were not forbidden to speak in tongues that are interjected not what was said. You have greatly misrepresented the word of God lets look and see what is written not assumed, shall we?

Pursue love, and desire spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy. 2 For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries. 3 But he who prophesies speaks edification and exhortation and comfort to men. 4 He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church. 5 I wish you all spoke with tongues, but even more that you prophesied; for he who prophesies is greater than he who speaks with tongues, unless indeed he interprets, that the church may receive edification.

right here Paul says UNLess he interprets. Who is he? The one speaking in tongues.

But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you unless I speak to you either by revelation, by knowledge, by prophesying, or by teaching? 7 Even things without life, whether flute or harp, when they make a sound, unless they make a distinction in the sounds, how will it be known what is piped or played? 8 For if the trumpet makes an uncertain sound, who will prepare for battle? 9 So likewise you, unless you utter by the tongue words easy to understand, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air. 10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of languages in the world, and none of them is without significance. 11 Therefore, if I do not know the meaning of the language, I shall be a foreigner to him who speaks, and he who speaks will be a foreigner to me. 12 Even so you, since you are zealous for spiritual gifts, let it be for the edification of the church that you seek to excel.

13 Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful. 15 What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding. 16 Otherwise, if you bless with the spirit, how will he who occupies the place of the uninformed say “Amen” at your giving of thanks, since he does not understand what you say? 17 For you indeed give thanks well, but the other is not edified.

18 I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all; 19 yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue.

Nothing Paul said even suggested no tongues without an interpreter. That is not there. Paul said I " Rather " this was not a commandment by Lord Paul is saying I would love for you to or to desire, to wish as the Greek translation says.


20 Brethren, do not be children in understanding; however, in malice be babes, but in understanding be mature.

21 In the law it is written:

“With men of other tongues and other lips
I will speak to this people;
And yet, for all that, they will not hear Me,”

says the Lord.

22 Therefore tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophesying is not for unbelievers but for those who believe. 23 Therefore if the whole church comes together in one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those who are uninformed or unbelievers, will they not say that you are out of your mind? 24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an uninformed person comes in, he is convinced by all, he is convicted by all. 25 And thus the secrets of his heart are revealed; and so, falling down on his face, he will worship God and report that God is truly among you.


26 How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. 27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be two or at the most three, each in turn, and let one interpret. 28 But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God. 29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge. 30 But if anything is revealed to another who sits by, let the first keep silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged. 32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. 33 For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.


You have taken out of Context the whole chapter when you said

"Tongues were a sign to unbelieving Jews, (2) speaking in tongues was to be limited to two or three only, (3) there would be no tongues unless there was an interpreter, (4) women were forbidden to speak in tongues, and (5) Paul would rather that they prophesied than spoke in tongues, since he would rather speak 5 intelligible words of prophecy than 10,000 words in tongues. All of this is clearly spelled out"

1corintians was written to gentiles. The church at Corinth included some Jews (1Cor 7:18-19), but it was largely composed of Gentile converts (1Cor 6:9-11, 1Cor 8:7, 1Cor 12:2). Paul’s statement in 1Cor 1:26 makes clear that the majority of church members were socially humble (some were slaves: see 1Cor 7:21-23). you are incorrect about tongues only a sign to unbelieving Jews. 1corthians the whole letter says otherwise.

Tongues were not limited to only two or three that was in context to those who spoke out during the meeting they were told to verse 27 -28
27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be two or at the most three, each in turn, and let one interpret. 28 But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God.

"Let him speak to himself and God". You have taken that out of context too.
Paul said 39.Therefore, brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak with tongues.
40. Let all things be done decently and in order.

There you go. the full and complete context, not bias, not a half this or that. ALL Bible.

No, I do believe that it is, based off many things. I may have posted on it on this site before, if so, it's out there to read. I drew attention to that to bring up the distinction in the "how" and purpose, which you filled in a tiny piece on the puzzle for me. I was aware there was a distinction, but couldn't quite pinpoint it and it was a cool feeling the Lord probably working that way. At times it is frustrating that I can't see it all on my own "working out my own salvation" but of course, he made the body (church) for a reason.

But my main concern on this site when interacting with your post is that the Lord will not do any miracles by the power of his Spirit poured unto believers in his name. Debate can be had about it, but I do think it is reasonable to leave the door open for the Lord to work if he so chooses in such a way.

Nothing I have read leads me to believe miracles cannot occur in this present time, but rather their "purpose" is different than Revelation 11, which we could discuss...but it is enough for me to know that "that" particular purpose will be carried out yet in the future but that the present purpose the Lord is moving in doesn't necessarily preclude mighty works prior to that time and after the time of the Apostles. Plain (clear) enough?

Yes there is a time to move and a time to wait and learning how to wait on the Lord being human is not easy we are used to getting things soon or right now the society we live in with the way everything has advanced has without even realizing it limited our patience metere we hate waiting even when my wifi is screwing up and I cannot seem to reply on cc I find myself rapidly clicking the screen even though it takes only a moment to load the screen back.

But I want to learn to love waiting on the Lord, I think there is something more to it simply being patent and waiting I think there is a hidden blessing to it though I cannot think of what it is right now but David loved waiting on the Lord he found joy in it. Not simply being happy but joy and I want to learn what this joy was .

And as for your similar experiences I think that bellievers are given gifts kind of in the same way of how everyone can have similar personalities but not quite the same. The flow of the spirit even seems to flow differently and at different levels with different people. I think what happens with me suddenly being overwhelmed by suddenly feeling and knowing what a person is going through and even bawling as if I feel their pain is called intersession I could be wrong of course but that word seems right to me. As I grew in Christ and learned more about myself I learned I am a person of emotion sensing feeling and bonds, I seem to be able to sometimes know and feel what a person feels or goes through, the first example I learned of this was when I found I had a talent for writing and went to a free poetry site on mothers day and wrote a mothers day poem.
I described all the things mom feels and goes through with their child as if I myself was going through them at that moment I somehow just knew and could feel it all and many moms messaged me on that site explaining how it made them cry and how I knew exactly what it is like to be a mom and all the hidden feelings inside. This is called empathy I believe but only in coming to Christ was this gift actually given to me and to a much deepepr degree, I don't know what it is called in the spiritual realm though but I think empathy doesn't really describe it.

Well that is your interpretation. Paul also said to NOT forbid speaking in tongues which is basically what you and several others here have in mind as you have indicated by only quoting what you think supports your views.

Paul was correcting a church that was out of order and not just with regards to tongues. You also conveniently ignore praying in tongues which probably most of us who do speak in tongues, do. I am not uncomfortable with your view; the problem begins when you try to say you are right and then post half a truth or twist the truth.

This one is in a class all by itself for the fact this is sheer fabrication. I would say give us the verse but we both know there is none.

Your views on women are just stellar, especially considering what you said about rape basically being women's fault in another thread.

Well said

@ Scribe


He would prefer you forgot it too.

Oh... I remember that comment..... Also as for his comment about women being forbidden to speak in tongues... I have not seen that anywhere in scripture, I have seen the commonly used quote of Paul saying he would not have women speak over man but nowhere have I seen this forbidding of women speaking in tongues

It does not exist Blain. Nehemiah likes to complain about folks taking license with scripture but as with all those who deny the subject of tongues as presented in scripture, he is fine doing it himself. His view on women does not line up with scripture from what I have seen so far. The way some men seem to think about women, I wonder God bothered to give us brains at all. LOL!

And of course there is the ever popular Eve was deceived so all women for all time are also deceived. Men being completely unable to be deceived of course.

I certainly hope he doesn't have that kind of mentality towards women that borders on being sexist. If I was in the presence of men with that kind of view and they spoke like this you can bet I would not hesitate to set them straight there are two things I absolutely cannot stand and that is racism and that kind of view towards women it is just one of those few things that will infuriate me and it takes a lot to make me mad I am a meek patient person so I am not prone to anger but when I do get angry I am angry so much so it kind of scares me.
But when it comes to righteous anger like defedning others their is a fire that you don't want to test because I will not hesitate to set you straight

That was for that time. But Paul also said that tongues would cease, and cease they did (until the 20th century, when modern tongues manifested themselves).
So if tongues were not being manifested for about 1800 years, it is consistent with the fact that tongues (a sign to unbelieving Jews) would cease. The Gospel went primarily to Gentiles after the first century.

no Paul did not say they ceased. Paul said they will cease as will knowledge that has not to happen yet. The modern tongue is a new concept created by those who are cessationists. You continue to take out of context 1cor chapters 12 to 14 as you were shown you were incorrect about it being written only unbelieving jews.

Your post is erroneous and exemplifies a personal opinion. I know that proof of people speaking in tongues through the ages has been provided. Many besides Jews spoke in tongues. Something else you CHOOSE to ignore because it does not support your opinion.

Well, blaming women for being raped is indicative of a certain attitude towards women. It certainly cannot be supported by scripture.

Let us follow that logic of few instances of tongues in church history:
There are instances of reported tongues in church history. There infrequency matches the decline and apostasy of the visible church. It stands to reason that few instances of speaking in tongues would be heard of when there were few genuine conversions by faith alone going on. At a time when it was taught one must be saved by observance of the Ecclesiastical system invented by wicked men who were using the religion of Christianity to rule people and adding their own ideas about salvation. Few born again experiences during the dark ages matches the few tongues reports. That does not make being born again a false teaching.

When the reformation started in the 1400s there had been over 1000 years of darkness. That which is perfect had not come when Revelation was completed but that which is false called the Roman Catholic Church and its various branches were in full swing within 500 years. After the reformation it took time to rediscover and put faith in the scriptures as they had been kept from the laity for so long. As people began to read about the gifts of the Spirit they asked in faith and began receiving them once again.

If they had asked for them at anytime during the 1800 years you are referring to they would have received them (and some did) but they did not have access to the scriptures and were not allowed to interpret them. The stages in church history when these gifts were not known matches perfectly the stages in church history when people could not study the word of God for themselves. The reformers were focused on soteriology and combating the the errors of the Roman Catholic Church it took time to focus on other areas of scripture but inevitably it would be rediscovered since it was in the scriptures to discover. And it was. And we are living it.

The length of time it was not as popular as it is today does not prove it is not authentic anymore than the length of time being born again, and salvation by faith alone was not popular as it is today makes the reformation not authentic.

Tongues will cease when that which is perfect is come. The completion of the bible did not bring us face to face with Christ. Within 500 years the church was apostate with the false teachings of the RCC and it got even darker, that is why they call it the dark ages. That which is perfect is come is when we are perfect post resurrection. Since Jesus has not come back yet and we are not seeing him face to face with glorified bodies and knowing as we are known instead of knowing in part, then tongues has not ceased. It is very clearly spelled out in 1 cor 13. The only thing that needs explanation to most people upon first reading is the definition of "looking in a glass darkly" which is explained in the text "knowing in part" the rest of it is pretty intuitive comprehension as long as the context of chapter 12 and 14 is read along with chapter 13. It becomes obvious that the gift of the word of knowledge is what he is referring to when he says knowledge shall vanish. Certainly we will have knowledge in eternity.

Exodus 4, 1 Kings 18:36-39 and John 10 all explained what signs to unbelieving Jews meant.

I will just quote the last passage

24 Then the Jews surrounded Him and said to Him, “How long do You keep us in [d]doubt? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly.”

25 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father’s name, they bear witness of Me.

31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. 32 Jesus answered them, “Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?”

33 The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.”

34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods” ’? 35 If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36 do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? 37 If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; 38 but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and [f]believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him.”

That is what signs for unbelieving Jews meant, from scripture. A Jew requires signs, and is unwilling to believe you by faith. You show him signs that you are sent by God, so that they can believe those signs, and believe you are sent by God.