Tongues

[CadyandZoe]

I set out what Paul actually said about tongues in 1 Corinthians 14. If you don't believe what Paul actually said as he was inspired by the Holy Spirit, there is nothing more to be said. The Scripture says that if someone wants to be ignorant, let them remain ignorant.

Actually, what knocks the stuffing out of your argument against modern tongues is what happened to two people in the very church where I was a deacon during the late 1970s. One person was praying in tongues during a prayer meeting and his language turned out to be a Ghanaian rural village dialect in which he was talking about the wonderful works of God. The Ghanaian visitor was excited because he knew that the speak could never have known that language. Another person was praying quietly in tongues during a church service, and the New Zealand Maori lady sitting beside him told him that he was praying in the Maori language and God was speaking encouraging things to her through it. That person was New Zealand European and knew no Maori language. These are times where God steps in and shows that anti-tongues teaching is nothing but foolishness.

Don't tell me that these are unsubstantiated stories, because the first person was a close friend and the event was witnessed by more than 20 people in that prayer meeting, and the second person was me and the lady was a Mrs Samuels whom I had known for a number of years.

Again, you are using your experience to justify your interpretation of a Biblical passage. The process should work the other way around. Bible passages are intended to stand as a critique of our experiences and correct our understanding of them. First understand what Paul was saying to the Corinthians and then judge your experience on that basis.

Both of your examples suffer the same fatal problem: corroborating evidence. What do I mean? First, let's review the second chapter of Acts where we see the apostles speaking in tongues. In that context, we understand that the gift of tongues involves a miracle whereby one person speaks his native tongue, while a crowd of people each hear him speak in his or her own language. Acts 2:7 The process is similar to a foreign film in which the foreign dialogue is overdubbed in English. The audible voice we hear does not correspond to the lip movements of the person on the screen. Such a discontinuity between voice and lip movement can easily be taken as slurred speech by those unfamiliar with the process. Acts 2:13

Thus we see that the miracle of tongues, as is the case with all miracles, has evidentiary value since both the speaker and the listener know the content of the message and can corroborate the idea that the Holy Spirit was involved in the process. All miracles share this feature. The action taken is humanly impossible, which leads one to conclude a divine source or agent is responsible for the outcome. More importantly, as Paul points out, the question remains whether the agent behind the miracle was the Holy Spirit or a demon. Thus Paul is careful to remind his readers to judge the message according to the veracity of the message, not the source of the message. 1 Corinthians 12:1-3

Now consider the examples you gave. And let's not question or impeach the testimony at all. Let's assume everyone was telling the truth as they understood it.

One person was praying in tongues during a prayer meeting . . .

From what I understand (based on discussions of this subject over the years,) this statement can indicate one of three different scenarios: 1) He is praying with his mind in his own language, while presumably speaking a language he doesn't know, 2) He is praying with his mind in his own language, while inarticulate sounds are coming out of his mouth, 3) His mind is unfruitful while presumably a foreign language is being spoken. The fact is, given the testimony, we don't know what was happening to the man.

. . . his language turned out to be a Ghanaian rural village dialect . . .

This is a conclusion, not a description of what actually happened. Remember, the miracle of tongues involves the listener, not the speaker. The apostles were not speaking a foreign language that day. Instead, those in the crowds were each hearing them in their own language. We have no need to doubt the Ghanaian visitor, since we have Biblical evidence that the Holy Spirit causes people to hear messages in a tongue native to the listener. We can take his testimony at face value.

We know that both human and miraculous communication involves both a speaker and a listener. So the question remains, who was speaking to the Ghanaian visitor, the one in prayer or the Holy Spirit himself directly? Presumably, the one in prayer didn't know the meaning of the supposed language; therefore, it wasn't the one in prayer communicating with the Ghanaian visitor. We must conclude, therefore that it was the Holy Spirit himself communicating with the visitor directly.

And since the one in prayer didn't understand the supposed language he was speaking, there is no way for the one in prayer to corroborate the conclusion that he was the one speaking the Ghanaian language to the visitor. The testimony doesn't say that the one in prayer intended to communicate anything to the visitor. What we lack is correspondence between the content of the prayer and the content of the message heard by the visitor.

Finally, and most importantly, the testimony under review doesn't relate what message the visitor heard. God himself commanded Israel to examine the message itself to see whether it contradicted previous revelation. Paul says a similar thing in his letter to the Corinthians. He tells us, "no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus is accursed”; and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit." In other words, the message itself is of primary importance.

 

[amadeus]

'The Interpretation of Tongues'
- At the meeting..
---
This gift involves 'interpretation of the tongues' being spoken.. so that
others can understand the message the speaker receives..
- In the context of a meeting/service.
---
Did anyone have the experience..
- Giving the message/speaking in tongues or interpretation?
---
*Maybe..someone already posted/shared the experience on this thread?

It has been years since my wife has been in church service but when she gave an interpretation of message in tongues from God, sometimes it included scriptural quotations, I knew it was from God, because on her own she could not have done that. She did read her Bible, but she was not good at quoting verses from memory.

In more than one place where we attended over the years she was a primary vehicle for messages and/or interpretations from God. I am careful about expressing pride in her but I was always pleased that she was an available vessel that God would use that way.

 

[Tong2020]

@CadyandZoe

In one of your post you said:

“And I'm saying that the Biblical gift of tongues takes place when someone speaks a message in their native tongue, while foreigners hear it in other languages.”

Could you cite the scriptures where you got that? Thanks.

I don’t think, if that’s the case, that would not be a gift of tongues but a different gift which more involves the hearer than it is the speaker.

Tong
R4679

 

[CadyandZoe]

@CadyandZoe

In one of your post you said:

“And I'm saying that the Biblical gift of tongues takes place when someone speaks a message in their native tongue, while foreigners hear it in other languages.”

Could you cite the scriptures where you got that? Thanks.

I don’t think, if that’s the case, that would not be a gift of tongues but a different gift which more involves the hearer than it is the speaker.

Tong
R4679

Acts 2:5-13
Now there were Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men from every nation under heaven. And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together, and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language. They were amazed and astonished, saying, “Why, are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born? Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya around Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs—we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God.” And they all continued in amazement and great perplexity, saying to one another, “What does this mean?” 13 But others were mocking and saying, “They are full of sweet wine.”

. . . each one was hearing them speak in his own language . . .
What accounts for the crowd's bewilderment? One is not confused or bewildered to hear a foreigner speak his language. Such things happen all the time. Even if it was unusual for a Galilean to speak another language, if he did, this by itself would not cause bewilderment. The source of confusion was the simultaneous translation of the message into multiple languages -- all heard at the same time.

. . . are not all these who are speaking Galileans?
How were the Galileans recognized as such? I'm guessing dialect is the tell. Just as we can tell someone is a Southerner by his or her dialect, the crowds can tell these are Galileans by their dialect. In other words, they were speaking their own language. It was the Holy Spirit who translated the message into multiple languages simultaneously.

They are full of sweet wine.
What behavior accounts for this charge? Slurred speech is a sign of intoxication. If a man were heard to speak one language, while forming his lips to speak his native tongue, he would appear to have slurred speech.

 

[Paul Christensen]

Consider whether you would be willing to change your mind about a particular doctrine if you became convinced that you inadvertently affirmed a particular interpretation of a passage that was untrue.

Misquoting Scripture doesn't prove anything. Here is the Scripture in context:

"We also have the word of the prophets as confirmed beyond doubt. And you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture comes from one’s own interpretation. 21For no such prophecy was ever brought forth by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:19-21).

Peter is referring to the prophecy of the Old Testament prophets. Your quote has nothing to do with how we read other parts of the Bible. I suspect that you are talking about what Paul has said about tongues in 1 Corinthians 14. The list I provided was what Paul actually said. There is only one interpretation of what he said - his plain words. There is no sub-text or inferential statements anywhere in 1 Corinthians 14; certainly none suggesting that tongues was a temporary gift, or that tongues was not an integral component of the believer's prayer life. Summing up what he said, his point was that if one wants to speak in tongues he should wait until he gets home and then he can talk to God in his private prayers, speaking mysteries in the Spirit. He made it clear that it was in his private devotions where he prayed in tongues and that he prayed with the spirit and with his understanding in his personal prayers with God. He said that one he got to church, he didn't pray or speak in tongues, but prophesied instead so that others would understand him and be built up.

If I say the sky is blue, then the sky is blue. That is plain language. If Paul says that the person who prays in tongues speaks to God because no one understands him, and that he speaks mysteries in the Spirit, then that is what he is doing. That is the interpretation. There is no other possible interpretation.

But 1 Corinthians 13:10 is open to interpretation, because Paul does not clearly define the word "perfect". He knows that his readers are intelligent enough to know what he means - that at the present time we have partial knowledge, and partial prophecies, but there will come a time when we will know as we are known and the partial will make way for the perfect.

I think that you are promoting relativism: "What may be true for you, doesn't have to be true for me." This is the favourite argument for those who deny the Gospel, or who won't take sound doctrinal correction. In other words, they want to be their own "lords" and have the Bible say what they want it to say, instead of just accepting what the Bible actually says.

 

[CadyandZoe]

'The Interpretation of Tongues'
- At the meeting..
---
This gift involves 'interpretation of the tongues' being spoken.. so that
others can understand the message the speaker receives..
- In the context of a meeting/service.
---
Did anyone have the experience..
- Giving the message/speaking in tongues or interpretation?
---
*Maybe..someone already posted/shared the experience on this thread?

The gift of interpretation is not intended to supplement the gift of tongues. This is another mistake charismatics seem to make. The gift of tongues takes place when someone speaks by the Holy Spirit, in his own language, but other people hear him speak another language. Since the person knows what he said, no translation is needed. The Holy Spirit has already performed the translation.

The gift of interpretation is not modeled in Scripture as far as I know.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Misquoting Scripture doesn't prove anything.

Why continue to level unsubstantiated accusations at me? The issue is whether or not someone, including me, has understood what a particular passage of scripture means. Now, when I disagree with someone concerning the meaning, not only do I say so, I also explain the passage myself. For instance, you don't seem to understand what Peter meant to say here.

2 Peter 1:19-21
The subject of this passage is the source of the prophetic word, i.e. the prophet's own imagination as opposed to the Holy Spirit. Peter tells us that the prophets of old are reliable because they didn't make stuff up. They spoke by the Holy Spirit. The subject is NOT concerned with the process, art, technique of exegesis, which is a process we all use to various degrees of effect. The question of what a passage means is a completely different question from the origin of the message. Peter is talking about the origin of the message, not the meaning or understanding of the message.

I suspect that you are talking about what Paul has said about tongues in 1 Corinthians 14. The list I provided was what Paul actually said.

What you listed is not what Paul said. Some of the "plain words" are not his but the opinion of those living in Corinth at the time. Had you read and understood chapter 7, perhaps you would have realized that Paul is answering questions posed to him by the church. What follows is Paul's answer to "the things which you wrote." What follows is a contrast and comparison between the opinion of the Corinthians and the opinion of Paul. What you listed, assumed that all the words represented Paul's view, when in fact, he was contrasting two views: the Corinthian view and his view side-by-side. Consider that he is making an argument, first stating the opinion of the Corinthians, followed by his answer as an apostle.

There is no sub-text or inferential statements anywhere in 1 Corinthians 14; certainly none suggesting that tongues was a temporary gift, or that tongues was not an integral component of the believer's prayer life.

I agree with your view that tongues hasn't ceased or that it is temporary. I also agree that praying "in the spirit" or "by the Spirit" is a real thing and can be an integral component of a believer's prayer life. But, in my view, this spiritual aspect of prayer has been mislabeled as "the gift of tongues," which is unfortunate. Paul describes the spiritual aspect of our prayer life in Romans 8:26-27. This aspect of prayer is important and beneficial, and real and happens everyday. But to label it "tongues" is a mistake.

If Paul says that the person who prays in tongues speaks to God because no one understands him, and that he speaks mysteries in the Spirit, then that is what he is doing. That is the interpretation. There is no other possible interpretation.

Paul is comparing and contrasting the Corinthian opinion with the truth of the matter. He isn't suggesting that someone can actually pray in tongues. He is stating what the Corinthians believe.

But 1 Corinthians 13:10 is open to interpretation, because Paul does not clearly define the word "perfect". He knows that his readers are intelligent enough to know what he means - that at the present time we have partial knowledge, and partial prophecies, but there will come a time when we will know as we are known and the partial will make way for the perfect.

Paul has employed a term that some translations have rendered "perfect", which actually indicates the finished state after a growth process. For instance, a very large tree begins life as a seedling and after many years of growth, the tree eventually stops growing. It has reached "completion" or "perfection." The tree isn't flawless; it isn't perfect in that sense. Instead, the tree has reached maturity. In other words, the day that prophecy ceases is the day the church has reached the state of maturity.

I think that you are promoting relativism: "What may be true for you, doesn't have to be true for me." This is the favourite argument for those who deny the Gospel, or who won't take sound doctrinal correction. In other words, they want to be their own "lords" and have the Bible say what they want it to say, instead of just accepting what the Bible actually says.

I would encourage you to consider whether or not your hermeneutical principle, i.e. "the plain meaning of the text" is valid.

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
@CadyandZoe

In one of your post you said:

“And I'm saying that the Biblical gift of tongues takes place when someone speaks a message in their native tongue, while foreigners hear it in other languages.”

Could you cite the scriptures where you got that? Thanks.

I don’t think, if that’s the case, that would not be a gift of tongues but a different gift which more involves the hearer than it is the speaker.

Acts 2:5-13
Now there were Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men from every nation under heaven. And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together, and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language. They were amazed and astonished, saying, “Why, are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born? Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya around Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs—we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God.” And they all continued in amazement and great perplexity, saying to one another, “What does this mean?” 13 But others were mocking and saying, “They are full of sweet wine.”

. . . each one was hearing them speak in his own language . . .
What accounts for the crowd's bewilderment? One is not confused or bewildered to hear a foreigner speak his language. Such things happen all the time. Even if it was unusual for a Galilean to speak another language, if he did, this by itself would not cause bewilderment. The source of confusion was the simultaneous translation of the message into multiple languages -- all heard at the same time.

. . . are not all these who are speaking Galileans?
How were the Galileans recognized as such? I'm guessing dialect is the tell. Just as we can tell someone is a Southerner by his or her dialect, the crowds can tell these are Galileans by their dialect. In other words, they were speaking their own language. It was the Holy Spirit who translated the message into multiple languages simultaneously.

They are full of sweet wine.
What behavior accounts for this charge? Slurred speech is a sign of intoxication. If a man were heard to speak one language, while forming his lips to speak his native tongue, he would appear to have slurred speech.

Acts 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

That is where the whole amazement was coming from. For all were Galileans and were not expected to be speaking other tongues or languages of other nations, nor were expected to know how to.

11 Cretans and Arabs—we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God.”

We (the other nations) hear them (disciples) speaking (the disciples) in our (the other nations) own tongues. That's in light of verse 2. Clear to me then is that the disciples are speaking, that is, uttering words of the languages of the other nations. It is not that the disciples were speaking their own native tongue and the other nations understand them as what they hear are their respective tongues.

13 Others mocking said, “They are full of new wine.”

These others are they who hear all of the different languages the disciples simultaneously are speaking. It’s chaos in that sense, each speaking a different tongue. That they mocked “they are full of wine”. That would not be the case if they are all speaking one tongue, their native tongue.

7 Then they were all amazed and marveled, saying to one another, “Look, are not all these who speak Galileans?

The disciples were together and probably were distinguished by their looks and appearance. They were not that sure of they were Galileans. However, they are quite sure they are native to one common place or are of one tongue.

The amazement was that they speak in different foreign tongues.

Tong
R4708

 

[CadyandZoe]

Acts 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

That is where the whole amazement was coming from. For all were Galileans and were not expected to be speaking other tongues or languages of other nations, nor were expected to know how to.

11 Cretans and Arabs—we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God.”

We (the other nations) hear them (disciples) speaking (the disciples) in our (the other nations) own tongues. That's in light of verse 2. Clear to me then is that the disciples are speaking, that is, uttering words of the languages of the other nations. It is not that the disciples were speaking their own native tongue and the other nations understand them as what they hear are their respective tongues.

13 Others mocking said, “They are full of new wine.”

These others are they who hear all of the different languages the disciples simultaneously are speaking. It’s chaos in that sense, each speaking a different tongue. That they mocked “they are full of wine”. That would not be the case if they are all speaking one tongue, their native tongue.

7 Then they were all amazed and marveled, saying to one another, “Look, are not all these who speak Galileans?

The disciples were together and probably were distinguished by their looks and appearance. They were not that sure of they were Galileans. However, they are quite sure they are native to one common place or are of one tongue.

The amazement was that they speak in different foreign tongues.

Tong
R4708

I don't think anyone would be amazed that another person spoke their language. It happens so often.

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
Acts 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

That is where the whole amazement was coming from. For all were Galileans and were not expected to be speaking other tongues or languages of other nations, nor were expected to know how to.

11 Cretans and Arabs—we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God.”

We (the other nations) hear them (disciples) speaking (the disciples) in our (the other nations) own tongues. That's in light of verse 2. Clear to me then is that the disciples are speaking, that is, uttering words of the languages of the other nations. It is not that the disciples were speaking their own native tongue and the other nations understand them as what they hear are their respective tongues.

13 Others mocking said, “They are full of new wine.”

These others are they who hear all of the different languages the disciples simultaneously are speaking. It’s chaos in that sense, each speaking a different tongue. That they mocked “they are full of wine”. That would not be the case if they are all speaking one tongue, their native tongue.

7 Then they were all amazed and marveled, saying to one another, “Look, are not all these who speak Galileans?

The disciples were together and probably were distinguished by their looks and appearance. They were not that sure of they were Galileans. However, they are quite sure they are native to one common place or are of one tongue.

The amazement was that they speak in different foreign tongues.

I don't think anyone would be amazed that another person spoke their language. It happens so often.

But I would be amazed if one I knew who I am sure does not know my tongue would out of the blue speak my language, and articulate at that.

Tong
R4711

 

[Paul Christensen]

Why continue to level unsubstantiated accusations at me? The issue is whether or not someone, including me, has understood what a particular passage of scripture means. Now, when I disagree with someone concerning the meaning, not only do I say so, I also explain the passage myself. For instance, you don't seem to understand what Peter meant to say here.

2 Peter 1:19-21
The subject of this passage is the source of the prophetic word, i.e. the prophet's own imagination as opposed to the Holy Spirit. Peter tells us that the prophets of old are reliable because they didn't make stuff up. They spoke by the Holy Spirit. The subject is NOT concerned with the process, art, technique of exegesis, which is a process we all use to various degrees of effect. The question of what a passage means is a completely different question from the origin of the message. Peter is talking about the origin of the message, not the meaning or understanding of the message.

What you listed is not what Paul said. Some of the "plain words" are not his but the opinion of those living in Corinth at the time. Had you read and understood chapter 7, perhaps you would have realized that Paul is answering questions posed to him by the church. What follows is Paul's answer to "the things which you wrote." What follows is a contrast and comparison between the opinion of the Corinthians and the opinion of Paul. What you listed, assumed that all the words represented Paul's view, when in fact, he was contrasting two views: the Corinthian view and his view side-by-side. Consider that he is making an argument, first stating the opinion of the Corinthians, followed by his answer as an apostle.
I agree with your view that tongues hasn't ceased or that it is temporary. I also agree that praying "in the spirit" or "by the Spirit" is a real thing and can be an integral component of a believer's prayer life. But, in my view, this spiritual aspect of prayer has been mislabeled as "the gift of tongues," which is unfortunate. Paul describes the spiritual aspect of our prayer life in Romans 8:26-27. This aspect of prayer is important and beneficial, and real and happens everyday. But to label it "tongues" is a mistake.
Paul is comparing and contrasting the Corinthian opinion with the truth of the matter. He isn't suggesting that someone can actually pray in tongues. He is stating what the Corinthians believe.
Paul has employed a term that some translations have rendered "perfect", which actually indicates the finished state after a growth process. For instance, a very large tree begins life as a seedling and after many years of growth, the tree eventually stops growing. It has reached "completion" or "perfection." The tree isn't flawless; it isn't perfect in that sense. Instead, the tree has reached maturity. In other words, the day that prophecy ceases is the day the church has reached the state of maturity.

I would encourage you to consider whether or not your hermeneutical principle, i.e. "the plain meaning of the text" is valid.

You are saying that the list I set out was not what Paul actually wrote but someone else's opinion about what he wrote? That is so off base that our discussion is now ended. It seems that you are prepared to say anything in your opposition to tongues even to the point of saying that what Paul plainly wrote was not what he said. Why don't you apply that to everything Paul has written? Using your perception of Paul's writing, you can go to anything that Paul wrote and say that he did really write that, but it was just someone else's opinion about what he wrote. It's like someone telling that the sky is blue, and you saying, "That's just your opinion." It also looks like this thread has gone to a two-horse race, where all the others have dropped out, and because your responses have gone from the sublime to the ridiculous, so will I.

 

[Truman]

Anyone want to talk about prophecy...the ten tribes...how about the five-fold? Lol
Welcome to Argumentary Board...where we are all works in progress...(no, we're not!)

 

[n2thelight]

I don't think anyone would be amazed that another person spoke their language. It happens so often.

It's not the speaking of the language part , it's when one speaks and ALL hear in their own language ,Pentecost

 

[Paul Christensen]

Anyone want to talk about prophecy...the ten tribes...how about the five-fold? Lol
Welcome to Argumentary Board...where we are all works in progress...(no, we're not!)

I have a prophecy. This thread will close soon because it has served its purpose and will soon descend into pointless arguing about what Paul said or didn't say.

 

[Helen]

ha ha. Im not just a cessationist, im a full blown, 5 pt calvinist who actually studies john calvin himself. Go puritans!!

Oh dear…really…not another one!
As long as you ‘keep it sweet’ and don’t get heavy and nasty…most of the ‘you-type’ have been ‘ let go,’ for rudeness and just plain nasty aggressive posts and threads ….it’s been nice on here since then. so please behave yourself …a be kind to all who do not see what you see and believe.

You’ve made a good lighthearted start here …so , there is hope.
welcome to the boards .

 

[farouk]

I love to concentrate on "Thy word is truth" (John 17.17)....

 

[Helen]

Yes, they are for everybody. However, there are two different manifestations of tongues. One is for us all individually, yet does not require interpretation found in Mark 16:16-18 - not no interpretation listed. The other is actually performed in an office of the Church by those with that office. And it MUST be accompanied by interpretation of tongues by someone with the accompanying office. That is why in verse 1 Corinthians 12:30 is shows that not everyone has these offices of the Church for the profit of all.

Another difference between the two tongues is the direction. The individual tongues are TO God. And the office receives messages FROM God for the profit of all, and MUST be interpreted.

Unfortunately, they are not believed in by many people and that binds them in chains of unbelief to the point that the gift is there but not operational. Not unbelief in Christ, but in the gifts. So even though they may have the power of the Holy Spirit and are born again with a nature that hates sin, they miss out on all that God has for them. But they are still saved. Another problem with this unbelief, it spreads to the other gifts, the best gifts. The main ones I operate in are the hearing gifts. I can hear God's voice and am able then to walk in the Spirit, and understand the spiritual interpretation of His Word.

cc: @Tong2020

Thank you , a nice clearly said post . AMEN.

 

[Truman]

I have a prophecy. This thread will close soon because it has served its purpose and will soon descend into pointless arguing about what Paul said or didn't say.

That's not a prophecy...that's called "obvious!" Lol

 

[Helen]

This topic is a hot potato....

Agree. We haven’t had it since before Covid…it usually starts well , but ends in bad feelings …mainly because most people are dogmatic and not many use the phrase “ As I understand scripture “ or “ in my personal experience “…
No, people just tell others that they are wrong.

But, a person with an experience is never at the mercy of a person with nothing but an opinion.

blessings Helen

 

[Paul Christensen]

Oh dear…really…not another one!
As long as you ‘keep it sweet’ and don’t get heavy and nasty…most of the ‘you-type’ have been ‘ let go,’ for rudeness and just plain nasty aggressive posts and threads ….it’s been nice on here since then. so please behave yourself …a be kind to all who do not see what you see and believe.

You’ve made a good lighthearted start here …so , there is hope.
welcome to the boards .

I have been reading John Calvin's commentaries, and have immensely enjoying having the Holy Spirit giving me many pearls of wisdom on every page. Incidentally, although he acknowledges, in his commentary on 1 Corinthians 14, that the signs gifts have ceased, he says that tongues died out because of widespread misuse, and he clearly implies that if tongues was still active in his church, he would be speaking it. He clearly says, "If I spoke with tongues, my spirit would be praying." It is interesting when he comments on 1 Corinthians 13:10, he says that the "perfect" that is to come is the time when we are perfected in glory when we go to be with Christ. He says that the gifts of the Spirit are (take not of his use of the present tense) to compensate for our present weaknesses, but when we die, we leave our weaknesses behind, so we don't need the gifts any longer, and the full ratification will come on the Day of Judgment. It is very interesting that Calvin makes absolutely no mention of the formation of the canon of Scripture being the reason why the gifts ceased, even though the full canon of Scripture had been in existence for 1300 years when he wrote his commentary. What is ridiculous is that we have ardent Calvinists who quote 1 Corinthians 13:10 in conjunction with the canon of Scripture totally contradicting what Calvin himself said about it. It begs the question whether many of these Calvinists have actually read Calvin's own writing?

What impresses me about Calvin's commentaries, is that what he wrote in the 16th Century, much of it is so relevant for today that it is remarkable. Calvin may not have been inspired by the Holy Spirit in his writing as were the Apostles, but he was certainly enlightened and guided by the Spirit in what he set out on the pages.