THE PURPOSE OF TONGUES IN THE ASSEMBLY

[Arial]

What would be the purpose if they really spoke in tongues?

What was the purpose of different languages spoken in the Bible?

I believe it was two fold. The primary reason being that at Pentecost there were Jews gathered from far sprung places who all spoke different languages or dialects. It was so the good news could be heard and understood and carried back to their native location. The same thing of people of different languages being present in one location would be true in individual communities and churches. It was also, as in the case of Cornelius, a non-Jew that the same Holy Spirit was given to Gentiles.

So the question becomes, "Is that necessary today?" Not with the Bible completed and translated in many languages. Preachers and teachers who are over congregations of the same language.

If they occur on rare occasions, and I do not know if they do or do not, and in keeping with the Bible instruction that it not be done unless there is someone there to interpret what is said, it would resemble this:

A foreigner who does not speak English comes to the US and speaks to the nation. An interpreter stands beside him interpreting his words into English. Gibberish has no interpretation and any that is given has no way of being evaluated. God does not need unintelligible sounds to be given and then translated to communicate with his people or for the to communicate with him.

 

[ElectedbyHim]

What was the purpose of different languages spoken in the Bible?

I believe it was two fold. The primary reason being that at Pentecost there were Jews gathered from far sprung places who all spoke different languages or dialects. It was so the good news could be heard and understood and carried back to their native location. The same thing of people of different languages being present in one location would be true in individual communities and churches. It was also, as in the case of Cornelius, a non-Jew that the same Holy Spirit was given to Gentiles.

So the question becomes, "Is that necessary today?" Not with the Bible completed and translated in many languages. Preachers and teachers who are over congregations of the same language.

If they occur on rare occasions, and I do not know if they do or do not, and in keeping with the Bible instruction that it not be done unless there is someone there to interpret what is said, it would resemble this:

A foreigner who does not speak English comes to the US and speaks to the nation. An interpreter stands beside him interpreting his words into English. Gibberish has no interpretation and any that is given has no way of being evaluated. God does not need unintelligible sounds to be given and then translated to communicate with his people or for the to communicate with him.

Agreed.

 

[Dave]

Are you saying the 'sign gifts are only 'healing and tongues'?

Hi Lees

Basically, yes. The healing would be in the miraculous category. The miracles did confirm the message and the messenger.

Where do you get the idea that a person with a gift of healing could walk into a hospital and heal everybody?


If 'healing' was a gift to authenticate one as a true messenger of God, do you have the gift of healing? If not, does that mean you are not a true messenger of God?

No, neither Jesus or the Apostles healed everybody all the time. If healing did not rely on 'faith', what did it rely on?

D

Thread 'The Gift of Healing.'

Wednesday at 12:25 PM

The Gift of Healing.

Luke 4:40 When the sun was setting, all those who had any that were sick with various diseases brought them to Him; and He laid His hands on every one of them and healed them.

Jesus healed them all.

Acts 5:12-16 And through the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were done among the people. And they were all with one accord in Solomon's Porch. so that they brought the sick out into the streets and laid them on beds and couches, that at least the shadow of Peter passing by might fall on some of them. Also a multitude gathered from the surrounding...

• Dave
• Replies: 11
• Forum: Bible Study

• 

I see all of the gifts as edifying oneself. (1 Cor. 12:7) They are given to everyman to profit. Yes they are for the Body, but they also benefit the individual. Just because tongues edifes oneself doesn't make it wrong. (1 Cor. 14:4)

We were never gifted to minister to ourselves. Love is the great qualifier. Love is not self seeking. That's why Paul sandwiched it's definition in between chapter 12 and 14.

"Pursue love, and desire spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy."

"Even so you, since you are zealous for spiritual gifts, let it be for the edification of the church that you seek to excel."

"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".

Now, which one passes the test?

A "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."

B "But he who prophesies speaks edification and exhortation and comfort to men."

Again, which one passes the test?

A "He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself,..."

B "...but he who prophesies edifies the church."

Notice the "but" in between the two options each time. You guys are building doctrines on the 'what not to do' side of it.

It doesn't matter that tongues has purpose toward unbelievers. It is not unbelievers that have the gift of tongues. It is believers. And if it is not accepted in a church the believer with that gift can exercise it to himself and God. (1 Cor. 14:28) "But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God." Seems there is nothing wrong with edifying oneself.

It actually does matter, since Paul tells us that tongues are for a sign for unbelieving Israel. This is when the sign was being given. Or, in this case, it could just be another language. Like somebody from Mexico speaking Spanish in the U.S.. Without an interpreter, they are the only ones who are understand and are edified. The edification of the Church is the goal. An interpreter fixes that. Better yet, speaking in English, if possible is best. The example you gave is Paul showing us why it's wrong to speak in Church in another language without an interpreter. Because other people understanding is the goal. If you have not love (are self seeking), you are nothing more than a clanging symbol. In other words, there is no benefit for the Church.

I disagree. Your last statement does not define the Spiritual gifts from God. It defines man's goodness.

Do you consider all the Spritual gifts miraculous? Do you believe you have any Spiritual gifts?

Lees

Anything good that comes from us for the Church is an undeserved gift from God. That's what the gifts mean. "For what do you have that is good that you did not receive?"

I once asked a question that, still to this day nobody could answer.

What does tongues do that you cannot do more efficiently, and with perfect understanding, for yourself and for others, with your regular language? People bend over backwards tying to justify it, but the truth is that prophecy, which is for believers, in a language you and others can understand, is simply better than languages that, at best, only one understands, unless there be an interpreter.

Tongues is, of course, just a sixteenth century term, but people like the hocus pocus feeling of saying it. I still to this day don't understand why all the updated modern translations continued to use the term tongues. It simply means languages.

And most importantly, this sign of judgment, was an undoing of what happened as a result of the Tower of Babel. When God confused the languages and scattered the people. At Pentecost, when each miraculously understood other people in their own language, there was no doubt that it was from God. It was about judgment. It was about God undoing the judgment from Babel so that the Church could evangelize the world. It was about the Gentiles being grafted into the Church, which was also judgment of the nation of Israel . (See Romans 11:11...)


Dave

 

[ElectedbyHim]

Basically, yes. The healing would be in the miraculous category. The miracles did confirm the message and the messenger.

D

Thread 'The Gift of Healing.'

Wednesday at 12:25 PM

The Gift of Healing.

Luke 4:40 When the sun was setting, all those who had any that were sick with various diseases brought them to Him; and He laid His hands on every one of them and healed them.

Jesus healed them all.

Acts 5:12-16 And through the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were done among the people. And they were all with one accord in Solomon's Porch. so that they brought the sick out into the streets and laid them on beds and couches, that at least the shadow of Peter passing by might fall on some of them. Also a multitude gathered from the surrounding...

• Dave
• Replies: 11
• Forum: Bible Study

• 

We were never gifted to minister to ourselves. Love is the great qualifier. Love is not self seeking. That's why Paul sandwiched it's definition in between chapter 12 and 14.

"Pursue love, and desire spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy."

"Even so you, since you are zealous for spiritual gifts, let it be for the edification of the church that you seek to excel."

"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".

Now, which one passes the test?

A "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."

B "But he who prophesies speaks edification and exhortation and comfort to men."

Again, which one passes the test?

A "He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself,..."

B "...but he who prophesies edifies the church."



It actually does matter, since Paul tells us that tongues are for a sign for unbelieving Israel. This is when the sign was being given. Or, in this case, it could just be another language. Like somebody from Mexico speaking Spanish. Without an interpreter, they are the only ones who are understand and are edified. The edification of the Church is the goal. The example you gave is Paul showing us why it's wrong to speak in Church in another language. without other people understand, since everyone understanding is the goal. If you have not love (are self seeking), you are nothing more than a clanging symbol.

Anything good that comes from us for the church is an undeserved gift from God. That's what the gifts mean. For what do you have that is good that you did not receive?

I once asked a question that, still to this day nobody could answer.

What does tongues do that you cannot do more efficiently, and with perfect understanding, for yourself and for others, with your regular language? People bend over backwards tying to justify it, but the truth is that prophecy, which is for believers, in a language you and others can understand, is simply better than the means of keeping the judgment sign of languages Biblical while the sign was being given to unbelieving Israel.

Think of it like this. Tongues, is of course a sixteenth century term , but people like the hocus pocus feeling of saying it. I still to this day don't understand why all the updated translations continued to use the term tongues. It simply means languages.

And most importantly, this sign of judgment, was an undoing of what happened as a result of the Tower of Babel. When God confused the languages and scattered the people. At Pentecost, when each miraculously understood other people in their own language, there was no doubt that it was from God. It was about judgment. It was about God undoing the judgment from Babel so that the Church could evangelize the world. It was about the Gentiles being grafted into the Church, which was also judgment of the nation of Israel . (See Romans 11:11...)


Dave

Excellent

 

[atpollard]

I am assuming you do not believe the sign gifts have ceased.

Yeah, I am not prepared to believe that any promise of God has been abrogated without EXTRAORDINARY proof. (The apostles died or their letters were compiled a century later, while important, is not really proof that "God does not do 'this' - whatever 'this' is - any more.")

... but as they saying goes: "talk is cheap" and not everyone/thing is what it claims to be. So I agree with that part of your analysis.

 

[ElectedbyHim]

Yeah, I am not prepared to believe that any promise of God has been abrogated without EXTRAORDINARY proof. (The apostles died or their letters were compiled a century later, while important, is not really proof that "God does not do 'this' - whatever 'this' is - any more.")

... but as they saying goes: "talk is cheap" and not everyone/thing is what it claims to be. So I agree with that part of your analysis.

I am a firm believer that if the sign gifts did not cease we would have Biblical evidence of them today.

The evidence that we do see today is not Biblical in anyway.

Many claim we also have apostles and profits in this day and age.

But thats for another discussion.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Lees]

@Dave: concerning post #(23)

(1 Cor. 12:10-11) "To another the working of miracles: to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to anothAer divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues. But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will."

Seems to me that these gifts are also in the 'miraculous category'. Are there any gifts of the Holy Spirit not in the miraculous category? Do you have any gift of the Holy Spirit?

(Matt. 13:57-58) "And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house. And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief."

Gee, seems like unbelief, the lack of faith, affected Jesus ability to heal people.

Yet in (Luke 5:17) we are told, "And it came to pass on a certain day, as he was teaching, that there were Pharisees and doctors of the law sitting by, which were come out of every town of Galilee, and Judaea, and Jeruslaem: and the power of the Lord was prersent to heal them.

That the 'power of the Lord was present to heal' indicates that at times the 'power of the Lord' is not present to heal.

In other words, your ridiculous statement that if one had the gift of healing means he could go into any hospital and heal everyone is absurd. You act as if ones gift of the Holy Spirit is from them. It is from God, and God gives it to be exercised at His will.

(1 Cor. 12:7) and (1 Cor. 12:4) says other wise. The gifts are also for the benefit of the one with the gift.

There is 'no test'. There is no wrong in pursuing the 'best gifts'. Neither is there any wrong in having the 'lesser gifts'. Do you think God thinks less of one whom He has given a lesser gift? What a God you describe?

You added the 'what not to do'. God never said that, you did. Yes, tongues edifies oneself. Prophecy edifies the Church, making prophecy more important to the edifying of the Church. It doesn't negate the gift of tongues, nor does it cast an evil shadow on the gift of tongues.

"If you have not love" pertains to all the gifts, not just tongues. That is no argument against the gift of tongues.

You ask "what can the gift of tongues do that you cannot do more efficently with regular language?" The gift of tongues is not of men. it is of God. So, in essence, you are asking God that question. Why God do you give the gift of tongues when more can be efficently done with regular language? Yet you say, you have no answer. I guess God is not intersted in your question.

Lees

 

[atpollard]

I am a firm believer that if the sign gifts did not cease we would have Biblical evidence of them today.

The evidence that we do see today is not Biblical in anyway.

Taking them in reverse order, there are many churches where the evidence is ample that The Body of Christ has ceased to exist today … as Bertrand Russel once said “the evidence of contemporary Christian life is such, that god, if he ever existed, must surely be dead”.

Yet the GIFTS (all the gifts of the Spirit) are, according to scripture, given by the Holy Spirit to members of the Body as HE chooses for the edification of the BODY (collectively) rather than the individual. That being the case, there are likely MANY gifts that MOST local bodies do not need to be edified. Just as a quick example, there is more need in America for the Spirit to empower TEACHERS of sound doctrine than to raise up APOSTLES to testify that they have personally seen the Risen Christ (we have the witness of the 4 Gospels recorded and widely available). In the same way, there is less need for supernatural linguistic abilities to communicate the Gospel Truth here in the Florida Gulf Coast where there are ample native speakers and even “apps” for my phone to translate for me.

Yet I know people that work with ethnic Chinese Muslims in the western mountains where many people do not speak even Mandarin and teams are working to create a Gospel in their language. Who is to say that in OTHER LOCAL CHURCHES, the Holy Spirit is not raising up individuals with the gift of tongues to edify the local Body? Would that be any of our business?

So I oppose cessationism.

Grace and peace to you, too.

 

[Dave]

@Dave: concerning post #(23)

(1 Cor. 12:10-11) "To another the working of miracles: to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to anothAer divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues. But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will."

Seems to me that these gifts are also in the 'miraculous category'. Are there any gifts of the Holy Spirit not in the miraculous category? Do you have any gift of the Holy Spirit?

Hi Lees

If they were all miracles, then why were miracles listed separately? In another list, we can see "various kinds of healing" listed separately from miracles also. These lists are mostly just practical, good things for the Body. You'll glorify God most if you see Him working in everything good, not just the miraculous.

(Matt. 13:57-58) "And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house. And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief."

Gee, seems like unbelief, the lack of faith, affected Jesus ability to heal people.

Generally speaking, Jesus would not do miracles for those Jews who were seeking after a sign for proof. More proof that what is happening in todays Pentecostal and Charismatic churches is not from God, since they all seek after the miracles, or rather, the sign.

"A wicked and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign shall be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.” And He left them and departed."

Yet in (Luke 5:17) we are told, "And it came to pass on a certain day, as he was teaching, that there were Pharisees and doctors of the law sitting by, which were come out of every town of Galilee, and Judaea, and Jeruslaem: and the power of the Lord was prersent to heal them.

That the 'power of the Lord was present to heal' indicates that at times the 'power of the Lord' is not present to heal.

Yes, that's the Old Testament. The Holy Spirit could come and go in a believer. As was noted, He was there.

In other words, your ridiculous statement that if one had the gift of healing means he could go into any hospital and heal everyone is absurd. You act as if ones gift of the Holy Spirit is from them. It is from God, and God gives it to be exercised at His will.

"It is written, ....it is written,... it is written" That's how we are taught to test everything, Just like good Bereans, Lees.

(1 Cor. 12:7) and (1 Cor. 12:4) says other wise. The gifts are also for the benefit of the one with the gift.

Not self seeking, desire love. We went over this.

There is 'no test'. There is no wrong in pursuing the 'best gifts'. Neither is there any wrong in having the 'lesser gifts'. Do you think God thinks less of one whom He has given a lesser gift? What a God you describe?

You added the 'what not to do'. God never said that, you did. Yes, tongues edifies oneself. Prophecy edifies the Church, making prophecy more important to the edifying of the Church. It doesn't negate the gift of tongues, nor does it cast an evil shadow on the gift of tongues.

"If you have not love" pertains to all the gifts, not just tongues. That is no argument against the gift of tongues.

You ask "what can the gift of tongues do that you cannot do more efficently with regular language?" The gift of tongues is not of men. it is of God. So, in essence, you are asking God that question. Why God do you give the gift of tongues when more can be efficently done with regular language? Yet you say, you have no answer. I guess God is not intersted in your question.

Lees

Lees, with all do respect, everything that you have said has been addressed already.

Dave

 

[CrowCross]

What would be the purpose if they really spoke in tongues?

To edify the church.....I suppose.

 

[Dave]

Taking them in reverse order, there are many churches where the evidence is ample that The Body of Christ has ceased to exist today … as Bertrand Russel once said “the evidence of contemporary Christian life is such, that god, if he ever existed, must surely be dead”.

Yet the GIFTS (all the gifts of the Spirit) are, according to scripture, given by the Holy Spirit to members of the Body as HE chooses for the edification of the BODY (collectively) rather than the individual. That being the case, there are likely MANY gifts that MOST local bodies do not need to be edified. Just as a quick example, there is more need in America for the Spirit to empower TEACHERS of sound doctrine than to raise up APOSTLES to testify that they have personally seen the Risen Christ (we have the witness of the 4 Gospels recorded and widely available). In the same way, there is less need for supernatural linguistic abilities to communicate the Gospel Truth here in the Florida Gulf Coast where there are ample native speakers and even “apps” for my phone to translate for me.

Yet I know people that work with ethnic Chinese Muslims in the western mountains where many people do not speak even Mandarin and teams are working to create a Gospel in their language. Who is to say that in OTHER LOCAL CHURCHES, the Holy Spirit is not raising up individuals with the gift of tongues to edify the local Body? Would that be any of our business?

So I oppose cessationism.

Grace and peace to you, too.

The only evidence I ever seen went something like this. Someone speaks in gibberish. Usually the same syllable over and over (a dead give away). Then Mable, in the back of the church stands, clears her throat, and says. "Don't park in Mable's parking spot anymore, I have spoken." Or something along those lines. Paul said to put away childish things and that they, the Corinthian church members, were not yet ready for solid food. I don't know what to add to that. When the matter falls short, redefine. That's what we see.

The Church that I went to said that the sign element of tongues was this....that when a person heard someone speaking in tongues, that they would be so amazed that they would come to faith. If you've ever seen the show Survivor, a woman spoke in tongues, and the consensus from the other contestants was, 'I thought she was smarter than that.' It's not a miracle, it's gibberish. That's the mystery religion stuff. I'll post something on it an you can see the similarities for yourself.

Dave

 

[Lees]

Hi Lees

If they were all miracles, then why were miracles listed separately? In another list, we can see "various kinds of healing" listed separately from miracles also. These lists are mostly just practical, good things for the Body. You'll glorify God most if you see Him working in everything good, not just the miraculous.



Generally speaking, Jesus would not do miracles for those Jews who were seeking after a sign for proof. More proof that what is happening in todays Pentecostal and Charismatic churches is not from God, since they all seek after the miracles, or rather, the sign.

"A wicked and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign shall be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.” And He left them and departed."



Yes, that's the Old Testament. The Holy Spirit could come and go in a believer. As was noted, He was there.



"It is written, ....it is written,... it is written" That's how we are taught to test everything, Just like good Bereans, Lees.



Not self seeking, desire love. We went over this.



Lees, with all do respect, everything that you have said has been addressed already.

Dave

Because the gift of miracles is a special gift given to some. But all the gifts are miraculous. Just like the gift of 'evangelism'. Some have it, some don't. (Eph. 4:11) Yet we are encouraged to do the work of an evangelist. (1 Tim. 4:5) So, do you deny all of the gifts of the Holy Ghost? If not, how is it that a gift from the Holy Ghost is not miraculous? Do you have any gift from the Holy Ghost?

Well...yes. Generally speaking one with the gift of healing cannot just go into a hospital and heal everyone. How silly a statement you made.

What a foolish statement you make. It doesn't matter that Jesus was under the Old Testament economy. What matters is that He was indwelt fully by the Holy Ghost. Wasn't He? (John 3:34) "For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him."

Yet you failed your test. You ignored what is written.

Yes, we went over it. And (1 Cor. 12:7) and (1 Cor. 12:4) is against you.

Well, my response was to what you said. All you're saying now is that only your response matters. That's fine.

Lees

 

[Lees]

I, too, would be leery to say for certain tongues are no longer a gift.
And I also think tongues would be the easiest to fake.

There seems to be a difference in the tongues the disciples spoke at Pentecost and the tongues spoken in some of Paul's churches.
At Pentecost everyone understood in their own dialect without the need for an interpreter.
In some of Paul's churches there needed to be an interpreter.

It is true that the gift of tongues is often faked, for various reasons. Some are pressured so much into it that they feel they must appear to have it. Some are just mentally weak or unstable. And some are actually demonic.

But, most likely, all the gifts are faked by some. It is really to be expected since it involves such a power as the Holy Ghost. Satan must offer resistance in some way. Just think how the gift of 'teaching' is faked and abused. Yet Christians in churches are forced to have to sit under someone who doesn't have the gift.

The greatest defence against the abuse of the gifts, especially tongues, is a church with a spirit led leadership. Men in leadership positions who have given evidence of their role as Spiritual men of God. Men who are not afraid or hesitant to call out the false when it surfaces. Let someone stand up and fake a speaking in tongues during a service, then have an elder stand up and tell them to shut up, that is not of God, and we reject that. Then see if that one or anyone attempts to fake it again.

But alas, such men and churches are few.

My opinion.

Lees

 

[Dave]

Dave said: If they were all miracles, then why were miracles listed separately? In another list, we can see "various kinds of healing" listed separately from miracles also. These lists are mostly just practical, good things for the Body. You'll glorify God most if you see Him working in everything good, not just the miraculous.

Because the gift of miracles is a special gift given to some. But all the gifts are miraculous.

Your statement here is self contradicting. You are confirming the point that I made.

Just like the gift of 'evangelism'. Some have it, some don't. (Eph. 4:11) Yet we are encouraged to do the work of an evangelist. (1 Tim. 4:5) So, do you deny all of the gifts of the Holy Ghost? If not, how is it that a gift from the Holy Ghost is not miraculous? Do you have any gift from the Holy Ghost?

No, I don't deny that all the gifts are from the Holy Spirit. I don't know if you realize it, that you do.

Anything good that comes from us for the Church is an undeserved gift from God. The lists of gifts in scripture are not exhaustive lists. I don't know how to say it any better than that.

A good tree cannot bear bad fruit. A Bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Jesus said that. Which are you, Lees? Hint, only God is good. Our flesh can only produce sin, as Paul clearly tells us. The good that does come from us is an undeserved gift from God. He gets the credit, because it's from Him. It's the fruit of the Spirit. What good do you do, or have, that you did not receive from God? If you did receive it from God, why is it not a gift? That's the Biblical definition of a gift. At one point in time, some gifts were miraculous. Most gifts are not.

Humanism doesn't allow for this. It claims that man is inherently good. But scripture says the opposite. Most of the modern day churches teach a theology that is built on humanism, not scripture. Charismatic and Pentecostal churches are some of the worst offenders of this. I came to the conclusion a long time ago, and even told my sister who is still Pentecostal, that I believe that the Pentecostal and Charismatic churches were created specifically for rebellious woman. It's very attractive to them.

Well...yes. Generally speaking one with the gift of healing cannot just go into a hospital and heal everyone. How silly a statement you made.

They healed them all. I provided the scripture. If you are using the claim that it is a persons pure faith that gets them healed, then you would also need to conclude that everyone who was healed by their pure faith, at some point in time later in life, fell short of the matter and died, as we all do.

What a foolish statement you make. It doesn't matter that Jesus was under the Old Testament economy. What matters is that He was indwelt fully by the Holy Ghost. Wasn't He? (John 3:34) "For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him."

It does matter Lees. Hebrews 9:16. The death of the Testator activates His Testament, or Covenant. Everything recorded in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, otherwise known as the Gospels, is Old Testament all the way up until each records the death of Christ on the cross. The NT begins in Acts, not in Matthew chapter one. The relationship between man and the Holy Spirit was significantly different from the OT to the NT. The Holy Spirit could come and go in a person in the OT. Luke 5:17 should be understood within that context.

It should also be noted that what makes Pentecostal and Charismatic churches unique to other churches in what they teach is built on the idea that everything in the Gospels is NT. So, they reason, the Promise of the Father, namely, the Holy Spirit, given at Pentecost must be something more. That idea is what birthed the doctrine of subsequence, a belief that the baptism with the Holy Spirit must be something extra that a saved person gets, since they were already born again and saved. Just like Catholics who build their doctrines from the same mistake, not realizing that the whole Levitical system was in play in the Gospels before the cross. Most serious false doctrines come from not understanding when the NT really begins.

The New Testament Begins in Acts Not Matthew

www.gracelifeinternational.com

Yet you failed your test. You ignored what is written.

Yes, we went over it. And (1 Cor. 12:7) and (1 Cor. 12:4) is against you.

You're comparing a reply that I made about OT scripture to NT scripture. The distinctions between the two matters. As was noted above.

Dave

 

[Lees]

Your statement here is self contradicting. You are confirming the point that I made.



No, I don't deny that all the gifts are from the Holy Spirit. I don't know if you realize it, that you do.

Anything good that comes from us for the Church is an undeserved gift from God. The lists of gifts in scripture are not exhaustive lists. I don't know how to say it any better than that.

A good tree cannot bear bad fruit. A Bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Jesus said that. Which are you, Lees? Hint, only God is good. Our flesh can only produce sin, as Paul clearly tells us. The good that does come from us is an undeserved gift from God. He gets the credit, because it's from Him. It's the fruit of the Spirit. What good do you do, or have, that you did not receive from God? If you did receive it from God, why is it not a gift? That's the Biblical definition of a gift. At one point in time, some gifts were miraculous. Most gifts are not.

Humanism doesn't allow for this. It claims that man is inherently good. But scripture says the opposite. Most of the modern day churches teach a theology that is built on humanism, not scripture. Charismatic and Pentecostal churches are some of the worst offenders of this. I came to the conclusion a long time ago, and even told my sister who is still Pentecostal, that I believe that the Pentecostal and Charismatic churches were created specifically for rebellious woman. It's very attractive to them.



They healed them all. I provided the scripture. If you are using the claim that it is a persons pure faith that gets them healed, then you would also need to conclude that everyone who was healed by their pure faith, at some point in time later in life, fell short of the matter and died, as we all do.



It does matter Lees. Hebrews 9:16. The death of the Testator activates His Testament, or Covenant. Everything recorded in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, otherwise known as the Gospels, is Old Testament all the way up until each records the death of Christ on the cross. The NT begins in Acts, not in Matthew chapter one. The relationship between man and the Holy Spirit was significantly different from the OT to the NT. The Holy Spirit could come and go in a person in the OT. Luke 5:17 should be understood within that context.

It should also be noted that what makes Pentecostal and Charismatic churches unique to other churches in what they teach is built on the idea that everything in the Gospels is NT. So, they reason, the Promise of the Father, namely, the Holy Spirit, given at Pentecost must be something more. That idea is what birthed the doctrine of subsequence, a belief that the baptism with the Holy Spirit must be something extra that a saved person gets, since they were already born again and saved. Just like Catholics who build their doctrines from the same mistake, not realizing that the whole Levitical system was in play in the Gospels before the cross. Most serious false doctrines come from not understanding when the NT really begins.

The New Testament Begins in Acts Not Matthew

www.gracelifeinternational.com

You're comparing a reply that I made about OT scripture to NT scripture. The distinctions between the two matters. As was noted above.

Dave

No it's not. What is contradicting?

If all gifts are from the Holy Ghost, then are they not miraculous?

No one is interested in what you want to call the gifts of the Spirit. What does the Bible say? Your definition of 'gifts' is nauseating.

No they didn't 'heal them all'. And I showed you why. Plus, God didn't heal Paul from his infirmity when he asked for it. (2 Cor. 12:7-9) Why? Becuase it is God Who determines the exercise of the gift. Not the individual, as you beleive. In other words, one who has the gift of healing, cannot walk into a hospital and heal everyone. That is so ridiculous. The only people who use that argument are usually atheists. Do you like their company?

No. The Holy Ghost could not come and go with Christ as with others under the Old Testament economy. As I said, (John 3:34). "...for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him." (Heb. 9:16) doesn't change the fact that Christ had the fullness of the Spirit while He was on the earth.

The Gospels for the most part are on Old Testament ground. Big deal. That doens't change the fact that Jesus had the fullness of the Spirit.

The distinciton does not matter as far as Christ having the full measure of the Spirit.. Yes, I am refuting what you said.

Lees

 

[Dave]

No it's not. What is contradicting?

If all gifts are from the Holy Ghost, then are they not miraculous?

Jesus and the Apostles were confirmed by miracles, not praying, sweeping the front steps of the church, or feeding the poor. All of which are gifts from God.

I feel like Charlton Heston in planet of the Apes. "It's a madhouse!!!!"

No one is interested in what you want to call the gifts of the Spirit. What does the Bible say? Your definition of 'gifts' is nauseating.

It's not my interpretation. It's Gods.

No they didn't 'heal them all'. And I showed you why. Plus, God didn't heal Paul from his infirmity when he asked for it. (2 Cor. 12:7-9) Why? Becuase it is God Who determines the exercise of the gift. Not the individual, as you beleive. In other words, one who has the gift of healing, cannot walk into a hospital and heal everyone. That is so ridiculous. The only people who use that argument are usually atheists. Do you like their company?

The healing questions were confronted already in the gift of healing thread.

Post in thread 'The Gift of Healing.'

Wednesday at 10:19 PM

The Gift of Healing.

Luke 4:40 When the sun was setting, all those who had any that were sick with various diseases brought them to Him; and He laid His hands on every one of them and healed them.

Jesus healed them all.

Acts 5:12-16 And through the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were done among the people. And they were all with one accord in Solomon's Porch. so that they brought the sick out into the streets and laid them on beds and couches, that at least the shadow of Peter passing by might fall on some of them. Also a multitude gathered from the surrounding...

• makesends

No. The Holy Ghost could not come and go with Christ as with others under the Old Testament economy. As I said, (John 3:34). "...for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him." (Heb. 9:16) doesn't change the fact that Christ had the fullness of the Spirit while He was on the earth.

The Gospels for the most part are on Old Testament ground. Big deal. That doens't change the fact that Jesus had the fullness of the Spirit.

The distinciton does not matter as far as Christ having the full measure of the Spirit.. Yes, I am refuting what you said.

Luke 5:17 was the scripture you used.

With regards to OT saints, you used this passage and said.

That the 'power of the Lord was present to heal' indicates that at times the 'power of the Lord' is not present to heal.

My reply was

Dave said "Yes, that's the Old Testament. The Holy Spirit could come and go in a believer. As was noted, He was there."

The context of the discussion was about believers in the OT, not Jesus.

 

[Lees]

@Dave: concerning post #(36)

I asked you what is contradicting? You did not answer. Show me what I said was contradicting.

No, your definition of the gifts is not God's. Give your definition and the Scripture that supports it.

Yes, I have already showed you that the gift of healing doesn't mean one can go into a hospital and heal everybody. That is absurd. Yes, (Luke 5:17) was a verse I used to prove that. If Jesus could not always heal, then you can know neither are those with the gift of healing able to always heal. For Jesus had the full measure of the Spirit. (John 3:34)

Look at the pool of Bethesda. (John 5:1-9) Great multitude was there who needed healing. How many did Jesus heal? One. I wonder why? Didn't Jesus have the ability to heal all of them?

The New Testament gifts of the Holy Ghost reflect the Body of Christ. The Church on earth is the Body of Christ.

Lees

 

[Mr GLee]

@Dave: concerning post #(36)

I asked you what is contradicting? You did not answer. Show me what I said was contradicting.

No, your definition of the gifts is not God's. Give your definition and the Scripture that supports it.

Yes, I have already showed you that the gift of healing doesn't mean one can go into a hospital and heal everybody. That is absurd. Yes, (Luke 5:17) was a verse I used to prove that. If Jesus could not always heal, then you can know neither are those with the gift of healing able to always heal. For Jesus had the full measure of the Spirit. (John 3:34)

Look at the pool of Bethesda. (John 5:1-9) Great multitude was there who needed healing. How many did Jesus heal? One. I wonder why? Didn't Jesus have the ability to heal all of them?

The New Testament gifts of the Holy Ghost reflect the Body of Christ. The Church on earth is the Body of Christ.

Lees

Interesting can you drink the poison of serpents and not die? Like the snake charmers?

From biblegateway. . .Snake charming is referred to twice in the Bible, both times in a metaphorical sense. In Psalm 58:4, 5 wicked people are compared to poisonous serpents that do not heed the voice of charmers. In Jeremiah 8:17 God tells the Israelites that He will punish them by sending among them snakes which cannot be charmed and which will bite them. In Ecclesiasticus 12:13, a charmer bitten by a serpent is used as a metaphor for someone who associates with sinners.

Mark 16:17-19 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; Hey 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.

Are deadly things those things that make prophecy God's signified tongue used in parables without effect?

What does it mean to drink poison? I did it and now I am dead falling back slain in the spirit?

James 3:8 But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison.

 

[Lees]

What was the purpose of different languages spoken in the Bible?

I believe it was two fold. The primary reason being that at Pentecost there were Jews gathered from far sprung places who all spoke different languages or dialects. It was so the good news could be heard and understood and carried back to their native location. The same thing of people of different languages being present in one location would be true in individual communities and churches. It was also, as in the case of Cornelius, a non-Jew that the same Holy Spirit was given to Gentiles.

So the question becomes, "Is that necessary today?" Not with the Bible completed and translated in many languages. Preachers and teachers who are over congregations of the same language.

If they occur on rare occasions, and I do not know if they do or do not, and in keeping with the Bible instruction that it not be done unless there is someone there to interpret what is said, it would resemble this:

A foreigner who does not speak English comes to the US and speaks to the nation. An interpreter stands beside him interpreting his words into English. Gibberish has no interpretation and any that is given has no way of being evaluated. God does not need unintelligible sounds to be given and then translated to communicate with his people or for the to communicate with him.

I am not so sure. No doubt understanding what was said in ones language did occur. But that seems to occur due to the 'hearing'. (Acst 2:6) "...and every man heard them speak in his own language." (Acts 2:8) "And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherin we were born? (Acts 2:11) "...we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God."

The ones speaking in tongues were many of the disciples, including some of the believing women, including Mary and Christ's brothers. (Acts 1:13-14) And "they were all with one accord in one place." (Acts 2:1) "And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them." (Acts 2:3) "And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." (Acts 2:4)

It just seems strange to me that so many disciples, if speaking various languages at the same time, that anyone could make heads or tails out of what any were saying. But if the Lord gave them tongues to speak which were not known language but was miraculously understood by those there at Pentecost, no matter what language they spoke, it seems to me there would have been more order and the ability to hear.

So, you have different groups of people present. You have the disciples who are speaking in tongues. They represent the New Testament believer who have trusted Christ. Then you have the Jews and proselytes who are faithful Jews, as they have come for the feast of Pentecost, and they were supposed to. They probably haven't heard much of Christ, if anything. But they were faithful Jews. And to them, their ears were opened.

Then you have another group there who represent the unbelieving. And what was their response? "Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine." (Acts 2:13) In other words they accused them of being drunk. I don't see how speaking another known language would produce this kind of reaction. As a result, their ears were not opened. But if they, the disciples, spoke in an unknown language or tongue given them by God, and they, those who mocked, just heard it as drunken gibberesh, because their ears were not opened, then their response makes more sense to me.

Thus, concerning the gifts, the disciples here could represent those who have the gift of tongues. Those who heard and understood could represent those with the gift of interpretation of tongues. And of course those who mocked represent the unbelieving.

I'm not going to the martyr's stake with this. Just something to chew on.

Lees

 

[Dave]

Hi Lees, you said..."Because the gift of miracles is a special gift given to some. But all the gifts are miraculous."

The contradiction was that you said miracles were unique (special) and given to some, and then you said that all the gifts are miracles, thus removing the uniqueness because all believers have gifts.

No, your definition of the gifts is not God's. Give your definition and the Scripture that supports it.

My evidence was from the Bible. I'll ask you again, (Paul asked these same questions in the Bible, 1 Cor. 4:7) what do you have that is good, that you did not receive from God? And if you did receive it from God, why do you not see it as a gift? My point is simple. The lists of gifts are not a list of super powers. They could be miraculous at one time, but, even then, were mostly very practical.

The rest is getting a bit redundant. I don't think that our repeating ourselves over and over will change anything.

Dave