Why have the Sign Gifts Ended

[presidente]

That leaves us with the full maturity of the saint in the eternal kingdom, presumably after death. I wouldn't rule out the possibility of another explanation, but I have yet to hear of one.

The New Testament does not present death as the final end of things as far as the individual believer is concerned. The departed men and women of faith in Hebrews 11 are physically dead, but Hebrews 11:40 says, 'they without us should not be made perfect.'
Our hope is the return of Christ and the rapture/resurrection at the return of Christ. I Corinthians 15 discusses the resurrection and the transformation of the saints that remain. It also mentions 'the end' τὸ τέλος when Christ delivers up the kingdom to God.

 

[awelight]

We agree on all this so far.


I reject the "completed Bible" view because it requires an untenable circular argument with regard to prophecy, which Scripture itself refutes. Someone who holds that the only prophecy that exists is that which became Scripture must ignore the fact that the prophecies uttered by Philip's daughters did not become Scripture, and that no word of prophecy uttered by any of the Corinthians became part of Scripture. Further, they must hoop-jump to explain how Agabus was recognized as a prophet before speaking a single word of prophecy. No cessationist (that I have challenged) has ever provided a coherent response to this challenge.

In contrast, someone who is not bound to such a restrictive view of genuine prophecy has no issue with prophecy spoken (or written) after the close of the canon; they understand that it was never intended to become part of Scripture.

That leaves us with the full maturity of the saint in the eternal kingdom, presumably after death. I wouldn't rule out the possibility of another explanation, but I have yet to hear of one.

It sounds to me, that you are defending modern day Charismatic thinking, that "prophecy" (telling of future events and receiving heretofore unknown mysteries, is still taking place today. Am I misreading your intent?

The Koine Greek word προφητειας, translated in English as "prophecy", does not primarily carry the meaning of telling forth the future. This greek word and it's variances, comes from the root word "prof-ay-to-o" that means: To speak forth, either by inspiration or by proclaiming God's word. It is more related to "preaching", than to telling of future events. (Joseph Thayer - Greek English Lexicon, originally printed in 1901).

While your final conclusion: "That leaves us with the full maturity of the saint in the eternal kingdom....", may indeed be correct, I give this in support of the Biblical Cannon.

The verse in question: 1Co 13:10 but when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away. (Which is believed to have been written around 53AD by Paul). Should be compared with this verse: 2Pe 1:19 And we have the word of prophecy made more sure; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day-star arise in your hearts: (Which is believed to have been written around 66AD by Peter).

So we have Peter saying that we have a more sure Word of God some 13 years later, than when Paul first wrote the words in 1Cor. 13:10. And we still have another 30 some odd years to go before John will complete the Cannon with the Revelation of Jesus Christ. Something to think about.

 

[awelight]

If I may add some further commentary to this idea: some people take 'that which is perfect' in the KJV to refer to a substantive 'that'-- a physical object that is perfect. But the Greek is τὸ τέλειον which more literally be rendered 'the perfect' or 'the complete.' We are waiting for some kind of perfected/completed state or situation.

Your point would go to the idea of the Saints being completed in Eternity. I certainly agree this maybe the point Paul was driving at. See the post I left for "Dino246, on further support for the idea it is the completed Cannon of Scripture.

 

[awelight]

The New Testament does not present death as the final end of things as far as the individual believer is concerned. The departed men and women of faith in Hebrews 11 are physically dead, but Hebrews 11:40 says, 'they without us should not be made perfect.'
Our hope is the return of Christ and the rapture/resurrection at the return of Christ. I Corinthians 15 discusses the resurrection and the transformation of the saints that remain. It also mentions 'the end' τὸ τέλος when Christ delivers up the kingdom to God.

Hebrews 11:40, in the immediate context, is not talking about death or the future resurrection. The writer is saying that the Hebrew believers will not be made complete without the NT believers.

Heb 11:38-40 (of whom the world was not worthy), wandering in deserts and mountains and caves, and the holes of the earth. And these all, having had witness borne to them through their faith, received not the promise, God having provided some better thing concerning us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect.

I also hope, that no believer thinks that upon our falling asleep, we waiting for the resurrection. The Scriptures clearly teach that when one passes through the valley of the shadow of death, that one will be with the Lord. The resurrection is future to us who are prisoners of time but those who have passed on, are in eternity, in their glorified bodies and with the Lord. Eternity knows no time. Eternity has order but that order is not governed by time.

This eternal now was hinted at in: Luke_23:43 And he said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise. It was proven on the mount of transfiguration:

Mar 9:2-4 And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and brought them up into a high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them; and his garments became glistering, exceeding white, so as no fuller on earth can whiten them. And there appeared unto them Elijah with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus.

Elijah and Moses were in their glorified bodies... talking with Jesus. Eternity can invade time but time cannot invade eternity.

 

[Guojing]

No, that is not true. Read Romans 4. The circumcised are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, and so are the uncircumcised. Peter made the same point in Acts 15. The Gospel is not about whether to be circumcised or not. The discussion in Acts 15 is not about Jewish believers being circumcised.

Gentiles who sought to be circumcised because they did not trust in Christ were salvation were abandoning the Gospel.

Romans was only written after Acts 15.

Peter wanted Jews to be exempted from the Law, just like gentiles (Acts 15:11), but James would have none of it. Jews who believed in Jesus after Acts 15 still had to be zealous for the Law (Acts 21:20-25), he only exempted the gentiles (Acts 21:25).

So you are correct, the discussion in Acts 15 is not about Jewish believers being circumcised, in fact it was not even on the agenda.

 

[Dino246]

The New Testament does not present death as the final end of things as far as the individual believer is concerned. The departed men and women of faith in Hebrews 11 are physically dead, but Hebrews 11:40 says, 'they without us should not be made perfect.'
Our hope is the return of Christ and the rapture/resurrection at the return of Christ. I Corinthians 15 discusses the resurrection and the transformation of the saints that remain. It also mentions 'the end' τὸ τέλος when Christ delivers up the kingdom to God.

Thanks; I'm well aware of all that. My point was 1 Corinthians 13:8, not a discourse on "the end".

 

[Dino246]

It sounds to me, that you are defending modern day Charismatic thinking, that "prophecy" (telling of future events and receiving heretofore unknown mysteries, is still taking place today. Am I misreading your intent?

The Koine Greek word προφητειας, translated in English as "prophecy", does not primarily carry the meaning of telling forth the future. This greek word and it's variances, comes from the root word "prof-ay-to-o" that means: To speak forth, either by inspiration or by proclaiming God's word. It is more related to "preaching", than to telling of future events. (Joseph Thayer - Greek English Lexicon, originally printed in 1901).

While your final conclusion: "That leaves us with the full maturity of the saint in the eternal kingdom....", may indeed be correct, I give this in support of the Biblical Cannon.

The verse in question: 1Co 13:10 but when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away. (Which is believed to have been written around 53AD by Paul). Should be compared with this verse: 2Pe 1:19 And we have the word of prophecy made more sure; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day-star arise in your hearts: (Which is believed to have been written around 66AD by Peter).

So we have Peter saying that we have a more sure Word of God some 13 years later, than when Paul first wrote the words in 1Cor. 13:10. And we still have another 30 some odd years to go before John will complete the Cannon with the Revelation of Jesus Christ. Something to think about.

Peter's statement, "we have the word of prophecy made more sure" does not speak to the canon of Scripture at all, but to prophecies recorded in Scripture, as verse 21 states, "no prophecy of Scripture...". He is talking about foretelling, not forth-telling.

While "preaching" may have be a better sense of the Greek word, the sense of foretelling is consistently used throughout Scripture. Agabus didn't "preach", he foretold. Paul didn't foretell to the people in his travels; he preached. There are six Greek words translated "preach" (or a variant thereof), and three translated "prophesy" or variants. They don't overlap. Paul and the other writers weren't confused about their meanings. The modern use of "prophesy" to mean "preach" only seems to show up in circles where foretelling is either forbidden or considered "ceased".

 

[presidente]

Romans was only written after Acts 15.

Peter wanted Jews to be exempted from the Law, just like gentiles (Acts 15:11), but James would have none of it.

You are reading your own ideas into both Peter and James' words.

 

[Guojing]

You are reading your own ideas into both Peter and James' words.

No I am reading Acts 15 and Acts 21 literally.

Acts 21:20-25 is clear about the difference between Jewish believers and Gentiles believers, when it comes to the Law of Moses.

 

[presidente]

No I am reading Acts 15 and Acts 21 literally.

Acts 21:20-25 is clear about the difference between Jewish believers and Gentiles believers, when it comes to the Law of Moses.

There is no indication that Peter did not want Jews to be circumcised in that verse or any hint that James disagreed.

 

[Guojing]

There is no indication that Peter did not want Jews to be circumcised in that verse or any hint that James disagreed.

I am not saying that.

I am saying James only concluded that Gentiles who believed need not follow the Law. (Acts 15:19)

Jews who believed needed to continue in the Law of the Moses. Acts 21:20-25, again, spells that out.

 

[notuptome]

You should be very careful how you throw around the name 'Holy Spirit.' You are the one who has accepted a system of arguments that leads you reject the operation of certain gifts of the Spirit. The text does not say what you assert.

Rest assured that I do not speak the name of God casually. I also know that the Holy Spirit does not minister outside of the word of God. Translated the Holy Spirit does not cause men to speak in false tongues.

The fact that 'telios' can be translated 'complete' does not prove your point. The word does not mean 'completed Bible.' That is the idea you are eisegeting into the text. Many serious theologians, even cessationists, recognize the serious problems with your point of view. One of the most well-known outspoken opponents of the operation of certain spiritual gifts in the church today is John MacArthur. He even argues that telios refers to the eternal state. Perfection, the complete thing, is coming. When it comes, Paul's speech, knowledge, and understanding when he wrote these scriptures will be like a child's in comparison to his speech, knowledge, and understanding. We still 'know in part.' If you knew fully then you would see the obvious error of what you are arguing, and how it is obviously inconsistent with the text of scripture. We still see through a glass darkly, now, and faith, hope, and charity still abide now.

You are deceived and go about teaching deception.

The OT is speaking in shadows of what is to come. Christ has come and things are now made clear. The law taught us as a schoolmaster treating us a children. Now we have the mind of Christ, at least those of us who are in Christ, so we walk as grown-ups in the Lord. The NT demonstrates what the OT promised.

If I remember correctly, you are a dispensationalist, so don't you believe that the two witnesses will prophesy in the end times? And don't you believe that these spiritual gifts that you interpret I Corinthians 13 to say had already been 'done away' will revive at some point during a future 7 year period so the two witnesses can prophesy? If so, that's really inconsistent. If they are done away when the perfect, comes, why try to argue they will come back, and if they will come back, why would that have to be during 7 years and not during a transitional period before it?

There is no conflict with my position and the two witnesses in Revelation. I fail to see why you would endeavor to cast doubt on my with the biblical principal of dispensational teaching.

Prophecy today is teaching and preaching the completed word of God. No future telling no word of wisdom no spooky foreknowledge as the Pentecostal charismatics would hold as truth which isn't. Pentecostals themselves say that 80% of the prophecy by their prophets fails. According to the OT they are to be stoned because it is obvious that they claimed God gave them a prophecy that God did not give them.

Believing what the Bible says about spiritual gifts is not the same as going 'after false gods.' That's a messed up way of misinterpreting things.

I would agree but you are not teaching what the bible says about the Holy Spirit and ministry that He works in the hearts of believers.

I am part of a house church, not a Pentecostal denomination. But there are things about Pentecostals I can appreciate, just like I can appreciate certain things about Baptists, etc. As for whether what goes on in a Pentecostal church aligns with I Corinthians 12-14, it depends on which things and which churches. When it comes to tongues and prophecies, there are Pentecostal churches that allow for both in their meetings. In some of the churches, after a tongue given out in the congregation, someone else interprets. There are other churches where people pray in tongues 'en masse' with no interpretation and I do not agree with that practice.

Prophecy in todays church is preaching the word of God. Plurality of elders produces a plurality or errors. The pastor of a church needs a formal education in the bible to pastor a church. He also needs a number of other traits that produce the maturity to pastor and disciple believers.

But let us consider whether what goes on in your typical Protestant church and churches with historical ties to Protestantism, including Baptist and Pentecostal churches is Biblical. Where does the Bible teach to have one pastor preach one sermon every Sunday? I can't find that? Where does it say to have a hymn sandwich? That is a sermon sandwiched in between two sets of three hymns? I cannot find that.

I do not criticize the order of service. If you do not want to sing then don't sing. I do not condone a worship band in church complete with all the enticing singing of the performers.

I Corinthians 14 is the one long passage of scripture that tells us what to do in church. (Chapter 11 is kind of long tells us what _not_ to do with the Lord Supper). In I Corinthians 14, we see instructions on what to do in church. Regular members of the congregation speak and sing to edify each other. Verse 26 says, 'every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath an revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.' It doesn't say anything about a pastor speaking one sermon, but an elder teaching would be allowed if 'every one of you' is allowed to have a doctrine. There are specific instructions that allow for speaking in tongues and interpretation. The passage commands the church to 'let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.' In addition to that it says 'For ye may all prophesy one by one....' Paul writes that what he had written were 'commandments of the Lord' and implies it is universal church practice when he says, 'what came the word of God out from among you or unto you only has it come?'

So how many Baptist churches (or whatever kind of church you go to) actually do what the Bible teaches when it comes to church meetings?

The Biblical instructions are much more 'charismatic' in some ways than many Charismatic or Pentecostal church meetings. But many of these churches are closer in some ways because they do allow for some measure of obedience to the commandments of the Lord for church meetings that many other churches do not.

Cultural responses against charismatic Pentecostal churches among those who do not embrace such conduct does not indicate that non charismatic Pentecostal assemblies do not understand and embrace genuine ministry of the Holy Spirit.

Perhaps you church is unique in that it has non native speakers in attendance that require the teaching of Gods word be given to them in their native language. The vast majority of churches today have no such language barrier to overcome. If an English speaking pastor is preaching in Haiti then we would have need for an interpreter.

Praying in tongues is never taught in scripture.

For the cause of Christ
Roge

 

[oyster67]

The argument that it has ceased is straightforward, with the necessary scripture:

Haven't you forgotten about a little tiny thing called "the future". It isn't over until the fat one has sung.

 

[presidente]

Rest assured that I do not speak the name of God casually. I also know that the Holy Spirit does not minister outside of the word of God.

I would not disagree with that statement, but not if you equate 'the word of God' exactly with scripture, as opposed to working in concert with the divine Logos. The Spirit hovered upon the face of the deep and God said.

Translated the Holy Spirit does not cause men to speak in false tongues.

Who says that he does?

You are deceived and go about teaching deception.

You are the one promoting ideas on this topic that are contrary to scripture.

The OT is speaking in shadows of what is to come. Christ has come and things are now made clear. The law taught us as a schoolmaster treating us a children. Now we have the mind of Christ, at least those of us who are in Christ, so we walk as grown-ups in the Lord. The NT demonstrates what the OT promised.

If that is supposed to explain your interpretation of 'that which is perfect' in I Corinthians 13, you have a problem. Either you have to make Paul, the twelve apostles, and early Christians out to be like children still under a schoolmaster (which is not really consistent with the passage you are referring to from Galatians either) or acknowledge that they had already come to Christ either. Paul saw the revelation of Christ in the 'shadows', but he still wrote 'for we know in part and we prophesy in part.'

There is no conflict with my position and the two witnesses in Revelation. I fail to see why you would endeavor to cast doubt on my with the biblical principal of dispensational teaching.

Prophecy today is teaching and preaching the completed word of God. No future telling no word of wisdom no spooky foreknowledge as the Pentecostal charismatics would hold as truth which isn't.

'Prophesy' in the Bible means what it means. Foretelling the future is one aspect of that, and we see this clearly in both Old and New Testament scriptures. Agabus fortold a famine. Prophecy can also tell the secrets of men's hearts, or whatever else the Spirit wants to move one to say.

Pentecostals themselves say that 80% of the prophecy by their prophets fails.

I cannot say I have heard a Pentecostal say that, though I think there are some Charismatic groups that think that way. I do not rule out the possibility of false prophets either, neither would it be biblical to do so.

According to the OT they are to be stoned because it is obvious that they claimed God gave them a prophecy that God did not give them.

Prophecy in todays church is preaching the word of God.

If you preach the Bible wrongly, should we stone you? If preaching the Bible is prophesying, should the pastor be stoned if he gets Elijah and Elisha mixed up in a sermon?

Plurality of elders produces a plurality or errors. The pastor of a church needs a formal education in the bible to pastor a church. He also needs a number of other traits that produce the maturity to pastor and disciple believers.

Your issue is with the practice of the apostles.
Acts 14
23 And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.

Titus 1
5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:

And with the direction of the Holy Spirit.
Acts 14
26 And thence sailed to Antioch, from whence they had been recommended to the grace of God for the work which they fulfilled.
Acts 13
1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.
2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.
3 And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.
4 So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus.

The idea that every local church should have a member, besides the Lord Himself, who is above all the other elders called a 'pastor' is totally without Biblical warrant. Some eisegete that idea into the mere mention of the word 'pastors' in Ephesians 4:11. In Acts 20:28 and I Peter 5:2, elders are exhorted to pastor.

Cultural responses against charismatic Pentecostal churches among those who do not embrace such conduct does not indicate that non charismatic Pentecostal assemblies do not understand and embrace genuine ministry of the Holy Spirit.

There are many forms of ministry of the Spirit. Peter called the grace of God manifold, in the context of his instructions on spiritual gifts. But rejecting certain spiritual gifts based on poor, bias, myopic of interpretation of scripture is sad.

I Thessalonians 5
19 Quench not the Spirit.
20 Despise not prophesyings.
21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

Rejecting prophecies out of hand because they happen to be about the future is contrary to the teaching of this passage.

Perhaps you church is unique in that it has non native speakers in attendance that require the teaching of Gods word be given to them in their native language. The vast majority of churches today have no such language barrier to overcome. If an English speaking pastor is preaching in Haiti then we would have need for an interpreter.

Surely, in all these years discussing this topic from time to time, you have actually read I Corinthians 14, haven't you? Paul says of the one speaking in tongues 'no one understands him.' Why would he say that if the issue were translating for other people in the church?

Praying in tongues is never taught in scripture.

You should read the scriptures.

I Corinthians 14

14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.
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?
17 For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.
18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:
19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.

 

[notuptome]

I would not disagree with that statement, but not if you equate 'the word of God' exactly with scripture, as opposed to working in concert with the divine Logos. The Spirit hovered upon the face of the deep and God said.

When the bible was completed the bible was complete. No additional revelation. You are inviting in error if you endeavor to add to what God has given. God now speaks through the word He has delivered to us in the bible.

Who says that he does?

Those who claim tongues that are not biblical.

You are the one promoting ideas on this topic that are contrary to scripture.

Not contrary to scripture just contrary to what you want to believe.

If that is supposed to explain your interpretation of 'that which is perfect' in I Corinthians 13, you have a problem. Either you have to make Paul, the twelve apostles, and early Christians out to be like children still under a schoolmaster (which is not really consistent with the passage you are referring to from Galatians either) or acknowledge that they had already come to Christ either. Paul saw the revelation of Christ in the 'shadows', but he still wrote 'for we know in part and we prophesy in part.'

You really don't see what is being revealed in 1 Cor 13. The NT was not complete when 1 Cor 13:8 as penned. During the apostolic time none of them had a NT from which to describe Christ. Such is not the case today. You are not apostolic nor am I.

'Prophesy' in the Bible means what it means. Foretelling the future is one aspect of that, and we see this clearly in both Old and New Testament scriptures. Agabus fortold a famine. Prophecy can also tell the secrets of men's hearts, or whatever else the Spirit wants to move one to say.

Here you are wrong. With the completion of the NT the future telling ministry ended. Now prophecy is forth telling what God has revealed.

I cannot say I have heard a Pentecostal say that, though I think there are some Charismatic groups that think that way. I do not rule out the possibility of false prophets either, neither would it be biblical to do so.

Good heavens man. The church so called today is filled with false professors of Christ. They embrace these prophets who speak prophecy against the word of God. 80% is probably a low estimate.

If you preach the Bible wrongly, should we stone you? If preaching the Bible is prophesying, should the pastor be stoned if he gets Elijah and Elisha mixed up in a sermon?

Today we can just let them preach to empty pews. The real problem is that they are draining the pockets of those under the sound of their voice.

Your issue is with the practice of the apostles.
Acts 14
23 And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.

Titus 1
5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:

And with the direction of the Holy Spirit.
Acts 14
26 And thence sailed to Antioch, from whence they had been recommended to the grace of God for the work which they fulfilled.
Acts 13
1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.
2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.
3 And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.
4 So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus.

The idea that every local church should have a member, besides the Lord Himself, who is above all the other elders called a 'pastor' is totally without Biblical warrant. Some eisegete that idea into the mere mention of the word 'pastors' in Ephesians 4:11. In Acts 20:28 and I Peter 5:2, elders are exhorted to pastor.

Help yourself. The quality of disciple produced testifies to the merits of your position.

There are many forms of ministry of the Spirit. Peter called the grace of God manifold, in the context of his instructions on spiritual gifts. But rejecting certain spiritual gifts based on poor, bias, myopic of interpretation of scripture is sad.

I Thessalonians 5
19 Quench not the Spirit.
20 Despise not prophesyings.
21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

Rejecting prophecies out of hand because they happen to be about the future is contrary to the teaching of this passage.

Like most of what you use to support your position you do not have a correct interpretation of the scriptures.

The passage in 1 Thess 5 is quite on point to refute you position. Prove all things including prophecy and especially prophecy. Test what is said from the pulpit against the word of God. If it is good then you are to submit to it. If not it is to be rejected. Repeated rebellion to Gods word will doubtless create a hardened heart and the Holy Spirit will no longer bring conviction upon that person.

Surely, in all these years discussing this topic from time to time, you have actually read I Corinthians 14, haven't you? Paul says of the one speaking in tongues 'no one understands him.' Why would he say that if the issue were translating for other people in the church?

Interpretation is required if any are to understand. It must be a language among men that can be interpreted.

You should read the scriptures.

I Corinthians 14

14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.
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?
17 For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.
18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:
19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.

Paul was multilingual. You do not have a clue as to what he is teaching in the passage. Paul is not saying that he prays in an unknown tongue. You are taking the wrong direction on that phrase. Understanding is key to any communication. Growth and discipleship requires understanding. Speaking in unknown languages that no one in the room understands is fruitless. A fruitless enterprise that is consuming the modern church and robbing believers of any growth in Christ.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Guojing]

Haven't you forgotten about a little tiny thing called "the future". It isn't over until the fat one has sung.

Yes, I agree that signs and wonders will be making a comeback during the Tribulation, when God deals with the nation Israel once again.

Is that your point too?

 

[Dino246]

When the bible was completed the bible was complete. No additional revelation. ... With the completion of the NT the future telling ministry ended. Now prophecy is forth telling what God has revealed.

You are making a truth claim that is not found in Scripture and therefore is "new revelation", yet you deny the existence of new revelation following the completion of the canon of Scripture. You have refuted your own argument.

Help yourself. The quality of disciple produced testifies to the merits of your position.

With regard to a plurality of elders... your comment is circular. You have no evidence other than your assertion that a plurality of elders produces inferior disciples; you're also insulting presidente. How about instead of throwing baseless insults, you support your claim with Scripture.

Interpretation is required if any are to understand. It must be a language among men that can be interpreted.

Where is that in Scripture? Why would the Holy Spirit give the gift of interpretation of tongues if the languages spoken could always be understood by the hearers? That's completely inconsistent.

 

[notuptome]

You are making a truth claim that is not found in Scripture and therefore is "new revelation", yet you deny the existence of new revelation following the completion of the canon of Scripture. You have refuted your own argument.

Really ringing your bell.

With regard to a plurality of elders... your comment is circular. You have no evidence other than your assertion that a plurality of elders produces inferior disciples; you're also insulting presidente. How about instead of throwing baseless insults, you support your claim with Scripture.

Thanks for your opinion.

Where is that in Scripture? Why would the Holy Spirit give the gift of interpretation of tongues if the languages spoken could always be understood by the hearers? That's completely inconsistent.

Out of order. There must be an interpreter to give understanding to what is said.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Dino246]

Out of order. There must be an interpreter to give understanding to what is said.

That doesn't even begin to make sense with what I wrote. Try again.

 

[presidente]

Yes, I agree that signs and wonders will be making a comeback during the Tribulation, when God deals with the nation Israel once again.

Is that your point too?

Why would you argue that they have ceased, then? How does it make any sense to argue for cessationism if you think they will occur again? Where does the Bible teach that they start then restart?