Are you translating what the preacher says into another language? Just curious...
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.
Are you translating what the preacher says into another language? Just curious...
Does that translate to how much you embellish what was said? Only God would know if what you translated was what was said.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
There are many denominations of Christian protestants like the pentecostals and charismatics that are based on works by the holy spirit. I being raised pentecostal have witnessed miracles, prophecies, and testimony of visions. Even heard prophecies that the person would later then take back what he said bc it wasn't meant to be or admis to be wrong. I believe we should not depend on these things bc they are not for meant for today, but back then siding more with the baptists beliefs, and ill explain why.
Acts 2:4 - And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
Acts (2:6-8) - Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. 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?
The main example people are able to show that they have the holy spirit is when they start to speak in tongues but ALL the verses in the Bible that refer to this are ALL EARTHLY LANGUAGES not the ones we see of today where they say some incomprehensible babble.
Acts 10:44 - While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
Acts 10:46 - For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
If what they spoke was NOT a Earthly language then how could they have known that they were magnifying God? For all we know, if its what we hear today then they could've been cursing God. It is verified that the verse in Acts 2 & 10 are the same in Acts 11.
Acts 11:15 - And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
Acts 11:17 - Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?
Even the Apostle Paul had put some rules for the people who spoke in tongues something that some do not keep today.
1 Corinthians (14:27-28) - If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
Mark (16:17-18) - And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
Therefore, all these verses prove they spoke a earthly language, so if they were for today it'll be exactly that not some yibber yabber, and they were indeed a miracle bc they miraclously spoke a language that they had not practiced in a instant. Now the other thing being credited as used by the holy spirit are signs of healings and casting out demons. Always remember the person who is being performed the miracle on, are not in charge of maintaing faith, (unless God has a certain purpose bc of it) for the miracle to work, but rather the person PERFORMING the miracle as shown by the verse below.
Acts (3:4-7) - And Peter, fastening his eyes upon him with John, said, Look on us. And he gave heed unto them, expecting to receive something of them. Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk. And he took him by the right hand, and lifted him up: and immediately his feet and ankle bones received strength.
The lame man was expecting money having no faith based on miracles, but Peter still managed to heal him, so it is almost never the person recieving the miracle fault due to faith. The Bible details THE JOB OF THE HOLY SPIRIT is that it would CAUSE YOU TO WITNESS TO PEOPLE ALL AROUND THE EARTH. I believe God CAN still do any miracle he pleases to do, but it shouldn't be the thing primarily based on unless is a special prayer or something, and it would be for specific kinds of people based on those gifts, not for everybody. I also believe the bible when it states, that which is perfect ( the bible/NT) is completed, these things are done away.
Acts 1:8 - But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
Romans (12:5-6) - So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith;
1 Corinthians (13:8-10) - Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
Acts 2:4 - And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
Acts (2:6-8) - Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. 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?
The main example people are able to show that they have the holy spirit is when they start to speak in tongues but ALL the verses in the Bible that refer to this are ALL EARTHLY LANGUAGES not the ones we see of today where they say some incomprehensible babble.
Acts 10:44 - While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
Acts 10:46 - For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
If what they spoke was NOT a Earthly language then how could they have known that they were magnifying God? For all we know, if its what we hear today then they could've been cursing God. It is verified that the verse in Acts 2 & 10 are the same in Acts 11.
Acts 11:15 - And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
Acts 11:17 - Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?
Even the Apostle Paul had put some rules for the people who spoke in tongues something that some do not keep today.
1 Corinthians (14:27-28) - If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
Mark (16:17-18) - And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
Therefore, all these verses prove they spoke a earthly language, so if they were for today it'll be exactly that not some yibber yabber, and they were indeed a miracle bc they miraclously spoke a language that they had not practiced in a instant. Now the other thing being credited as used by the holy spirit are signs of healings and casting out demons. Always remember the person who is being performed the miracle on, are not in charge of maintaing faith, (unless God has a certain purpose bc of it) for the miracle to work, but rather the person PERFORMING the miracle as shown by the verse below.
Acts (3:4-7) - And Peter, fastening his eyes upon him with John, said, Look on us. And he gave heed unto them, expecting to receive something of them. Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk. And he took him by the right hand, and lifted him up: and immediately his feet and ankle bones received strength.
The lame man was expecting money having no faith based on miracles, but Peter still managed to heal him, so it is almost never the person recieving the miracle fault due to faith. The Bible details THE JOB OF THE HOLY SPIRIT is that it would CAUSE YOU TO WITNESS TO PEOPLE ALL AROUND THE EARTH. I believe God CAN still do any miracle he pleases to do, but it shouldn't be the thing primarily based on unless is a special prayer or something, and it would be for specific kinds of people based on those gifts, not for everybody. I also believe the bible when it states, that which is perfect ( the bible/NT) is completed, these things are done away.
Acts 1:8 - But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
Romans (12:5-6) - So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith;
1 Corinthians (13:8-10) - Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
I suppose I could just imagine you lying or committing some other sin, and then write a post about what went on in my imagination. Is that an appropriate way to behave?
Languages don't always translate word for word. That's the main reason there are such variations between languages. There is more than one way of describing something. And Indonesian words can be rather vague. There is one word for shy, embarrassed, and ashamed. Sometimes if you want to translation in a specific way, it requires a lot of words, which can have a lot of syllables. The length of words is also an issue. If you say 1988 in Indonesian it has 16 syllables. Saying the same year in English has four syllables.
Yes, I've done that some, from English to Indonesian or from Indonesian to English. I'm probably better at translating into English because I can make it sound like proper English... unless the preacher has a regional thick accent or starts talking about Indonesian cultural references from a decade when I was not in the country or something like that. I heard a testimony in the US once in an Indonesian language church from a guy who'd been a Bible college student whose head had been cut three-quarters of the way off at the neck by some 'radical' folks of a certain other religion He had a scar to show for it it. The president of the Bible college prayed for him, and he recovered. But his accent was so thick, I could barely understand him. I sure was glad I wasn't translating that week.
If you have witnessed miracles, why don't you believe in them? How do you explain miracles? Can you show me one verse about the gift of the working of miracles or gifts of healing ceasing? I can't find where the Bible says that they will cease.
Paul suggested the possibility that he might pray in the 'tongues of men and of angels.' Historically, though, Pentecostals did not emphasize 'tongues of angels' as a possibility. Nowadays, when cessationists, without any solid basis for doing so, insist that 'tongues of angels' MUST be hyperbole (but that tongues of men is not for some reason?) reasonable Pentecostals and Charismatics argument back. Some people treat assumptions they make while reading the Bible as if they are the teaching of the Bible. It's not just cessationists (those who believe certain gifts ceased) who do that, of course. But most versions cessationism rests on doing that.
And who is saying that they were not actually speaking earthly languages? I realize there are some people, and I even came across one Pentecostal pastor who believed this, who think that the miracle was in the ear of the hearers, who only percieved the words in their own language. I don't think that is consistent with the wording of the text. But that view was held by a certain St. Gregory in the 400's. Another St. Gregory in the 400's held to a more standard straightforward interpretation that the disciples were speaking in the tongues of the people.
But who disputes this? Other than the 'miracle in the ear' view, I've never heard a Pentecostal argue against the idea that they were speaking human languages on the day of Pentecostal. Calling them 'earthly languages', though, sounds derrogatory.
Look at I Corinthians 14. Paul said that when any man speaks in tongues 'no man understandeth him.' The same situation wasn't going on in church as was going on in Jerusalem at Pentecost in Acts 2, because God did not have people present to understand the languages. Rather, the Spirit of God gifted some believers to interpret the language. Notice that in the passage, we see that the speaker's understanding is 'unfruitful.' He doesn't know what he's saying, not without the gift of interpretation. That's supernatural, and he can pray for that (see verse 13.) And other people who hear tongues without interpretation interpret it to be like a barbarian talking. It is believed that barbarian is a word derived from the fact that to the Greeks, foreigners sounded like they were saying 'bar bar bar', so they called them bar-bar-ians.
In spite of all this, Paul does not warn the Corinthians that if they spoke in tongues, they might be cursing God. Notice that Jesus asked if ye then being evil know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father in heaven give good things to them that ask him. In the book of Luke, He asks how much more shall he give the Holy Ghost to them that ask Him.
So we don't need to be scared that these gifts will end up with us secretly cursing the Lord without knowing it. Paul was very careful not to crush his reader's enthusiasm for the spiritual gifts, and also to flan the flames of enthusiasm, while he corrected them about misuse. This fear-mongering of trying to scare people into thinking that they might be secretly cursing Christ while exercising gifts is not the messag we see on this topic in the Bible.
I was raised in Pentecostal churches that tried to keep this scripture. I'll tell you some churches that really don't keep it, churches that forbid speaking in tongues and interpretation. We had a post from a man who said there wasn't going to be any tongues and interpretation anymore after a man spoke in tongues and interpreted in a prison meeting.
The Japanese speak jibber jabber. Germans speak jibber jabber. Russians speak jibber jabber. Spanish isn't complete jibber jabber because I understand a little of that, but a lot of it is jibber jabber. Indonesian isn't jibber jabber, but Malaysian is about 40 percent jibber jabber and the rest comprehensible. It's all a matter of perspective.
I know there are some people who blame those who are not healed for not having faith. I know some of the WOFers do that, probably the same type of people who have about 40 to 80 verses they hear preached on over and over again as prooftexts.
But let's keep in mind that sometimes faith for healing comes from the person receiving. Jesus did say, 'according to your faith be it unto you.' Paul saw a man in Lystra who had the faith to be healed while he was preaching, and the man was healed through Paul. So the faith could come from the person receiving, too.
I'm looking at that last sentence, and I would encourage you to sit down and read I Corinthians 12 and Romans 12. In I Corinthians 12, for to one is given this gift, and to another this gift. Then, different gifted members are compared to different parts of their body, each with its own function. Romans 12 says we have gifts differing according to the grace given unto us.
The Bible doesn't say that 'that which is perfect' in that passage is the Bible. In fact, the Bible does not make sense in that context. When the perfect comes, Paul's speech, knowledge, and understanding will be like an adults. When he wrote the epistle, it will be like a child's. Paul died before the canon was complete, so why would the coming of the Bible change his understanding? People who read that think the part about being like a man refers to themselves. The interpretation would then be that Paul's understanding when he wrote so much of the New Testament was like a child's, while their own is like an adults. That exalts the reader over the apostles who wrote the scriptures. And if we really did have such complete understanding, we wouldn't be disagreeing about these things. Having a copy of the New Testament does not guarantee that one understands the doctrine in it like the apostles through whom it was revealed understood it.
As Paul started off writing this epistle in which he would address tongues, prophecy, and the I Corinthians 12 gifts, he wrote,
"So that ye come behind in no spiritual gift, waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."
So apparently, he wasn't expecting these spiritual gifts to cease before Jesus comes back.
I'm confident that you are very scrupulous in your translations.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
1 Corinthians (13:8-10) - Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
I do believe in miracles, I just believe they aren't as effective as they were back then, meaning one cannot just go and raise the dead as easily. If so then hospitals would be clearing out by now. Not saying miracles dont happen but is not as common. What im saying is that speaking in tongues is not what people believe it is, which is speaking in a unknown heavenly language. The things i underlined is the reason why i dont believe in these things. I take it as the BIBLE is what was perfect not Jesus Christ himself bc when he died he said "It is finished". When the Bible was finished then that when it all began to cease.
Angels speak languages that are understandable to humans. Or shall you say that angels speak another language amongst themselves? The "speaking in a language of angels" is a good point, but I find it hard to believe angels have their own language that they speak aside from that, that humans do. This is the ONLY one not to clear about, but ofc to state that angels may have another language NOT from Earth is certainly not confirmable. Lol where would it say angels have they own language?
1 corinthians 2:10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:
Well that is what I am saying, speaking in tongues ONLY refers to those who can speak in a foreign language spontaneously, that would be considered speaking in tongues.. For example, im preaching to a certain audience and foreigners would be in the crowd ill start to preach in german, russian, etc etc.. That does not the random outbursts preachers have of today where they babble something that one cannot understand. And the interpretor would still be needed for others to understand. It is believed that babble or babblin comes from the tower of Babel where God changed the languages of the people to confusion. (My own theory).
I used the cursing God as a example to prove that the bible said they were magnifying him. As in, they knew they spoke of praise and worship not out of cussing. That means that one HAD to understand the languages that these people spoke. If its what we hear today, does ANYBODY know what the person is saying? Can anybody be able to TRANSLATE what they just said? I believe if Paul were speaking about Christ it would say something like the "return" or something. The only perfect thing would be the word of God, and in a sense,that would indeed be Christ. Just look at my signature.
1 Corinthians 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
1 Corinthians 14:9 So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.
1 Corinthians 14:13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.
The first verse hes making it clear that those who speak in unknown tongue are speaking to God, only bc he understands, NOT bc it is a "heavenly language", but a foreign language. Second verse clears that up. Last verse tells them if your going to do that, pray to God so you can interpret what you have spoken.
1 Corinthians 14:4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
1 Corinthians 14:16 Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?
Last edited:
You would agree with me that Jesus is perfect, right? Whatever it is in the passage that Paul describes as that which is perfect (telios) is something that is going to radically change Paul’s speech, knowledge, and understanding. When Paul wrote the epistle, his speech, knowledge, and understanding. When the perfect comes, it will be like Paul has grown up, and his speech, knowledge, and understanding is an adults. The Bible does not fit here. For one thing, he was asleep in Christ when the New Testament canon was completed. Another issue to consider is that this interpretation, which jumps over the fact that the coming of the perfect will effect Paul directly, makes those who own a copy of the New Testament so much superior to the actual authors of the books who received these revelations from the Lord, that these authors are like children in comparison. It exalts the reader above the apostles.
And we know that owning a copy of the New Testament doesn’t guarantee that one understands the mystery of Christ written therein better than those who wrote it. And even studying for years does not guarantee it. I think if you thought about it you could think of plenty of believers who did not understand the doctrine Paul taught in the epistle. Many baby Christian understand little at first. And those who have been in the faith for a while still gain insight while we read these books. You could be a Christian for 20 years and read something in Romans and finally understand something ‘new’ that you overlooked reading that same passage for years.
The fact that believers disagree over many doctrines shows our imperfect understanding of doctrine. The fact that we disagree on this issue disproves your interpretation.
When they spoke to people in Biblical times, people could understand them in all the accounts we read about. That could be because they are talking to or around humans. Maybe they are smart enough to know they have to speak human languages when doing that.
Look in I Corinthians 13, there where it says ‘Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels’. Paul suggests the possibility, so we shouldn’t rule it out as a possibility.
Maybe you were in some ‘pocket’ of the Charismatic movement that didn’t believe that. I’ve come across some, IMO, weird beliefs by WOFers about what speaking in tongues is. But it sure seems to me that the standard belief among Pentecostals is that it is a foreign language. (I’d say an angelic language would be a foreign one, too, if that ever happens. I know I’ve heard preachers say that tongues are foreign languages. I’ve heard and read where people went overseas and heard villagers and other people in foreign countries speak in tongues in English. I’ve heard testimonies of someone understanding languages from the mission field and confirming the interpretation. And of course, there were testimonies from Azusa Street and other early Pentecostal meetings about people in the audience hearing their own languages in tongues. To me, it feels like a straw man argument when people argue that Pentecostals and even Charismatics don’t believe speaking in tongues are languages.
There is no evidence in the Bible that anyone spoke in tongues to preach the Gospel. In Acts, the disciples spoke of the wonderful works of God. Then Peter stood up and preached to them. God has chosen ‘the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe’. It doesn’t say that He has chosen speaking in tongues to do so. I suppose God could have someone explain and proclaim the Gospel in tongues, but the Bible doesn’t teach this is the purpose of tongues or give an example of it actually happening.
I know there are some preachers who start speaking in tongues in their sermon, and there are other preachers who roll their eyes as the idea. It’s okay if there is an interpretation. There are different thoughts and practices on this. I spent my teenage years mostly in the A/G, but I moved a bit. In the A/Gs I grew up in, someone would speak in tongues and someone else would interpret. I know that one I went to was against outbursts in tongues if there was no interpreter. Not that you hammer people if no one gets the interpretation. (I did hear a pastor say after an uninterpreted tongue that he believed that was for individual edification and not for the group). The one who speaks in tongues is to keep silent in the church if there is no interpreter, and to speak to himself and to God. When he finds out there is no interpreter, he should not keep on. There are many churches that actually do believe in interpretation, and it is a gift that functions in the body.
On the one hand, I get your point that some preachers don’t pay attention to what Paul wrote in I Corinthians. You can get off into extremes. On the one hand, you could not believe in these gifts, which goes against the Bible, and end up contradicting what the Bible teaches, teaching people to disobey scripture. On the other hand, you could think speaking in tongues is the ultimate gift and totally ignore the commands for order in the church in regard to speaking in tongues. Those are extremes.
Paul said that if someone spoke in tongues no one understands him. Paul, therefore, taught that speaking in tongues in church should be interpreted. There is also a gift of interpretation of tongues.
So Paul didn’t express any fear that someone might be cursing the Lord in tongues. He doesn’t tie the idea of cursing the Lord to speaking in tongues. He said if he prayed in a tongue his spirit prayed, but his understanding was unfruitful. He did not say he would be cursing the Lord if he did so. He said if you bless with the spirit, you give thanks well, but the other is not edified. He did not say you curse the Lord. So Paul didn’t have this ‘paranoia’ about speaking in tongues or other gifts that some modern commentators who are suspicious of the gifts of the Spirit now have.
Some commentators say he is talking about ‘the eternal state.’ The KJV says ‘that which is perfect’ so some KJV readers take that to mean a physical ‘that’ a physical object. But the Greek is all one word ‘telios.’ We are waiting for a kind of perfection to come. It will make our understanding of the past seem childish by comparison. We see through a glass darkly, but then we will see face to face.
We need to look at the whole epistle. In I Corinthians 1:7, we read
“So that ye come behind in no spiritual gifts, waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
We should interpret chapter 13 in line with these comments he made when ‘setting up’ the epistle, and we should not expect these gifts he would write about to cease before Jesus come back. Why would he connect coming behind in no spiritual gift with waiting for Jesus’ return if they won’t be here while we are waiting for his return?
And we can also look at the fact that Paul addresses tongues, prophecy and the coming of the perfect in I Corinthians 13 and then elaborates on these issues in the chapter that follows.
In I Corinthians 14, he goes into detail on tongues and prophecy. In chapter 15, he talks about the resurrection of the believer at the return of Christ, and makes a brief reference to the end telos when Christ delivers up the kingdom to God. If we look at it all as one argument, it makes more sense to see the perfect (telios) as coming either at the resurrection or after the resurrection at the end (telos).
I would say those are Pentecostal beliefs as well in my experience.
Originally Posted by presidente
If you have witnessed miracles, why don't you believe in them? How do you explain miracles? Can you show me one verse about the gift of the working of miracles or gifts of healing ceasing? I can't find where the Bible says that they will cease.
I would offer God has never stopped doing miracles and performing healing. The scriptures informs us it is an evil stubborn generation (the generation of converted men) that requires a sign before they can believe God.
He told those unbelieving Jews that required a sign before they could believe, the last sign as a wonder was given the sign of Jonas .
Sealing up His word in the last chapter Revelation, He warned men not add to them or take away from the book of law ,the Bible
Signs = no faith
Prophecy = the one source of faith by which we can believe God
A good example is found in Luke.There a woman who sought after signs as a way of believing God by looking at the outward flesh of Jew, hoping it would been praise worthy .
Sign are for those who rebel. Prophecy for those who believe to the salvation of their soul.
And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it. And when the people were gathered thick together, he began to say, This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet.Luk 11:28
Today the Holy Spirit is no longer revealing by adding new revelations. We have the whole or the prefect sealed up until the end of time. Seeing tongues was one of the manners God spoke and used as sign to point to those who rebelled , or the temporal healing to represent the eternal work, demonstrated by raising the dead to typify spiritual the resurrection. Or the Healing of the blind to represent our spiritual blindness we were born with, or heal the hearing to represent the healing work of the word of God giving us ears to hear what the Spirit is teaching .
Requiring a sign before someone can believe is not walking by the faith of Christ, as the same spirit of faith according as it is written but is walking after that seen giving room for the lust of the eye the lust of the flesh
There are no sign gifts .Sign are for those who rebel. Prophecy for those who believe to the salvation of their soul
Working of miracles or performing healing has not ceased. I would say rather He is no longer revealing those working that represent certain aspects of the gospel .The perfect has come.
I would question why would a person desire more that He has revealed?
There is no reason to believe He has.
What do you do with Thomas?
That's a different topic, not really connected to the parts before or after in the post.
That's not a very useful or accurate equation. Jesus did signs and wonders. Clearly, He had faith. The apostles did signs, too. The apostles asked Jesus for the signs of his coming and of the end of the age. He gave them some. Refusing to believe God without a sign is a problem. God was merciful to some who asked for signs. Moses asked for a sign. The sign was that after he did what he was supposed to and brought the people, he would worship God in that mountain. There may be times it is okay to ask for a sign with the right motive. A prophet rebuked Ahaz for not asking for a sign like he was told.
I am not clear what you are talking about. The wording makes me think of 'the sign of circumcision' but I don't know where a woman looked for that in the book of Luke.
You shouldn't try to make up such broad sweeping statements. Allow some nuances in your categorizations. Is there any reason to think that God chose rebellious shepherds to go find Jesus? Why judge those shepherds? The angel said,
"And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger."
So what reason is there to think these shepherds were rebellions?
Is this what you were talking about with the woman in Luke? The first comment responds to the woman. The second he said when the crowd gathered.
The Bible uses 'revelation' to refer to things other than the Bible. Romans 1 talks about that which may be known of God being revealed through the things that are made. This is an ongoing thing. The revelation of God through nature is an ongoing thing, and men are without excuse.
Anyone who knows the Father knows the Father because it pleased the Son to reveal Him. So we know the Father through revelation.
Usually, 'sign gifts' is used by those who don't believe God gives certain types of gifts today. They want to put gifts that dont' go with the Engligtenment, Deist or Modernist mindset into one box so they can say all those gifts are no more.
I would ask for evidence that God has revealed a number of the assertions that you have made in your post. Some scripture would be nice.
The emphasis of speaking in tongues became more prevalent in the 1900's for sure. As far as things not being in the "official church" - that is a matter of opinion. When Martin Luther said that "the just shall live by faith". The "official church" of the day said the complete opposite of that truth for 1,100 years.
My view is that there are many fillings of the Holy Spirit as seen in Acts. One does not need to speak in tongues in order to be saved or to be a better Christian of some elite status. It is a gift from the Father to those that want it as far as the devotional aspect of praying in tongues. If people do not want to pray with their spirit and speak mysteries to the Father - that is their choice.
Everything in the kingdom of God comes by grace through faith.
As I have said before and I will keep on saying it - for people to try to convince me that tongues is not for today is on the same level as an atheist trying to tell me that Jesus does not exist. Too late - I know Him.
Spiritual truths do not make any sense to our natural minds and we are all in that same boat concerning every truth - no matter what it is. Without the revelation of the Holy Spirit - we will be blind to the things of God.
We all need to ask for the revelation of Christ and all that He has done for us from our Father - then spiritual understanding will come and our minds will be renewed as the Holy Spirit reveals truth to all of us.
It is as natural for me to speak in tongues to my Father as it is to breathe now because my mind is established in that truth. The enemy cannot deceive me in that area any longer. This is part of the "being transformed by the renewing of our mind".
I encourage you to ask the Father about all of this....
Hi Grace 777x70, thank you for your reply. I understand your point, it is your expierience! I asked my father, since I am born again nearly 30 yeaers ago. And I became a different answer.
Of course some christians today live with a minimum on excpections from the father and dont count with the help of the Holy Spirit. But what I find from the beginning of the pentecostal movement in the 1900 is according my understanding from the scripture not biblical. I know you see it different.
The teaching about the sign gifts began in 1900 with the pentecostal movement and all pentecostal doctrine which we have today are derivate from this event, which claim that there is a baptising with the Holy Spirit and as prrof for that speaking in tongues. This divided the christianity (I mean born again believers and not nominell christians) in 2 parts.
If the pentecostal movement is right, than all other are false. That means also that the Holy Spirit makes differences in the denominations. If you grew up, like me in denominations which are not teaching speaking in tongues, you will not becomes it.(this includet also the belivers before the pentecostal movement began)
And grew you up like (I suppose) you, its normal to get the speaking of tongues.
How this fit togehter? According the scripture all belivers are same, the gifts are given to all and not depend on the hand on laying of specific persons. This sounds me more magical, then from the Holy Spirit.
In your eyes it is not possible to speak in the spirit without speaking in tongues. It seems there is a qualitativ different in the relationship with the father wether you can speak in tongues ore not. This means all who are not speaking in tongues can not have this deep relationship and are lacking in the quality in their christian life. Paul said clearly that not all can speak in tongues. 1. Cor 12,8-10 and 20-30. Its the job of the Holy Spirit to give the gifts and it is not the lack of faith of a believer if he is not given the gift of speaking in tongues. According your meaning it is "the not want to have it". But so you blame not the believer, but the Holy Spirit. I dont know why the Lordhad stopped to give the sign gifts, if he did in the apostolic time. Maby because of missuseing them, and the imitation which the Devil startet. You can find the sign gifts in sects and false teachers doctrine (f.e. the Montanists in 2nd century ore the Irvingians (new apostolic church) in 19th century)
The Satan comes also as angel of light, that means he is not direct to identify with his doctrine, but he has a very attractive doctrine to deceive the believers. Maby the sign gifts? Because the people today want not longer only trust, they will also feel and see the miracles of God in their lives and in the life of others.
Jesus said in John 20,29: "Jesus said unto him, Thomas, because you have seen me, you have believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."
have a blessed christmas time!
I hope you don't mind if I jump in and respond. That is not the only conclusion one might draw. Pentecostals don't usually think all other Christians are false Christians.
I do not believe that everyone who is filled with the Spirit will necessarily speak in tongues. But I do believe that God is generous to people who ask in faith. I also believe God has used many Pentecostals in gifts of the Spirit, including speaking in tongues, even if i do not think the are all correct about the 'initial evidence doctrine.'
How many churches pray for an outpouring of the Spirit, for spiritual gifts, to speak in tongues, or to prophesy? Do churches who do not believe in these gifts pray for such things much?
It seems like you are talking about God answering prayers people haven't prayed.
No, of course not. And there are churches in a wide variety of denominations and independent churches also. It's not just one denomination.
If it is interpreted, the interpretation benefits the congregation.
'Charismatic' is a theological position. It's like a certain belief on atonement, or Calvinist or Augustinian views on salvation. One could be in one of a variety of religious traditions and believe one of those things. There are some movements within the larger Charismatic or 'Third Wave' (post Charismatic evangelical) movements that are very tolerant of false prophecy and have a doctrine that goes along with that. Pentecostals don't seem as tolerant, IMO. But then the Pentecostal movement is diverse and I can't speak for the whole movement. But I don't recall a blatantly false prophecy in a Pentecostal church growing up.
El Presidente,
you have said much here and I do not want to take away or add to what you have said but clarify if i can. The Word Pentecost as I think you know means 50 days completed. in the greek " Pentēkostē " and in Hebrew "Shavuot". the term Pentecostal is of those who identify with the experience recorded in ACTS chapter 2. which was well before the Methodist movement of Charles & John Wesley or their praying mother. The issue with many is the idea THAT TONGUES are not for today. And the complete abandonment of all the gifts of the Holy Spirit captured in 1 Corinthians chapter 12, 13,and 14. No where in the gifts outlined in those chapter does it say they are not for today. Yet we see many who have the opinion they have. both sides have error but pride has blinded many from having a serious mature discussion of the "Gifts of the Holy Spirit ". I have done a very exhaustive study with the following question studies 1. the History of the Holy Spirit from Acts chp 2 through the ages of the church. I can tell you that with help from many historical documents, men and women of God and churches of every denomination. we have complied historical documentation (which do not replace the word of God) of the Move of God from century to century and generation to generation. Where the gifts of the Holy Spirit are well recorded: healing, salvation, miracles, tongues, and other gifts by God in both men and women. many experiences where not even sought after But happened and the end result has been great moves of God.
CS1,
That's interesting. There are also books that compile a number of these occurrences. I had a look at Volume I of 'The Spirit and the Church: Antiquity" by Burgess. It goes up through the Council of Nicea, if I recall correctly, quoting from the writings known as 'the church fathers' and commenting on them in regard to the author's thesis.
Even books that aren't particularly meant to compile evidence for spiritual gifts in history sometimes show evidence for it. _Evangelism in the Early Church_ by Michael Green presents evidence for it. Even a historical resource like Eusebius', who lived around the time of the Council of Nicea, who compiled previous writings in his history recorded many references to these spiritual gifts.
You can also find blog pages that compile the quotes. None of them are exhaustive, though. You could get into some non-Greek non-Latin resources like things dealing with Armenia's evangelization for example.
Historically, as a whole, the RCC and various versions of Orthodox Christianity in the east were not cessationist. Cessationism is a fairly late doctrine, and it caught on in popularity in some circles after the Enlightenment period.
That's interesting. There are also books that compile a number of these occurrences. I had a look at Volume I of 'The Spirit and the Church: Antiquity" by Burgess. It goes up through the Council of Nicea, if I recall correctly, quoting from the writings known as 'the church fathers' and commenting on them in regard to the author's thesis.
Even books that aren't particularly meant to compile evidence for spiritual gifts in history sometimes show evidence for it. _Evangelism in the Early Church_ by Michael Green presents evidence for it. Even a historical resource like Eusebius', who lived around the time of the Council of Nicea, who compiled previous writings in his history recorded many references to these spiritual gifts.
You can also find blog pages that compile the quotes. None of them are exhaustive, though. You could get into some non-Greek non-Latin resources like things dealing with Armenia's evangelization for example.
Historically, as a whole, the RCC and various versions of Orthodox Christianity in the east were not cessationist. Cessationism is a fairly late doctrine, and it caught on in popularity in some circles after the Enlightenment period.