Speaking in tongues

[SpoonJuly]

The gifts of the Holy Spirit need to be sought after we accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour.

But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. (8) For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; (9) To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; (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: 1Co 12:7-10 KJV

There are many who call themselves Christians but are not. The manifestation of the gifts in a persons life are the outward evidence of the inward dwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Another who judges me lost, calling myself a Christian but am not, because I do not speak in tongues.

 

[Noose]

I know of no scripture that specifically addresses the groups of people you mention. However, our God is just; therefore, surely He has a plan. I do wonder though if those unable to make an informed decision fit into the 1,000 year period somehow, as Satan is let loose for a short time to test mankind. But I have no idea and just don't think on such things much.

There are many verses that address these groups, example is "...Jesus came to save the world..."

 

[PS]

Another who judges me lost, calling myself a Christian but am not, because I do not speak in tongues.

Never would I do that! The devil is the accuser. Take no notice. Telling people they are lost is to send that person down the road to Hell. We need to encourage people in the faith and to build ourselves up in love for each other, binding ourselves together in the love of Christ, united in Him. A Christian is someone who accepts Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour and follows Him all the days of their life. If that is what you do, you are a Christian. God bless you.

The gifts of the Spirit are an added bonus given to us by God. Why reject God's gifts to us? Speaking in tongues is only one gift and to be perfectly honest I don't speak in tongues either. See, you are jumping to conclusions. I encourage people to seek God's gifts so that they are able to serve the Lord better in their everyday life. You have accepted God's gift of salvation, now go further in your Christian life and prayerfully ask the Spirit to fill you with His power so that you in turn might be able to serve Him all the better. Speaking in tongues is the least useful in my opinion, seek the Lord in prayer that He might bless you and keep you in His love as you grow in wisdom, and faith over the coming years.

1Co 12:4-11 ERV
(4) There are different kinds of spiritual gifts, but they are all from the same Spirit.
(5) There are different ways to serve, but we serve the same Lord.
(6) And there are different ways that God works in people, but it is the same God who works in all of us to do everything.
(7) Something from the Spirit can be seen in each person. The Spirit gives this to each one to help others.
(8) The Spirit gives one person the ability to speak with wisdom. And the same Spirit gives another person the ability to speak with knowledge.
(9) The same Spirit gives faith to one person and to another he gives gifts of healing.
(10) The Spirit gives to one person the power to do miracles, to another the ability to prophesy, and to another the ability to judge what is from the Spirit and what is not. The Spirit gives one person the ability to speak in different kinds of languages, and to another the ability to interpret those languages.
(11) One Spirit, the same Spirit, does all these things. The Spirit decides what to give each one.

 

[Sketch]

Another who judges me lost, calling myself a Christian but am not, because I do not speak in tongues.

That's a great point.
I do speak in tongues, but don't EXPECT anyone else to.
Even though I believe the ability is for any believer that wants it.
And I highly recommend it. But I neither expect it,
nor judge others who don't yet have use of it.

There are plenty of other evidences of the indwelling Holy Spirit.
Like the Fruit of the Spirit. I do however take issue with those who
don't speak in tongues that either want to tell me what it is,
or when and how it is to be used.

 

[presidente]

Not only II Corinthians, everything from Mathew to Revelation was written for those who did not witness Jesus and heard His words.

Missionaries? Who appointed them? If they appointed themselves, i know for sure that they make the gospel of no effect.

The church in Corinth sent 'apostles' to make a delivery. In Acts 15, we also see in the Bible that the Spirit can speak to brethren and send forth men who do the work of the ministry.

If they did not hear specifically from God, do you think it is a sin to go to another country and proclaim the Gospel to other people. Who sent Philip?

So, when missionaries go to Africa or wherever, between Premil/ Amil /Post mil, which do they preach and which one is correct? They all can not be correct but they all can be wrong

Between Pretrib/Mid trib/Posttrib, which one do the missionaries preach?

God has lamented several times when people He did not appoint run with their own word to shepherd people. Heb 2 confirms that it is the Lord who preaches the gospel, first by Himself and then through His appointed servants and lastly through the scriptures.

He also sent apostles. One of them taught that if someone is gifted to prophesy, he should prophesy according to the proportion of faith, if he is gifted to teach, he should teach. If he is gifted to exhort, he should exhort. The Lord sets forth various types of ministers in His church.

If a 'regular believer' tells someone else about Jesus and He believes, that is not a bad thing, either. If they are prophesying false prophecies in the name of the Lord, then that's a bad thing.

 

[presidente]

What idiom, the statement is always said "..they breathed their last and died and was gathered to his people..". IOW, the gathering happens after someone is already dead so it can not be an idiom for dying again.

It could be an idiom for burial or the period of mourning. But if you actually look at the account in Deuteronomy, it is possible they had some kind of mourning around the body before he was buried. It isn't that specific.

1 Cor 15:29 is a question that you need to answer; don't tell me what you think it is not, answer it if you can.

Q. Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?

It is a rhetorical question. Since the dead are raised, there is no correct answer to the question.

And i can help you with the structure of the question. It means if there is resurrection then the practice of baptizing for the dead is totally justified because of the underlying belief. So what is your answer, what will they do?

Paul does not comment on whether their practice of baptism for the dead was acceptable or not. He just used it as part of the argument against their belief that there is no resurrection. But I do not see how this verse is any kind of evidence for the theories you have been promoting.

 

[notuptome]

These are all passages about speaking in tongues/languages. Acts 2 was different from the instructions for the use of the gift in a church setting in I Corinthians 14. In Acts 2, people present understand. In I Corinthians 12, people present do not understand.

Interpreting the new tongues/languages of Mark 16....in the context of a list of supernatural things...to refer to the type of tongues found in Acts makes a lot of sense. Saying 'new tongue' really refers to new hearts makes much less sense.

That is your personal narrative not what is written in scripture.

In 1 Cor 12 the people present did not understand the language of the speaker but it does not conclude that the speaker's language was not a known language.

There are many contrasts between the tongues in Acts 2 and the rest of the events in Acts when compared to what was going on in Corinth. Corinth was corrective not prescriptive. In any case there is no evidence that what is seen as tongues today is anything like what was in Acts.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Sketch]

Corinth was corrective not prescriptive.

Really?

1 Corinthians 12:31
Now eagerly desire the greater gifts.

1 Corinthians 14:1
Follow the way of love and eagerly desire gifts of the Spirit, especially prophecy. ...

1 Corinthians 14:5
I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. ...

1 Corinthians 14:12
So it is with you. Since you are eager for gifts of the Spirit, try to excel in those that build up the church.

1 Corinthians 14:26
What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. ...

1 Corinthians 14:39
Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues.

 

[presidente]

This is the danger.
The gospel as much as it saves, it also judges and those that reject it are already condemned.
But worse still, is the issue of false doctrines. A missionary carries his own understanding and transfers to countless number of innocent people who would have been better off not hearing it because where there's no law, there can't be condemnation- the lost souls will be on the teacher's account because they literally guided them to a ditch.

Did God send you to promote your theories about a resurrection that does not involve those that sleep in the dust arising, the spirit of saints being transferred to followers after death, and various other beliefs?

Btw, this verse from Philippians 1 comes to mind about your theory that it benefited the people for the apostles to die because they got their spirit:
Philippians 1
23 I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better. 24 But to remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account.
(ESV)

 

[presidente]

That is your personal narrative not what is written in scripture.

It's called a much more straightforward and reasonable interpretation than yours, especially taking the whole New Testament into account. I suspect your interpretation comes from what you do not want Mark 16 to be saying.

In 1 Cor 12 the people present did not understand the language of the speaker but it does not conclude that the speaker's language was not a known language.

I sense a strawman argument. I haven't read notes from KJV translators, but I would imagine that they used 'unknown' there to indicate that others present did not know the tongue. If other people present do not know the tongue, it is an 'unknown' tongues.

There are many contrasts between the tongues in Acts 2 and the rest of the events in Acts when compared to what was going on in Corinth. Corinth was corrective not prescriptive. In any case there is no evidence that what is seen as tongues today is anything like what was in Acts.

There is correction and prescription. As to whether it looks like Acts 2, that depends on who 'we' is. If you are talking to someone who heard speaking 'in tongues' in their own language or a language they knew, then it does look something like Acts 2.

Tongues operating the way I Corinthians prescribes is acceptable, too, of course.

 

[garee]

It's called a much more straightforward and reasonable interpretation than yours, especially taking the whole New Testament into account. I suspect your interpretation comes from what you do not want Mark 16 to be saying.

What is it you want it to say? What is the spiritual meaning of that parable? What kind of new language or tongues cast out demons?Is it the gospel as the language of God that causes demon to flee as it is written?

What does pick up serpents and their poison shall not kill them represent? Does it mean that false prophecy referred to as poison will not effect them because they can spot a counterfeit. seeing they do not go above that which is written

Mark16:17-20 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.So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

I sense a strawman argument. I haven't read notes from KJV translators, but I would imagine that they used 'unknown' there to indicate that others present did not know the tongue. If other people present do not know the tongue, it is an 'unknown' tongues.

Not unknown to the person who brings the prophecy of God so that God can apply its meaning to their heart and they can have a clear understanding and believe God as an anchor to their soul

There is correction and prescription. As to whether it looks like Acts 2, that depends on who 'we' is. If you are talking to someone who heard speaking 'in tongues' in their own language or a language they knew, then it does look something like Acts 2.

Tongues operating the way I Corinthians prescribes is acceptable, too, of course.

If you are looking for a prescription you could try looking to the foundation of the law in 1 Corinthian 14 as to who the sign of rebellion points to and what it confirms and why the Holy Spirit mocked the unbelieving Jews. The foundation is in Isaiaha 28.

With those prescriptions it seems to clear to me .No such thing as a sign gift. .Jesus said it is natural man that walks by sight called a evil generation they seeks after a sign before they will commit faith. The last sign as a wonder was fulfilled two thousand years ago the sign of Jonas, the wonder of the cross.

Why look for a sign rather than walking by faith as if the kingdom of God came by observation ?

In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe. 2 Cornithians 14:21 -22

Is it not all about believing (having faith) or not believing? (no faith)

(1) Believe not prophecy ...the sign of rebel.

(2) Believe God's word prophecy.... the sign of one who hears God.

 

[garee]

Maybe, i wouldn't know and can't tell how but when i read the following, i'm always astounded:

Gen 25:7 Abraham lived a total of 175 years. 8 And at a ripe old age he breathed his last and died, old and contented, and was gathered to his people.

Genesis 25:17 Ishmael lived a total of 137 years. Then he breathed his last and died, and was gathered to his people.

Genesis 49:29 Then Jacob instructed them, "I am about to be gathered to my people. Bury me with my fathers in the cave in the field of Ephron the Hittite....When Jacob had finished instructing his sons, he pulled his feet into the bed and breathed his last, and he was gathered to his people.

Deuteronomy 32:50 And there on the mountain that you climb, you will die and be gathered to your people, just as your brother Aaron died on Mount Hor and was gathered to his people.

I initially thought the gathering here is just people coming together to mourn and bury, until i read about Moses- he was buried by angels. And Moses' people should be Aaron's people but the bible suggests they are different people.

And of course this:

1 Cor 15:29 Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?

I don't know what is happening here.

It would seem his people are all of those in Hebrews 11 below. waiting for the new incorruptible bodies which will be neither Jew nor gentile, male or female. or the gathering of the great cloud of witness

And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:Hebrewa 11:39

I am not getting the Aaron and Moses separation? Can you explain?

 

[Sketch]

Tongues operating the way I Corinthians prescribes is acceptable, too, of course.

There is more than one kind of tongues.
I know of at least five different kinds.
The kind you are referring to is only one kind.
Therefore, the prescription only applies to that one.

What were you saying about Corinthians not being prescriptive?
But here you are discussing a prescriptive.

 

[Noose]

It would seem his people are all of those in Hebrews 11 below. waiting for the new incorruptible bodies which will be neither Jew nor gentile, male or female. or the gathering of the great cloud of witness

And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:Hebrewa 11:39

I am not getting the Aaron and Moses separation? Can you explain?

Aaron is the brother of Moses and they both lived during the same period of time. So it is correct to say that they shared the same people (beloved/congregation/relatives/generation), but God tells Moses that he will die and be gathered to his people just like Aaron died and was gathered to his people- creating a distinction between Moses' people and Aaron's people yet they were one people.

This shows that gathering to ones people is a spiritual reality than it is physical.

I'm not saying that the OT saints died and were resurrected then, their resurrection was waiting for Jesus and the church so the gathering thing was only a prophesy.

 

[Dino246]

Aaron is the brother of Moses and they both lived during the same period of time. So it is correct to say that they shared the same people (beloved/congregation/relatives/generation), but God tells Moses that he will die and be gathered to his people just like Aaron died and was gathered to his people- creating a distinction between Moses' people and Aaron's people yet they were one people.

This does not create a distinction between Moses' people and Aaron's people at all. It is simply correct grammar. Moses, an individual person, was gathered to his (singular) people, as Aaron was gathered to his (singular) people. No distinction is implied.

 

[Noose]

Did God send you to promote your theories about a resurrection that does not involve those that sleep in the dust arising, the spirit of saints being transferred to followers after death, and various other beliefs?

Btw, this verse from Philippians 1 comes to mind about your theory that it benefited the people for the apostles to die because they got their spirit:
Philippians 1
23 I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better. 24 But to remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account.
(ESV)

No, God did not send me, i'm just arguing from my understanding and from my understanding, i know what can not be true.

Philippians 1 defeats your own position and backs my position. Paul is comparing two things 1) To remain in flesh and continue teaching them and winning those that are lost among them, and 2) to be with Christ

Paul says being with Christ is much better, but where is Christ?

Rom 8:9 You, however, are controlled not by the flesh, but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. 10 But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet the Spirit gives you life because of righteousness.

So if Paul teaches that Christ is in believers and also believes that it is better to be with Christ than to remain alive in flesh, it is logical to say Paul believed he will be caught together with his listeners (indwell them) - something that he taught Corinthians/Thessalonians and now Philippians.

 

[garee]

There is more than one kind of tongues.
I know of at least five different kinds.
The kind you are referring to is only one kind.
Therefore, the prescription only applies to that one.

What were you saying about Corinthians not being prescriptive?
But here you are discussing a prescriptive.

five different kinds? Five different languages/ tongues as clear sounds that make up words that carry a conversation? I know a person who speaks 7 different languages that convey the gospel in each .

 

[Noose]

This does not create a distinction between Moses' people and Aaron's people at all. It is simply correct grammar. Moses, an individual person, was gathered to his (singular) people, as Aaron was gathered to his (singular) people. No distinction is implied.

Wrong.

The people being spoken of are not physical but spiritual. This is the account of Aaron's death:

Num 20:
22 The whole Israelite community set out from Kadesh and came to Mount Hor. 23At Mount Hor, near the border of Edom, the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, 24“Aaron will be gathered to his people. He will not enter the land I give the Israelites, because both of you rebelled against my command at the waters of Meribah. 25Get Aaron and his son Eleazar and take them up Mount Hor. 26Remove Aaron’s garments and put them on his son Eleazar, for Aaron will be gathered to his people; he will die there.”

27Moses did as the Lord commanded: They went up Mount Hor in the sight of the whole community.28Moses removed Aaron’s garments and put them on his son Eleazar. And Aaron died there on top of the mountain. Then Moses and Eleazar came down from the mountain, 29and when the whole community learned that Aaron had died, all the Israelites mourned for him thirty days.

So when God told Moses that he will die and be gathered to his people just like Aaron died and was gathered to his people, He actually means two different groups spiritually and not physical because Moses died and was buried by God and the angels and not people.

This is Moses' death:

Deut 34:5 So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, as the LORD had said.6And He buried him in a valley in the land of Moab facing Beth-peor, and no one to this day knows the location of his grave.

Jude 1:9 But even the archangel Michael, when he disputed with the devil over the body of Moses, did not presume to bring a slanderous judgment against him, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”

I can't see anything to suggest that Moses was gathered to the same people as Aaron.

 

[presidente]

There is more than one kind of tongues.
I know of at least five different kinds.
The kind you are referring to is only one kind.
Therefore, the prescription only applies to that one.

What were you saying about Corinthians not being prescriptive?
But here you are discussing a prescriptive.

That was another pister saying Corinthians was not prescriptive and I disagreed.

God tells Moses that he will die and be gathered to his people just like Aaron died and was gathered to his people- creating a distinction between Moses' people and Aaron's people yet they were one people.

IMO, that is rather weak. If both were 'gathered to his people', that doesn't mean there were two different sets of people. They could still be the same people. And it also points toward this being an idiom.

This shows that gathering to ones people is a spiritual reality than it is physical.

This does not follow from the argument or evidence you made previously.

 

[Noose]

It could be an idiom for burial or the period of mourning. But if you actually look at the account in Deuteronomy, it is possible they had some kind of mourning around the body before he was buried. It isn't that specific.

It is a rhetorical question. Since the dead are raised, there is no correct answer to the question.


Paul does not comment on whether their practice of baptism for the dead was acceptable or not. He just used it as part of the argument against their belief that there is no resurrection. But I do not see how this verse is any kind of evidence for the theories you have been promoting.

An idiom for burial?! so when Jesus comes to gather the elect from the four corners means He actually mourns and buries the elect in the four corners. Nice try but why guess and why are you trying so hard so that it doesn't mean what it means? could it be because you are wrong?

Moses died and was buried by God, so does it mean Moses was gathered to God?

1 Cor 15:29 Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?

As much as it is a rhetorical question, saying there's no correct answer is absurd. It is structured to help you think and make the right conclusion, so there must be a correct answer which is the one and only truth. The second part or the second question is a real question which has a real answer.

Q. If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?

The answer is very simple and the answer is in the question itself. People baptized for the dead because they believed there was resurrection. They did not baptize for the dead in the 1st century because they believed resurrection will be in 21st century and counting. Paul accepts the practice because the underlying belief was correct. If he was talking about a 21st century resurrection, he would have asked:
If there will be no resurrection, what will they do....